Thursday, 16 May 1985 Madam ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.01) —Madam Acting Speaker, I guess there would not be a single man or woman in Australia who does not want lower taxation. This debate on the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill will afford the people of Australia the opportunity of making a judgment upon the Hawke socialist Government, which is the biggest spending, heaviest taxing government in Australia's history, and the alternative which is offered by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and which will be implemented upon our return to government at the next election. It has to be said from the word go, and I am now going to say it, that only a Liberal-National Party government would ensure a meaningful privatisation of Australia, which will in turn lead to lower taxation for all Australians. We on this side of the House, under the guidance of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), are giving a commitment to the people of Australia that on our return to government we will reduce the burden of taxation on every single Australian and we are going to do it by cutting back on big government and the public sector and by transferring, whenever and wherever possible, public sector operations, which are a burden on the taxpayers and to the private enterprise sector. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill is the vehicle for an historic debate in this Parliament today in which honourable members from both sides will have the opportunity of telling the people of Australia whether they are genuinely in favour of lower taxation and smaller government or they are in favour of an ever burgeoning public sector with ever increasing burdens on the taxpayers of this nation. Mr Cohen —Tell us when you are going to do it. Go on; get on with it. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, with his private enterprise background, should know exactly what I am talking about. I am proud to be a member of the Opposition parties which are opposing this Bill, because we are going to transfer to private enterprise, whenever and wherever possible, functions which are currently within the public sector and which are a burden on the people of Australia. We have not set a timetable for the debate. The first Bill to come before the joint parties was this Bill. It was followed very shortly by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation legislation. I welcome the presence of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). I think the people of Australia, particularly those who are listening to this broadcast, will be interested to know that probably by mere coincidence both Bills came forward in the Government's legislative program under the aegis of the present Minister for Housing and Construction, the senior Socialist Left Minister in the Hawke socialist Government. We expressed our views very clearly in this House about the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation legislation, and today we are going to present to the people, per medium of this parliamentary broadcast, a commitment that upon return to office at the next election a Peacock-Howard-Sinclair government will take effective steps to cut back on the public sector and to transfer to private enterprise those functions which properly should be within the private enterprise area of the economy. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is precisely one of those functions. In this morning's Australian an editorial appeared which I wish to read in full to the chamber, because in many ways it encapsulates the principles which I believe are critical for a proper debate of this Bill. In many ways it will show starkly the philosophical differences between us on this side of the chamber, supporting as we do a private enterprise Australia, with smaller government and lower taxation, and on the other side of the chamber the Hawke socialist Government, committed, as the Minister frankly admitted in the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation debate, to an ever increasing public sector with, in turn, an ever increasing burden on the taxpayers of Australia. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Before the honourable gentleman goes any further with that, I point out that the Bill is providing for the restructuring of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed, Madam Acting Speaker. This is precisely what the editorial I am about to read to Parliament is all about. What I am explaining, and I am sure you will follow this, Madam Acting Speaker, is that when one talks about the principle of smaller government and lower taxation, the first questions that will be asked are: 'What are you going to do about it? How are you going to prove you are fair dinkum?' We are going to prove that we are fair dinkum in this debate by the manner in which we vote in opposing this Bill. The writer of a very interesting editorial in today's Australian has focused precisely on the issues I intended to raise. He must be psychic. Nevertheless, I will read the editorial and honourable members will see how it opens up the issues and cuts away the flesh from the bone. The people of Australia can see those who are really in favour of lower taxation for all Australians and, on the other hand, those who feed on their expensive and extravagant social philosophies, the funds for which come from the blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary workers of Australia. The editorial is headed 'On the private road'. It states: It is an extraordinary thing that the Treasurer of a Federal Labor Government should prove to be one of the trail-blazers for the privatisation of government-owned enterprises. Yet, Mr Keating has done just that. In his economic statement of May 14, Mr Keating announced that the Government would hand over to private enterprise the Defence Service Home Loans Scheme- a decision supported in principle by the Opposition- and sell Canberra's Belconnen Mall and Tuggeranong town centre to private-sector developers. Mr Keating should be congratulated- I will have something to say about that- for having taken this courageous, although small, step toward diminishing the role of government in the marketplace. In all likelihood, however, Mr Keating will not be allowed to go too far down the privatisation track. The whole idea of privatisation is foreign to the ALP. Nonetheless, Mr Keating has set an example for the Liberal Party which has been foundering about looking for a new and firm identity. Mr Fitzgibbon —Madam Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is always a pleasure and a joy to hear-- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member should get on with the point of order. Mr Fitzgibbon —My point of order is that the speech being made in this House at the moment is marked by a total degree of irrelevance. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order at the moment, although I might tell the honourable member that the Chair will be listening carefully to the analogy the honourable member for Denison promised he was going to make. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Acting Speaker. If they are starting to squirm now, see how they feel in about 20 minutes. I go on with the editorial. I will come right to the point, because honourable members' little chickens are coming home to roost, right here in this chamber, right now, today. It continues: If the Liberals really are the party of free enterprise and small government, then they have only one choice-to rid themselves of their tradition of following big government policies and to commit themselves to those which will promote a free economy characterised by a widely dispersed ownership and control of productive resources. A future Liberal Government-- says the editorial- then, will go far beyond the kind of snipping away at the fringes of government which Mr Keating is attempting. Its main targets will be the great and totally inefficient government monopolies like Australia Post and Telecom. TAA is also a candidate for privatisation as too are government-owned, defence-related industries. These are just a few of the government ventures which conceivably could go on to a new kind of hit list-one that favours freedom and initiative. But selling off government enterprise should not mean replacing one kind of monopoly with another. It should be an opportunity to allow the average Australian to buy a real share in the enterprise in which he works. It gives me great pleasure to read the next part of the editorial. I invite the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) to listen to it. He will see that it is not just an analogy. It actually mentions the Opposition and it actually mentions me. The editorial continues: The Federal Opposition, through the agency of its frontbench spokesman on housing and construction, Mr Michael Hodgman, plans to oppose government Bills expanding the operations of the Snowy Mountains Engineering and Housing Loans Insurance corporations. Mr Hodgman describes this move as part of the Liberal Party's rediscovered commitment-- I do not think I said 'rediscovered', but the editorial uses that word- to open 'smaller government and lower taxation'. But will the Liberals have the nerve to stick to this policy in government . . . Mr Keating has set the tone for the future of Australian politics. Unless the ALP undergoes a complete metamorphosis under his influence, it will be up to the Liberal Party to create a privatised Australia. We have the nerve and we will create a privatised Australia. We will be supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians, as members of the Hawke socialist Government sitting on the Government benches today will find out at the next election. Some of them will not be coming back. They will go into the Hansards of this Parliament as oncers. Those who do come back will be directed to the Opposition side of the chamber, which is where they should be. In the debate on the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Government proposed a four-directional expansion of a corporation which, on every view of the facts, has operated efficiently and effectively for many years. It is operating at a profit. It is paying revenue to the Commonwealth of Australia. If we are prepared to bite the bullet on the issue of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, it will come as no surprise to any honourable member of this House to know that we are prepared to bite the bullet in relation to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Having made our commitment, a genuine commitment-- Mr Fitzgibbon —Madam Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. I am sorry to take another point of order, but the honourable member for Denison said that his Party was prepared to bite the bullet on the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) said that he did not agree with that legislation and voted against it. So honourable members opposite were not united. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hunter does not have a point of order. He had better watch his points of order in the future. Mr HODGMAN —I said that honourable members opposite would squirm and they are squirming. We have made a commitment, and it is a genuine commitment, to smaller government and lower taxation for all Australians-not the sham of the Keating mini-Budget of 14 May, not the sham of the illusory tax cuts which were introduced in the Budget last year. The workers of Australia were given a tax cut of $7 a week but were paying $23.80 a week more under Prime Minister Hawke in August last year than they were under Prime Minister Fraser in March 1983. Our commitment is genuine. We invite honourable members opposite to vote against this Bill, although we do not expect the invitation will be accepted, just as many of the invitations to the tax summit are already being posted back. Many more will be posted back and there will be many empty seats at the tax summit. We extend an invitation to any honourable member on the opposite side of the House who genuinely wants to be counted-- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I issue an invitation to the honourable member to return to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I extend an invitation to honourable members opposite to vote with us on this Bill and to oppose this measure. We did not hedge with our decision. It was publicly announced that we would oppose the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill-- Mr West —You have told us all that. Why don't you tell us why? Mr HODGMAN —I will tell the Minister why. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation should not be a public sector operation at a cost to the taxpayers of Australia. It is a burden. The reasons why will be explained very clearly by honourable members who will follow me in this debate. I am not going to explain them in detail now because I am talking, at this point, in principle. Firstly, the Government's Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, as it has publicly admitted, is operating at a substantial trading loss. Secondly, the Government has already had to find an additional $6m to pump into the system because of the members of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation who have left. Further, the Government probably will have to find another $10m. Where will it end? I am not arguing just on straight economics. I am arguing on the blunt and fundamental principle that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which was established when we were in power and which has carried out functions over a long period, has now reached the stage where, properly, it should be transferred to the private enterprise sector. Why should it be transferred to the private enterprise sector? Let me enumerate the reasons. Firstly, it is a burden on the taxpayers of Australia. Secondly, it is competing unfairly against private enterprise which is equally capable of carrying out the job, both domestically and externally. Thirdly, it should be in the private enterprise sector because that is where it rightly belongs. Our belief that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation should be transferred to the private enterprise sector means that we cannot support this Bill, which the taxpayers of Australia should know will expand and extend the operations of the Corporation to a far greater extent than they have ever been previously. It will permit the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, by virtue of the removal of statutory restrictions, to compete unfairly across the board with private enterprise engineering companies and firms throughout this nation. It will give the Corporation carte blanche in relation to overseas work. The Minister adds a little bait, which has now been disposed of as being completely fraudulent in that the private sector has said this is the con, by saying: 'If you pass this Bill we will ensure that in all future overseas work carried out by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation there will be a private enterprise involvement'. That is what the Minister said. But what does the Bill say? It says 'as far as is practicable'. The Minister wants it chapter and verse on the Bill. Let me give him a little chapter and verse on this Bill, which totally encapsulates the Government's commitment to a socialist Australia. I shall explain to the Minister now-I will also do so during the Committee stage-some of the points. Obviously, the Minister places great store on clause 6 (a) (I) of the Bill, which will grossly expand the current powers and functions of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. What is interesting is that, in addition to an almost unbridled expansion of the Corporation's powers and functions, the hand of the Minister is there, as the Bill provides, effectively, that the Minister can direct in whatever direction his socialist philosophy points him. The financial provisions of the Bill, which we will be dealing with in the Committee stage, give this Corporation an advantage over private enterprise engineering firms in Australia which have the capacity to do everything that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is currently doing. There are anomalies. This Minister can say what moneys are required and the Minister for Finance is obliged to provide the funds. The word used is not 'may' but 'shall'. If the Minister wants it chapter and verse, I say to him that clause 32 provides that interest is not payable to the Commonwealth on the capital of the Corporation. I ask honourable members to tell me of any company in Australia they know which can borrow millions of dollars and not pay any interest. The repayment of the capital is not even subject to anything other than the Minister's whim. If the Minister for Housing and Construction wants it chapter and verse, he will get it. Clause 32 (2) provides that the capital of the Corporation is repayable to the Commonwealth: . . . at such times and in such amounts as the Minister determines. The Minister might determine to pay back $100 in this financial year. Let the Minister tell me, when he replies to what he says is a speech without substance, of any corporation in Australia which is able to borrow on such terms and is able to repay on such terms. Again, if he wants chapter and verse, let us look at clause 33. That provides for the profits of the Corporation to be applied 'in such Manner as the Minister determines'. The Minister might determine that the entire profits of the Corporation be applied to a particular project which fits his socialist philosophy; or, on the other hand, he might say 'I shall give you back all the profits', in which case the revenues of the Commonwealth of Australia do not receive a cent. Clause 34 enables the Corporation, with the approval of the Treasurer, to borrow. Fair enough. But then listen to this: The Minister for Finance may . . . lend to the Corporation . . . money that the Corporation is authorized to borrow. The Corporation is authorised to give security and to pay interest on amounts borrowed. In addition, the Treasurer may: . . . guarantee the repayment by the Corporation of amounts borrowed . . . otherwise than from the Commonwealth- and interest. The Treasurer of Australia is thereby empowered-under this socialist Government he will use this power-to guarantee borrowings, including the repayment of interest, when those moneys have not even been borrowed from the Commonwealth. There is an open cheque concerning Commonwealth borrowings; there is a double open cheque concerning borrowings in the private enterprise sector. Does the Minister not know what happens when the Government goes into the market-place and borrows up big? That raises interest rates for all other Australians, be they small farmers, small businessmen or ordinary home purchasers. That happens with every dollar that the Government borrows in the market-place, and this is the biggest borrowing government that this country has had inflicted upon it since World War II and it is paying today the highest amount ever in repayment of our debts, which have risen to a level which puts us on a par with countries such as Mexico and Argentina. This Bill extends that power and that activity. We will not have a bar of it. Clause 38 enables the Corporation to enter into contracts not exceeding $500,000 or, if a higher amount is prescribed, that higher amount, without ministerial approval. I should like the people of Australia to realise that in relation to that matter the Corporation has a power, because it is qualified by the next part of the clause, as to contracts with a client of the Corporation, or a contract for obtaining assest or services that are intended to be charged to a client of the Corporation. No ministerial approval is required. So, in relation to a contract with a client, or in relation to the provision of services through a client, the Corporation can enter into a $50m contract without the requirement of ministerial approval. So we go on with these extraordinary anomalies in the Bill. Clause 39 says that the Corporation is subject to the Audit Act, but clause 40 provides that the Corporation is subject to taxation under the laws of the Commonwealth but not under the law of a State or Territory. With the extended powers, the Corporation can operate not just in Cooma but anywhere in Australia. It will not be paying any State taxes. However, having said that it is a public authority for the purposes of the Audit Act, this genius of a Minister and this genius of a Hawke socialist Government say that the Corporation is not a public authority for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Is that not a case of making fish of one and fowl of the other? It is a public authority under the Audit Act but not under the Income Tax Assessment Act. This is the sort of nonsense and socialist garbage which has been trundled into this Parliament, and this Minister says that it will make for a greater Australia. There is a brilliant provision in clause 43! It provides that: . . . a contract entered into, or a guarantee given, by the Corporation is not invalidated by reason of . . . this Act not having been complied with . . . So why do we not just tear up the Act here and now, if that is the situation, if contracts will not be invalidated because there has been non-compliance with the Act? I am not suggesting that anyone in the Corporation would be so irresponsible as to bypass this Minister, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Government. But, if anyone does it, the stable door will be open and the horse will have bolted. Why does the Minister not just tear up the Act? I am criticising the Minister's powers. Under the Act, he has power to delegate, generally or otherwise, all of his powers. If he saw fit to hand the whole thing over, lock, stock and barrel, to Laurie Carmichael, technically as a matter of law he could delegate the whole bang caboozle to him. Mr Price —What a lot of rubbish. Mr HODGMAN —Of course, our friends in Moscow corner in this House would love to see it handed over to Laurie Carmichael. The plain fact is that this Minister says: 'Give us a bit of substance'. If he thinks that that is the long and the short of it, he is wrong. There is more still to come. But we will deal with those aspects at the Committee stage. The decision by the Opposition to oppose the expansion of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has been applauded by private enterprise. As I said, as recently as this morning it has been commended by the editorial in the Australian headed 'On the private road'. Let me now comment on those parts of the editorial which place some faith in Australia's 65c-in-the-dollar Treasurer. If the Australian believes that the honourable member for Blaxland is the man who will lead Australia down the road to privatisation, it is sadly mistaken. If he wants to go down that track, he will not get very far because he will be set upon by the Socialist Left, by the pro-communist elements of this Government. He will be set upon violently, then his feet will be bitten off and his legs amputated almost up to his knees by the Socialist Left. The honourable member for Blaxland will not get very far down the road to privatisation of Australia. The Australian editorial comes down to this: It will be up to the Liberal Party to create a privatised Australia. Mr Cleeland —When? Mr HODGMAN —We will do it on our return to government, when the honourable member will be back in his legal practice. On our return to government, we will set about bringing this country back to its senses. Our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) parades in this Parliament and says that we are living beyond our means. The greatest offender of all is the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Goodluck —What has it done to Tasmania? Mr HODGMAN —What has it done to Tasmania? The honourable member makes a very significant point which I will deal with on another occasion. Government members sit over there, preaching tidy housekeeping, and say: 'My word, we are living beyond our means. Everybody has to tighten their belts'-that is, everybody except Robert James Lee Hawke and Paul Keating. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will use the correct titles for the honourable gentlemen. Mr HODGMAN —I refer to the honourable member for Wills and the honourable member for Blaxland. What the people of Australia have to realise, and I am sure they are now starting to realise it, is that we will see a continuation of the socialist policies of the Government, led by a man who said he was proud to proclaim himself a socialist. He went further at the official campaign launching of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) when he said that he had nothing but contempt for members of the Australian Labor Party who were not prepared to proclaim their commitment to socialism. The Minister for Housing and Construction, who is at the table, nods. I give him full marks for candour. Let us have no quibbling. The Hawke socialist Government, as I call it, is called that for one very simple reason: That is what it is. This legislation is proof positive of that. Far from cutting back the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the Government is taking out the bit, taking off the bridle and saying to the horse: 'Go for your life'. The major criticism of the Opposition's stand has come, as one would expect, from the staff associations of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. I say at the outset that I appreciate, and indeed the Opposition appreciates, their obvious concern. The plain fact is that the decision, when explained to them, will establish beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Corporation, as a dynamic and vital part of private enterprise, will have a far rosier future than in its present situation as a statutory corporation, propped up pro tem by a socialist Government and with the fortune to have in the chair the senior Minister from the Socialist Left. When this is explained, as it will be, to the officers and staff of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation at Cooma, one of the fundamental points we will make is that they will be given the first option, a preferred opportunity, to participate either in the float of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Ltd or in the transfer to private enterprise. Those honourable members in the Hawke socialist Government who smirk at this might be interested to know that when the United Kingdom Government moved to privatise British Telecom, 96 per cent of the staff and employees of Telecom took up the share options and have done very well indeed out of it. But what is even better is that British Telecom is now operating at the highest efficiency rate ever, at less cost because it is now privatised at no cost to the taxpayers in the United Kingdom and is a shining example of how a transfer from the socialist public sector to the private enterprise sector is beneficial. In the Committee stage I will be making further comments in relation to this incredible legislation. I indicate that the Opposition's position is firm. We have hoist our colours to the mast. This is the second time in this Parliament in three weeks that we have given a commitment to the people of Australia that we are fair dinkum about smaller government and lower taxation; honourable members on the other side are certainly not. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CADMAN —In a spurious point of order the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) claimed that I did not agree with the Opposition's policy of the sale of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I refer the honourable member to page 2013 of Hansard dated 9 May. I will quote a couple of sentences: I have had views for a long time about restructuring of government authorities and semi-governmental organisations. If the privatisation or restructuring of the HLIC were to take place in a total, comprehensive policy package I would endorse that approach. It is true that earlier in the debate I said I had not agreed with the previous Government's decision to sell the HLIC because it was not part of a package. The Opposition has a package and I endorse that approach. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member is now going beyond making his personal explanation. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.34) — Madam Acting Speaker, this is the first time I have spoken under your chairmanship of the Parliament and I must congratulate you on the excellent way that you are doing it. I would also like to thank you for coming along to my office next Friday afternoon for tea. That is very good of you. It is always a pleasure to speak after the mouth from the south because whatever one has to say is always perceived as reasoned and rational. He spoke for 30-- Mr Hodgman —Madam Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. If I am told that I have to refer to Mr Hawke and Mr Keating as the honourable members for Wills and Blaxland-- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I am sorry; my attention was distracted. The honourable member for Dunkley will refer to the honourable member for Denison as the honourable member for Denison. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am sorry. The honourable member for Denison spoke for 30 minutes. During that time all he did was annoy the public and I believe he caused a young baby in the public gallery to cry. The honourable member for Denison was possibly born 30 years or 40 years too late and in the wrong country. It is with much pleasure that I speak on the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill. Basically the purpose of the Bill is to restructure the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, widen its powers and functions and establish a Board of Directors. Before I speak further on this Bill, I think it is interesting to reflect for a moment on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority which was established by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949. In 1949 the Snowy Mountains scheme was the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia. It employed workers from some 30 nations who brought with them an enormous wealth of skills and ingenuity. On completion of the scheme, the Government established the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation so as to retain the expertise that had been gathered and developed over the years. The Corporation has undertaken some major engineering works overseas and has enhanced greatly Australia's fine reputation in consulting eingineering. It has operated profitably from its establishment until the 1983-84 financial year. This Bill aims to improve the Corporation's competitiveness and allow it to participate more effectively in the international engineering market by virtue of some key amendments. The restriction on the range of engineering activities open to SMEC will be removed. With ministerial approval, SMEC will be able to form companies or other legal arrangements so as to progressively involve Australian engineering companies in joint ventures overseas. The Corporation's functions will include reference to the involvement of Australian companies in the execution of overseas work. A five-member board of directors will be appointed to replace the present structure, thus allowing SMEC access to a range of management talent from the engineering, marketing, finance and trade union sectors. The financial policy of the Corporation will specify that it is to act in accordance with sound commercial principles and pursue a policy directed towards securing revenues to cover costs. Various financial provisions will be updated to accord with the Government's policy regarding statutory authorities. These amendments evidence the Government's commitment in 1984 to provide continuing support for the Corporation. It is without hesitation or doubt that I state that SMEC is an organisation worthy of support. As I said earlier, the expertise and skills that were gathered together by the completion of the Snowy Mountains project were far too important and too numerous to allow simply to dissipate and disband at a time when Australia was deep in its efforts to reconstruct and industrialise. The Corporation has gone from its small beginnings to become one of Australia's finest engineering works. These amendments will ensure that the Corporation will be competitive and viable in today's market. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said, there has been a lot of rhetoric about the need to export our industries' excellence and capitalise on the emerging international markets. Through the changes to the Corporation's activities, the Government is demonstrating that we act on, rather than talk about, these needs. We must give the Corporation room through these amendments to continue its excellence. As a Government, we must encourage our industries to take up the challenge of competing in the world market. Apart from the Corporation's excellent record of work in Australia, there are numerous projects in which it has been involved overseas. Some of these works have been in Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, New Guinea, Sarawak, Malaya and many other places. The Corporation is a front line ambassador for Australia. It is very different from many ambassadors in that it does not just talk; it acts and creates real jobs. In these areas in which it works the Corporation is making a positive contribution to the true welfare of the inhabitants of those countries. That is the type of organisation that Australia should encourage and this Bill does just that. Australia is about to embark on another 30-year project in the construction of a submarine fleet. I believe that SMEC would be the ideal company to oversee and co-ordinate this project. It has experience in many fields which are complementary. I trust that we, as a government, will take account of the great expertise available in this company and make use of it. It is on this basis that we must allow these amendments in order to make possible the Corporation's competitiveness and on-going viability. These amendments are important and will definitely ensure the continuation of a fine Australian company. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.40) —The Opposition is adamantly opposed to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill. Its passage would have the effect of conferring additional financial benefits on a small group of people which constitutes a pocket of privilege in our society. Its passage would also have the effect of perpetuating a unique job protection cartel. Furthermore, the legislation would provide none of the benefits set out by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in his second reading speech. Giving the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation benefits not enjoyed by competing private enterprise firms restricts the activities of a free market. It is contrary to the coalition's philosophy to allow governments to carry on activities that can be run equally well or better by private enterprise, as in this case. It is instructive to review the performance of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation over the past two years; to try to establish what the Minister has in mind for its future; and to conclude how inappropriate the Bill is in the context of a democratic capitalist society, given the continued drain on the taxpayer's pocket. The Corporation lost $5.5m in 1983-84 and, by the Minister's own admission, will lose an additional $3.5m in the year ending 30 June 1985. The Minister does not specify-and no wonder-whether further retrenchment costs are included in the latter figure, but we can conclude that the loss over the past two years has been of the order of $10m. Sales turnover last year was down 23 per cent on that of the previous year, and, although the Director of the Corporation, in its latest report, said 'Overhead costs have been reduced', in fact they rose 20 per cent from $11.6m to $13.9m. Such misleading comments in statutory reports by private enterprise would bring howls of venom from the Government benches, but the Minister seems strangely silent on this matter. Furthermore, other factors appear to make the figures in the report suspect. It was stated in the 1982-83 report that the Corporation could 'pay their bills as and when they fall due', but soon thereafter, the taxpayer-not the Corporation-had to pay to the Corporation a further $4m. Such a comment in an annual report of a public company would almost certainly bring about an investigation from either the National Companies and Securities Commission or the Corporate Affairs Commission. The accounts of the Corporation have been qualified for at least the last three years on the basis of failure to resolve the terms of employment of overseas employees and superannuation liabilities. Qualification of the accounts of a public company for such an extended period would long ago have meant a shareholder revolt, and dismissal of those responsible. Contrary to normal accounting practice, assets reserves have been written back against operating losses, and bank guarantees liabilities may well not have been brought to account. Financial losses of this magnitude, coupled with unclear and perhaps misleading statements, are indicative of significant commercial and financial mismanagement. But that is not all. Many of the jobs carried out by the Corporation are done on the basis of its being the only tenderer. Some other jobs, while quoted in the initial phase are not quoted in the implementation stage. Further, one would hardly think that two of the Corporation's customers, the Department of Housing and Construction, its parent body, and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, its foster parent, would give the Corporation consulting business on a competitive basis. Accordingly, we have the incredible situation that even when the Corporation quotes on a non-competitive basis, or carries out work on a non-competitive basis in the implementation stage of a project, it is still not able to price its labour in a manner that enables it to make a profit. As further evidence of bureaucratic inefficiency, honourable members' attention should be drawn to a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) of 18 April 1985. In it he said that the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, one of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation's major customers, 'had not been provided with either the professional resources or an appropriate organisation structure to manage the aid program' and that it 'was predominantly a clerical rather than a professional organisation deficient in management systems'. I emphasise the words 'deficient in management systems'. Even with a customer that is deficient in management systems the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation cannot get it right. We have the perfect example of the blind leading the blind, which would be one thing if it were not for the fact that these people are mismanaging taxpayers' money. One of the great ironies in the reports is that it is apparent that the only way the Corporation makes any money is by selling houses to its employees. Regrettably, that is not the end of this sorry saga. In addition to losing $10m of the taxpayers' money in the last two years, the employees of the Corporation have created for themselves a superannuation scheme, the liabilities of which have not been brought to account and which has been the subject of a study which started three years ago and which is still not finalised. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the Bill is needed: 'To put it on a more commercial footing'. This contrasts oddly with the 1983 report of the Corporation in which the Director said 'the Corporation operates on a commercial basis'. The Minister says that the Corporation retains an effective mix of professional skills, which is inaccurate in that employment has fallen from a peak of 623 to a projected 360 over two years, and is misleading in that, according to the Corporation's customers, the nature of the market place is changing and the skills of the Corporation will have to be changed. What this boils down to is yet another burden on the taxpayer, and this Bill is simply the justification to go further. An amount of $4m was injected in 1983-84 and $6m in July 1984. Who knows how much more there will be now? In the 1983-84 report the directors say that the Authority will be 'operating on a profitable basis in 1985-86'. Yet within six months the Minister was saying 'it will make every endeavour to break even in 1985-86'. It is startlingly obvious that the Minister is completely out of his depth with this legislation and that he and his office have been duped by the bureaucrats. How could any Minister, acting in accordance with his fiduciary duties, allow a statutory corporation such the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to lose such large sums of money over such a short period, to permit continued qualifications of its accounts, to indulge in questionable accounting practices, to sanction standards more lax than those in the private sector, and to be so thoroughly misled by so many Corporation and departmental officers? This is a perfect example of Australian industry seeking to sell its services abroad but being unable to compete because of high labour costs. It is a perfect example of the need for deregulation of the labour market so that we can establish a basis for a competitive approach. Much has been said in recent days about ensuring that those few benefits that do arise as a result of the disastrous depreciation of our currency are not immediately squandered in a new round of labour cost increases. Unfortunately, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave us the answer to that question the other night. Here then is the cutting edge of the problem and here the Government's answer is not to take the economically rational line but rather to belt the taxpayers for further funds. In fact, the proposal to appoint a trade union official to the new Board would only exacerbate the problem of labour costs. We are also advised that the terms and conditions of employment in the Corporation are to be subject, not to the private market, but to approval by the Public Service Board. The Government should bite the bullet on this matter and deny the Corporation additional funds, call immediately for tenders from the private sector and sell the Corporation, consistent with the immediate interests of its employees and their wish to be involved as equity participants, to commercial interests who know how to run a commercial entity. They could then restore the Corporation to a commercial basis so that it can continue to do good work for Australia and preserve its undoubted technical reputation. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.50) —Madam Acting Speaker, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill is a measure to restructure and provide for the revitalisation of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which was allowed to run down under the previous Government. This restructuring is going to create a viable organisation, resulting in consequential financial returns to the Commonwealth at levels consistent with sound commercial principles and practice. The Opposition has introduced what could be called the kill Cooma amendment. Contrast the intention of this Opposition, led in this debate by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), with the intention of the Government reflected in the Australian Labor Party's urban and regional development policy. The policy states: Labor recognises the important contribution of the construction sector to the national economy and to the development of cities and regions. To this end Labor is developing a strategy to achieve greater stability in overall construction activity and infrastructure development and a more balanced approach to regional development. On the other hand, the Federal Opposition not only is opposing the legislation but also says that in government it will transfer the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to the private sector. Let us look at the amendment which has been introduced by the Opposition. In transferring the Corporation to private enterprise what would a Liberal-National Party government really be doing? It would be taking over 250 families from the town of Cooma. There is no way that private enterprise would keep SMEC at Cooma. Some existing construction body in Sydney or Melbourne would buy it and take its work to the capital cities, and, if the purchaser were an overseas company, much of the work and all of the valuable flag carrying role would go overseas. The Opposition talks as if the Corporation is operating at an advantage compared with private industry. This Corporation is paying enormous taxes for its turnover compared with private industry because the tax strategies available to private enterprise have not been available to the Corporation. Mr Spender —What arrant nonsense. Mr SNOW —I suggest that the honourable member talk to the Director and to the new Chairman of the Corporation. He will soon learn a few things. The structure will give the Corporation more of the freedom of private enterprise so that it will be less fettered in the market place. Let me deal with the key amendments proposed by the Government. The first is that the restriction on the range of engineering activities open to the Corporation is going to be removed. The second is that with ministerial approval the Corporation will be able to form companies or other legal arrangements so as progressively to involve Australian engineering companies in joint ventures overseas. The third is that the Corporation's functions will include reference to the involvement of Australian companies in the execution of overseas work. The fourth is that a five member board of directors will be appointed to replace the present 'Corporation sole' structure, thus allowing SMEC access to a range of management talent from the engineering, marketing, finance and trade union sectors. The fifth is that the financial policy of the Corporation will specify that it is to act in accordance with sound commercial principles and pursue a policy directed towards securing revenues to cover costs. The sixth is that various financial provisions will be updated to accord with government policy regarding statutory authorities. I believe that, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said, the Corporation is going to use its excellent reputation as a vehicle for involving Australian firms in joint ventures on particular overseas projects in a manner which is consistent with sound commercial principles. The Board of Directors will be given autonomy on the day to day business of the Corporation. I know that the Cooma branch of the Liberal Party has been severely embarrassed by the attitude taken by the Opposition and the honourable member for Denison. I suggest that the honourable member has badly advised his Party. He is misplaced in his appointment. With his progressive views on East Timor, Irian Jaya, Ireland and capital punishment overseas, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) should place the honourable member as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. This sort of proposal does nothing for the Opposition's image, nothing for its declared policy on decentralisation and nothing for Australia's image overseas. I refer to new jobs overseas that have been recently taken up by the Corporation. They include irrigation and flood control in Indonesia, land and water resource development services in Saudi Arabia, and a project for the World Bank in Malawi. It is providing specialist engineering advice in Ethiopia for rural integrated program development under the United Nations. Its work is often profitable, as the Minister has said, and is based on sound commercial principles. The Corporation is not just a flag carrier for Australia. It has done work for the World Bank and other national governments. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) talked to us about SMEC favouritism in the jobs that it achieves. I suggest that the honourable member for Deakin and the Opposition have a look at some of the jobs that have been achieved by SMEC. The north-south bypass of the city of Newcastle is one of the major projects that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation authorised in the first quarter of 1985. One cannot tell me that that job was granted on favouritism. The project, at a cost of $1.6m, involves construction management by the Corporation. The national water resources strategy is being developed by the Corporation. The strategy will establish the number and identity of hydro-electric stations which form the national network, and it is being done for the Department of Resources and Energy. The Bill will widen the powers and functions of the Corporation and progressively introduce Australian firms to overseas markets through joint ventures and other works. It will mean an expansion of its charter. Let us remind ourselves of the history of SMEC. Its predecessor was established by the Commonwealth Government under the Snowy Mountains hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 and came into existence in August 1949. The Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme was the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia, involving the construction of 16 large dams and 145 kilometres of tunnels. The scheme employed at that stage workers from 30 countries, and considerable engineering skills were accumulated. As the scheme neared completion in the late 1960s, the Government considered how best to utilise these skills. Consequently, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation was established by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 to undertake engineering work in Australia and overseas. The Corporation has undertaken some major engineering work in Australia over recent years. I have mentioned some of the more recent jobs, and I would also add the Shoalhaven scheme for the New South Wales Government. The Corporation has completed 1,100 projects in 35 countries since its establishment. It operated profitably from its establishment until-this is the sole point the Opposition is latching on to-the 1983-84 financial year. Mr Beale —But it did not bring its superannuation obligations into account. Mr SNOW —It returned $3.3m to the Government, plus a corporate tax of $10m. However, it made a net loss of just $5.6m in 1983-84 and estimates a net loss of $3.5m for the 1984-85 financial year. The present Bill aims to improve the Corporation's competitive position by removing existing restrictions on the range of engineering activities that the Corporation may perform, and by placing the management of the Corporation in the hands of a Board of Directors. People of vision, such as McKell and Chifley, conceived the Snowy Mountains Authority and Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Prime Minister Menzies adopted the concept and carried it through, but now, in a wave of blind economic rationalism, the logic of the Opposition goes to the winds. When the economic rationalists settle down they will realise that they have often hurt the logic of their own arguments by ignoring the economies of decentralisation and the value of involvement of work in developing countries. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will not fall for that argument and this House will not fall for that argument. The people of Eden-Monaro-those in Bega, Queanbeyan, and a whole range of areas in the electorate-and the people of Canberra who work with the Corporation, will not fall for that argument. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.00) —The last words of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) illustrate the kind of thinking which is behind the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill. He referred to blind economic rationalism. He seems to assume that economic rationalism is always blind, and that, no doubt, is the view of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who seems to have left the table for the time being. I would like to see him back here because I have one or two things to say about his Bill. The changes in the construction and engineering businesses which have taken place since the inception of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority in its original form are immense. These changes to which the Government is entirely oblivious. We now have employed in the construction and engineering private sector approximately 5,000 people. It is proposed to employ in this organisation 360 people. In order to get down to 360, the Australian taxpayers had to fork out approximately $6m so that a voluntary retirement program could be financed. This organisation, as it will be set up, will be in direct and favourable competition with the private sector. One of the bromides in the Bill appears in proposed section 17 (1A) (b). It illustrates just how meaningless are the assurances that the Corporation will work with the private sector. That proposed section states: Subject to this Act, the Corporation shall endeavour- the proposed section states 'shall endeavour'- (b) so far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of its functions overseas; and (c) promote overseas interests of the Australian engineering industry. What is actually happening is that this organisation, under favourable financial treatment, will be able to compete here and overseas with Australian private sector companies. If it has not penetrated the minds of those on the Government benches that in fact the organisation will have favourable financial treatment, let me take them through one or two items that might have escaped their searching eyes. First of all, let us deal with capital. That is provided for by what will be section 41 (1) which states: The Minister for Finance may make available to the Corporation, out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament, . . . such amounts as are, in the opinion of the Minister, required by the Corporation. That money becomes the capital of the Corporation. That is grand. Would there not be many private sector companies would like to have moneys appropriated for their capital use. What is even better is that once it gets the capital, no interest is payable on it. Proposed section 42 (1) states: Interest is not payable to the Commonwealth on the capital of the Corporation but the Corporation shall pay to the Commonwealth, out of the profits of the Corporation for a financial year, such amount as the Minister determines. No doubt a Labor Government Minister will not make a determination which he would think would be adverse to the interests of a Corporation that has been funded so assiduously and at such cost by the Australian taxpayers. Let us go on to borrowings by the Corporation. Proposed section 44 (2) states: The Minister for Finance may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose, lend to the Corporation, at such rate of interest and on such terms and conditions as that Minister determines- I ask honourable members to note the words 'on such terms and conditions as the Minister determines'- moneys that the Corporation is authorized to borrow- This means that the Corporation can get money from the Australian taxpayer at favourable rates of interest and on favourable terms and can use that in competition with the private sector. I turn to Commonwealth guarantees. A perfectly remarkable clause dealing with Commonwealth guarantees is to be found in the Bill. Proposed new section 44 (4) states: The Treasurer may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, guarantee the repayment by the Corporation of amounts borrowed under this section . . . That is, borrowed otherwise than from the Commonwealth. One hardly needs to guarantee amounts that have been borrowed from the Commonwealth if the Commonwealth is going to be the guaranteeing partner. What does that mean? It means once again that this Corporation will have favourable financial treatment because it can borrow money. Its borrowings are to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth, and that means that the Australian taxpayer-that lender and guarantor of last resort-will be there to meet any obligations that the Corporation cannot. Another provision of truly startling import is proposed new section 45, which states: By force of this section, the Commonwealth guarantees the due payment by the Corporation of all money (other than money due in respect of money borrowed under section 44)- which is the section I have just referred to- that is, or may at any time become, payable by the Corporation to a person other than the Commonwealth. I ask honourable members to think about that for one minute. It reads perfectly clearly. So far as I can determine, nothing appears in the explanatory memorandum to tell us what the purpose of this extraordinary provision is. It operates as a global overall guarantee by the Commonwealth of any outside borrowings not otherwise covered by Commonwealth guarantees and, more than that, of all moneys that may become payable to a person. That means moneys that may become payable to a person not simply on the basis that they have been lent, but moneys which become payable to a person arising out of ordinary commercial transactions entered into by this organisation. What would any company or firm think when it came to deal with this organisation except: 'Well, there are no problems dealing with this organisation. This organisation is backed by the Australian taxpayer in all ways and, therefore, it should be preferred, other things being equal, to other private sector Australian companies that do not have the benefit of this kind of preferential treatment'? Let me deal with one other matter. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), said that the Corporation had paid tax in the past. That, of course, is true, but a very interesting new section can be found in the Bill. Proposed new section 50, sub-section (1), states: The Corporation is subject to taxation under the laws of the Commonwealth- I stop there and say: 'So far, so good'- and to such other taxation as the Minister specifies. There are, of course, State taxes. As I read this provision, it clearly contemplates that it is up to the Minister to specify whether or not the Corporation will be subject to other taxes, including State taxes. There may be some other explanation for that section and, if there is, I would be very glad to hear it. No matter how we look at it, we are looking at a Corporation which in many ways is to be given highly favourable financial treatment which can only put it in a much better position to compete unfavourably and unfairly against the private sector. I wish to make one or two other observations before the 10-minute period I have been alloted expires. We have heard talk from the Minister for Housing and Construction about sound commercial principles. That is positively meaningless. It we look at what will be section 40 we see that those principles are expressed in such general terms that they add up to nothing at all save a vague general statement of intent. In any event, they are negated by the preferential financial treatment that is specifically to be given to the Corporation under the Act. They are negated by the extent of the Minister's control. That is stated by him in his second reading speech, where on page 1872 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 8 May, the Minister stated: The board will be required to inform me of its policy decisions and provide me with regular reports on its operations. I shall, of course, be able to direct the Corporation as to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. So much for operation on the basis of sound commercial principles, with this Minister or any other Minister exercising that kind of power. The intent that this Corporation should operate on the basis of sound commercial principles is also negated by placing the remuneration of the Managing Director under the Remuneration Tribunal. That effectively sets the top level. We have had experience with Trans Australia Airlines, which the Minister should know of, or does he not talk to his colleague who has the relevant portfolio? TAA has had great difficulty in getting senior management. Why? Because it cannot pay the market rate. That is precisely the kind of bind that this Corporation is getting itself into. Other things could be said about this Bill, but my final point relates to the complete inconsistency in approach by the Government to the corporations under its control. In 1984, the then Minister for Aviation, now the Minister for Defence, (Mr Beazley), introduced amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act. By those amendments an attempt was made to come to grips with financial planning and reporting, including such matters as determination of targets and specified profits. No such attempt whatsoever is made in this Bill. The Bill represents a relic of the past, as does the thinking of this Minister and this Government. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(11.13) —The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill provides a stark contrast between the attitudes of the Government and Opposition members regarding government public enterprises. Their opposition, as the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) said earlier, is based on ideological blindness. No distinction has been made between the several types of public enterprise and no differences have been pointed out in their roles and functions. It has been pure opposition for opposition's sake. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) started off by abusing some Government members as being oncers on the grounds that at the next election people would judge us on our stand in defence of public enterprises. Looking at the honourable gentleman's coiffure, all I can say is that I am reminded of an advertising slogan well known in this country. The electorate at the next election will say: 'They came back, and we are glad they did'. I am also reminded that it was the honourable member for Denison who, as a fresh-faced young back bencher in 1970, gave full support to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act when the Gorton Government introduced it. He gave it his utmost backing. I cannot understand how the Opposition, including the honourable member for Denison, can undergo such mental gymnastics and now seek to dismantle the aims and objectives of that Corporation, as stated in 1970 and still remaining today, namely, to preserve and capitalise on the professional engineering expertise developed during the construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme. What mental gymnastics now entitle them to come in here and say that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is a drain on the taxpayers' purse, that the Corporation competes unfairly and that it should be handed over to the private sector? Those are the three points that the honourable member made. They are the points that I will rebut right now. Certainly, the performance of the Corporation cannot be said to be a drain on the taxpayers' purse. With the exception of 1983-84, the Corporation has made operating profits in each of the 13 years since it was established. The Corporation has paid $10m in tax on its profits and paid dividends of $3.3m from them to the Commonwealth Government. The Corporation is thus not a financial drain on the Commonwealth but contributes to it positively. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table outlining the commercial performance of the Corporation since its inception. The table has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library Research Service. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION (c) Provision Provision Government for for Total provided Operating Income Government Year Staff (a) capital Revenue profit (b) Tax dividend $m $m $m $m $m 1970-71 192 (84) 0.80 6.57 0.50 0.33 0.08 1971-72 308 (107) 1.43 8.17 0.48 0.31 0.11 1972-73 406 (133) 1.83 9.13 0.74 0.52 0.16 1973-74 476 (155) 1.83 11.85 0.77 0.57 0.18 1974-75 499 (156) 1.83 18.77 0.45 0.43 0.05 1975-76 488 (157) 2.23 25.54 1.07 0.92 0.15 1976-77 511 (164) 2.60 25.85 1.88 1.15 0.65 1977-78 562 )188) 2.60 36.78 1.60 1.17 0.39 1978-79 582 (197) 2.60 38.81 1.66 1.21 0.42 1979-80 578 (201) 2.60 43.68 1.53 1.04 0.45 1980-81 600 (217) 2.60 45.76 1.55 1.22 0.30 1981-82 616 (230) 2.60 55.43 2.57 1.65 0.40 1982-83 606 (239) 6.60 57.28 0.04 0.35 . . 1983-84 473 (206) 6.60 44.23 -4.23 . . . . 11.4.85 379 (175) (a) Number in brackets is professional staff. (b) Before tax and abnormal and extraordinary items. (c) Cumulative total-all other values are annual figures. Note: $10.9m taxes Totals $3.3m dividend Mr LAMB —I thank the House. The Corporation sees its role as a flag carrier for the Australian consulting and construction industry in overseas markets, particularly in Asia and the Pacific. Private Australian consulting and construction companies have benefited from this 'spill-over'. I mean by that the consequences of being associated with the Corporation. To borrow some economic jargon, the private engineering firms in Australia have been able to enjoy external economies, or 'externalities'. In other words, the value to Australia of the Corporation exceeds what is reflected in the mere profit and loss accounts and balance sheets. Further, the Corporation often works in conjunction with other Australian consultants in overseas work. I ask the House: Would these companies, especially the smaller companies, get these overseas contracts on their own without the umbrella promotion provided by the Corporation? Probably, the companies get many of these contracts for them via the Corporation. The Corporation has delivered to Australian firms contracts for work for countries such as Burma and China. The Corporation has generated considerable export earnings. In recognition of this fact, in June last year the Corporation received one of three Governor-General's awards for export excellence for export earnings over a 10-year period. The Corporation is recognised internationally as being a first class, quality engineering body. It was ranked No. 60 in the top 200 engineering consulting firms in the world for 1983-84 by the prestigious United States publication Engineering News Record. The Corporation was one of only two Australian organisations represented in the list. Yet the Opposition wants to decry the magnificent record and work of the Corporation by merely plucking out one year's financial record, ignoring the flow-on effects and external economies that come from its magnificent work. The Opposition stands condemned for its myopic examination of the Corporation's activities. Let us examine the accusation that the Corporation is acting unfairly. It is true that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is one of several public enterprises which compete with private enterprises. Others which come to mind are the Commonwealth Bank and Trans Australia Airlines. So it is not unusual; it is not an aberration. It is a time honoured practice for public enterprises to compete with the private sector. The Corporation competes not only in Australia but also with consulting firms from all parts of the world. It knows how to deal with that competition. Let us look at the complaints from the private consultants about competition. Certainly, these are tough times, with reduced demand for the services of engineering firms. The world-wide economic recession, reduced aid flows from the oil exporting nations to Third World countries and the debt problems of many developing countries led to these reductions in overseas development programs. Like many private consulting engineering firms, the Corporation recently suffered from a decrease in available work in Australia and overseas. There was also a sharp increase in competition from international engineering firms which are faced with similar problems. We have a situation of temporary crowding out. I would have thought that the Opposition, which talks of fundamentalist, rational, dry economic arguments, would say that competition is a good thing. But no, when competition is successful and the firm in question is not one of its friends, it is undesirable. Somehow, there is good competition and there is bad competition. Let us see whether it is unfair competition, which is a different question again. As we know, the Corporation, facing the need to readjust, obtained the services of the consulting firm Peat Marwick Mitchell Services. It reviewed the Corporation's operations and concluded that the Corporation could regain viability by reducing the number of staff to about 400-that is, from a peak of about 623-restructuring to increase efficiency, including the appointment of a board of directors to replace the Corporation's role, exactly the way that any private enterprise would go about improving its structure and future performance. Although it was applaudable, there was not one item of praise or word of compliment from the Opposition on the work of the Minister in supporting this report and having it implemented through this restructured legislation. I say that the Corporation is actually forced to compete from an unfair and disadvantageous position. The boot is on the other foot in regard to the requirements for the Corporation to fund much more expensive superannuation schemes. We see a cost there far in excess of what the private engineering firms competing have to pay. We all know that, in private industry, superannuation arrangements are confined to the top level of management and middle management. Rarely does a blue collar worker or a person on the lower rungs of the hierarchy of a corporation receive any form of superannuation. SMEC has to pay 22 per cent of salary to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. That is in addition to the employee contribution. So honourable members can see that it is the Corporation which is having to put up with unfair competition. I do not decry that. It is desirable and wise. A capital injection of $6m largely to fund the voluntary retrenchment program is also laudable because if one is to retrench staff one must do it with the future interest of one's employees in mind. One must not just dismiss them and slam the door on them. One must realise that when people work in Cooma, an area which is not renowned for employment opportunities, it will be very difficult for them to get other jobs, particularly when their expertise is confined to the engineering area. Some of those who will opt to leave will be 45 years of age or older. It will be extremely difficult for those people to get jobs in other areas. Let us be generous. Let us recognise that a fair amount of attention and capital will have to be paid regarding superannuation. My last point relates to the Opposition's claim that the Corporation should be in the private sector. Because it is government-owned and hence may be viewed as a government agency, even though technically it is not, the Corporation may be a useful vehicle, and, in fact, is, in government to government negotiations. I point to the Snowy Mountains scheme as a 'living brochure' for Australian expertise in engineering. This may enable the Australian Government to gain a foothold in countries which prefer to deal with government agencies rather than with private companies. The Corporation is probably also viewed as an organisation which is not susceptible to corruption. There is no profit motive. There are no under the counter commissions to be fearful of, no deals. This is especially important to the Corporation's work in Asian countries. To sum it up, the Corporation can be seen as an honest broker in providing Australian private enterprise with work in developing countries. The Australian Development Assistance Bur- eau has engaged the services of the Corporation on numerous occasions. The use of the Corporation by the Bureau is just one way of ensuring that aid funds are tied to Australian suppliers. The benefits to Australia and to the developing countries flowing from this public enterprise are enormous. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.24) —I begin my comments in this debate on the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill by adverting to the speech that I made in the debate on the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. In that debate the Opposition indicated its very strong commitment to restructuring and reorganising semi-governmental and government-related enterprises. For obvious reasons, when considering this matter one must refer to the splendid work done by Senator Peter Rae, who chaired the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which examined statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. Senator Rae, I believe, is owed a great debt by the Australian community and the Parliament for the work that he did in identifying the real costs and operating factors within the semi-governmental area. Senator Rae, in his examination, closely questioned the whole range of Australian semi-governmental organisations, particularly those which conduct business-type operations. It is my view that many government operations can be carried out by the process of contract and tender, with the Government setting the precise guidelines within which it wants an organisation to operate. That could apply well, I guess, to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. But there are many activities of the Corporation that could well be carried out by private enterprise. To my mind, this Corporation is another example of the whole range of areas in which the Liberal and National Parties will adopt an approach which is different, dynamic and more relevant to our times. Indeed, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself, in the mini-Budget, is moving in this very direction. If the Australian Labor Party argues that it is not a principle of that Party to move towards an opening up, a restructuring and a reorganisation of semi-governmental authorities, that is a fallacious argument, because in the mini-Budget the Government has moved, in a very tenuous way, to privatise two areas for which the Commonwealth has previously been responsible. Those are Canberra's Belconnen Mall and Tuggeranong Town Centre and the defence service home loans scheme, the whole of which has been passed across to private enterprise. I quote from today's Australian to set the whole debate in context, because I believe that the Australian, in its editorial, captures where we, as a Parliament and as a nation, are at the moment in regard to this matter. It says: Mr Keating has set the tone for the future of Australian politics. Unless the ALP undergoes a complete metamorphosis under his influence it will be up to the Liberal Party to create a privatised Australia. That is the conclusion of that editorial. But there is no doubt that a significant step in the right direction has been taken by the Australian Labor Party. Senator Peter Rae, in his examination of the whole range of semi-governmental authorities, sent out a questionnaire which was designed to probe the bookkeeping processes, capital structures and operational factors in semi-governmental and government-related businesses. The questionnaire asked significant questions, and the replies were most revealing. A summary of the replies is recorded in chapter 3 of the second report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations entitled 'Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth', on page 53. I will read just some of the significant responses because I think they relate to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the way in which the Opposition is looking at the whole of this matter. It is pointed out in paragraph 3.1 (a) that many authorities do not keep a record of their fixed assets. That paragraph goes on to state: (b) some authorities do not keep a record of the current value of their land and buildings, while others use land and buildings belonging to a Government Department; (c) some authorities which provide figures for fixed assets do not provide depreciation figures either because it is not charged in their accounts or because the figures are not available; (d) while some authorities have their functions discharged by the staff of a Government Department on a cost recoverable basis others, particularly primary industry authorities, are staffed from within a Department but did not always include the cost of these salaries in their replies; (e) some authorities do not make a provision for superannuation. So, one can see that it is a weird and mixed-up approach to what should be a clean and businesslike operation. The Government must always be able to justify its administrative processes to the Australian community. This Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, is often involved in trying to encourage a proper attitude in the way in which capital, assets and manpower are dealt with. The same applies in this instance, in the Opposition's view, to the way in which the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation should be operating. I cite three areas in which governmental businesses are not effective. In their capital raising and assets processes they are not required to adopt the approach that other commercial organisations adopt. They tend, therefore, to be less efficient in raising and using capital, and they tend also to gain advantages by that process of raising and using capital. In the use of their manpower, they have the clamp, the dreadful dead hand of the Public Service regulations applying to their employees, and the massive cost of gold-plated superannuation. I am sure the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) will agree on this matter with the Hon. Clyde Cameron, a former member of this place, in his statements with regard to the superannuation requirements of those employed in the Australian Public Service. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I have just entered the chamber. I am not sure what I am accused of agreeing to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. The honourable member should know that. Mr CADMAN —I was making a point-I repeat it for the sake of the honourable member for Melbourne-about the conditions of employment that are often forced upon semi-governmental businesses operated and controlled by the Government. One can think of the names readily-Telecom Australia, Australia Post, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-and one can think of the conditions forced on those organisations by their sheer relationship with government and the wish of government to control them. The manpower situation is damaging to individuals in those organisations. The costs to the community are high. Our capacity to utilise technology and to advance strongly in areas such as the engineering field is hampered by the processes of government. To divert slightly and to look at Telecom, I believe that Telecom-a similar organisation in many ways-is hampered because it cannot move into technology as quickly as it would like. It is prevented from doing that; yet, on the other hand, if it were free, its capacity to use technology to give Australians the sort of services they want in the telecommunications area would be massive and exciting. But it is hampered and restricted. I note that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) wants to catch my attention. Mr Hodgman —That is what the Cooma Monaro Express said about this. Mr Lamb —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am reminded of the point of order dealt with earlier by Madam Acting Speaker when the honourable member for Denison was making an argument which was similar to that which we have just heard and which did not refer to the Bill. I have waited patiently, but I still have not heard the honourable member for Mitchell refer to the Bill. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to request him to be relevant in his remarks instead of talking about irrelevancies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. There is some relevance in the remarks of the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was being relevant. I am looking also at the efficiency of semi-governmental organisations, of which the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is one. Whilst not damning or criticising the Corporation about its efficiency, I point out that the tendency for the use of capital and manpower in these organisations is such that there is not the hard face of competition and the awareness of the responsiveness to the client. That is something which corporations and governments are not good at. They cannot respond to clients in the way in which we would like to see them respond. One can have the necessary responsiveness only if people have a motive for being responsive. That applies to Telecom, to shipping, to the railways and to all sorts of areas. Mr Gear —The dairy industry. Mr CADMAN —In the dairy industry, it is similar. Dairy farmers should be allowed to do what they want to do. Mr Hand —You did not say that the other night. Mr CADMAN —I said that they should be allowed to do what they want to do, and that is what the Opposition has decided. In all of these organisations, there is the dead hand of government. It is the Opposition's proposal that the dead hand of government, on individuals, capital, capital markets, structures and inefficiencies, should be removed. That must be done. It is a prime objective, which will release a vast resource of effort and capacity in Australia-effort and capacity which this country sorely needs. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.35) —in reply-Once again, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has really failed to come to grips with the content of the major clauses of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Bill and has simply dealt with it in a very general way. One can say that his only coherent theme has been once again to run the line that we should sell off government enterprise. In this regard he repeats that he wants to sell the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, presumably on the basis that the private sector is always best placed to provide economic services to the States and the people of Australia. Indeed, the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), referred to removing the dead hand of government from Australian economic services. The honourable member for Denison can hardly be regarded as consistent in this regard. The expressed attitude of Opposition members as put forward on this Bill is in direct contrast with their position regarding the provision of the $26m government subsidy to the Government of Tasmania to provide for the purchase of the Abel Tasman and to continue a subsidised service to the State of Tasmania. Mr Hodgman —Rubbish! It is not being subsidised. Mr WEST —Well, it will receive a grant of that amount of money. The point is: Does the honourable member for Denison suggest that the Government should simply have turned over that service to the Tasmanian Government, without any payment, and said: 'Righto, that's it; you will get nothing from us'? Of course he would not want that. But he chooses to ignore the significant contribution that some of these government enterprises make towards good government and the provision of economic services in Australia. Further, the Opposition has totally ignored the fact that in 1970 it was the Gorton coalition Government that set up the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. It did so, correctly, in a successful attempt to keep together the enormous skill base that had been generated over 20-odd years by the work of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority which had in 1970 virtually completed the most successful infrastructure and the largest project in Australia's history. The Gorton Government showed some foresight in setting up SMEC and in its effort to keep together all of this enormous skill base in the engineering consultancy field. I put to the House that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has in fact successfully carried out the role that the former Liberal Prime Minister foresaw for it. Its record has been very strong indeed. It has been involved in 1,100-odd projects in 35 countries, including Australia. Fees worth over $200m have been received. Overseas, it has been involved in 439 projects and has collected $140m-plus in fees. Up to 1982-83, it had paid $13.3m to government in the form of dividends and corporate taxes. As I said in my second reading speech, it is true that, in 1983-84, SMEC was beset by the difficulties that were affecting the heavy engineering sector in the private sector in Australia and overseas. It did turn in a loss of $5.6m in 1983-84. In 1984-85, it projected a loss of $3.5m, which I now understand might be slightly less than that. I have instructed SMEC that it make every effort to break even in 1985-86. When, under the former Minister back in early 1984, we saw SMEC's difficult position, it was decided to take some action, given its success over the years and given our judgment that basically it was not the fault of SMEC that it had fallen on some temporary bad times; it was the result of those difficulties that were besetting the engineering industry generally. The action the Government took was to have a review carried out of SMEC's operations by a firm of consultants. Last year, we looked at the review and made certain decisions. It was decided to keep the SMEC operation based in Cooma because of the financial and economic implications for that town and indeed for the whole south-eastern part of New South Wales. Whilst I condemn the efforts of the Opposition to try to force the sale of SMEC and the destruction of its operations in Cooma, I commend the attitude of my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) in urging the Government to retain SMEC's activities in Cooma. We decided to keep it in public ownership and to restructure the organisation. We decided to examine the superannuation scheme and to continue the contributions with the Commonwealth superannuation scheme for the current staff but to examine the possibility of a new scheme, in conjunction with a firm in the private sector, for all new staff. We are currently doing that. I point out that there is a significant disadvantage rather than an advantage for SMEC with regard to superannuation contributions because it contributes a component equalling 21.9 per cent of staff salary to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. That is a very heavy impost, of about $750,000 a year, which is not borne by its competitors in the private sector. They contribute only about 10 or 12 per cent of staff salary in superannuation. We also decided to reduce the number of staff. The Corporation, to its credit and to the credit of its Director, Mr Price, who is in the chamber today, has complied with that Government direction. We have brought staff numbers down from 600 to approximately 360. The growth of the staff has been very interesting. When Gorton set the Corporation up, and for a couple of years after that, the number of staff was 192. During the Liberal regime the numbers of staff increased to 600. We have steamlined the staff to 360. One sees how duplicitous the Opposition is when it talks of restraining government expenditure, staff levels and so on. The number of SMEC staff blew out under the Libs and has been brought down under this Government. It has been said in debate that SMEC competes unfairly with the private sector. The basis for this charge seems to be on two counts: Firstly, that it gets to do too much work in Australia and, secondly, that it has an unfair or major share of the work under the Australian Development Assistance Bureau grants. Let us look at those two charges. Shortly after the Gorton Government set up SMEC, it was doing 60 per cent of its work in Australia in direct competition with the Australian private engineering sector. Over the years that work in Australia has declined to 25 per cent. The basic breakdown of SMEC work now is 75 per cent overseas-and only 20 per cent of this for ADAB-and the remaining 25 per cent in Australia. When SMEC started off, 80 per cent of its overseas work was done under ADAB. As I have said, that figure is now only 15 per cent. Those facts refute the allegation that SMEC is competing on an unfair basis with the private sector. I have said that the honourable member for Denison has not paid much attention to the actual provisions in the Bill. I stand by that. We propose to replace the present 'corporation sole' concept with its Director virtually being in complete control, with a part-time board of five, comprising the Chairman, the new Managing Director and three others-one from the trade union movement and two from the private sector. Clauses 6 and 7-I understand the Opposition will be opposing clause 6, and I will have something to say about that at the Committee stage-contain the operational aspects of the new Act which will allow the Corporation, as far as practicable, to involve Australian organisations in the performance of overseas work which extends the charter of SMEC to allow it to increase the various aspects of the nature of its work. Clause 7 allows the Corporation, with ministerial approval, to form companies or other joint ventures or legal arrangements which will allow SMEC to get on with its job of promoting the excellence of the Australian heavy engineering sector in all its phases, both in Australia and overseas. A further clause will ensure that the Corporation acts in accordance with sound commercial principles. I conclude by asking members of the House again to make their own judgment about the motives and attitudes of members of the Opposition. Why do they want to sell the HLIC? Why do they want to sell SMEC now? I do not think it is just because SMEC is temporarily not returning a profit; it returned a profit over many years and I am confident it will return to that position in the near future. Mr Hand —They must have a buyer lined up-kickbacks. Mr WEST —The honourable member can form his own judgments. I am not saying that. But I am saying that, once again, there are many people in Australia in the private sector and particularly in State governments who support what the Government is doing. Several weeks ago I attended and chaired the Commonwealth-States meeting of construction Ministers in Perth. I informed them of the Government's intention to revitalise and restructure SMEC and they carried this motion on SMEC and they asked me to forward it on to Australia and to this House. It states: Ministers commented on the Corporation's valuable contribution to the States and its continuing need for involvement in Australia to provide an efficient base for its operations overseas. SMEC-- this view was unanimous, and included the Queensland and Tasmanian Ministers- could play a valuable role in maintaining a core of expertise in areas such as dam design, where workloads in individual States were too small to warrant maintaining a design capability. Once again this Opposition is at odds with its political counterparts in State government. Once again it is denigrating the role of a highly successful public enterprise. This Government is committed to increasing our capacity to export our engineering skills; it is committed to the continuance of SMEC as a viable Corporation and it is committed to the continuance of SMEC as it carries out its role in making a very firm and worthwhile contribution to the expansion of Australian engineering skills by the private sector in this country. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. 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) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Mildren, J. B. Hodges, J. C.Hayden, W. G. Carlton, J. J.Jenkins, H. A. Fife, W. C.Dawkins, J. S. Tuckey, C. W.Darling, E. E. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.58) —I indicated during my speech on the second reading that we would have two divisions in the Committee stage, but that will not now be the case. I wanted particularly to speak at some length in relation to the expanded powers and functions of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation as set out in the Bill and also to cover some of the matters referred to in the extensive address on the legal aspects by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). The Opposition wishes to respond to two completely erroneous and misleading claims made by the Government in this debate. The first is the fundamental fact that this Opposition is not out to 'kill Cooma'. In fact, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) stands condemned by the editorial in the Cooma-Monaro Express of 23 April this year, which says about SMEC: It does not even have proper premises, split as it is between the doomed old weatherboard building in Cooma North and the limited time span conglomeration at Back Creek. The Minister is also the Minister in charge of matters that are referred to the Public Works Committee and matters that are exempted. Since the Hawke socialist Government came to power there has not been one proposal brought into this Parliament by this Minister, or anyone on his behalf, to give SMEC proper facilities. The Minister can say what he likes about me, but the editorial in the Cooma-Monaro Express seems to indicate that the 'kill Cooma' move is, in fact, within the ranks of the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke socialist Government. Secondly, I point out to the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) that I was not in this Parliament in 1970. I do not know whether he needs a new pair of glasses. To suggest that, because in 1970 the Government of Mr John Gorton took a view, we would be bound by that view in 1985 is simply not factual argument with any validity at all. We are in this debate hoisting our colours to the mast so that each and every Australian can see that we are committed to smaller government, lower taxation and transferring whenever and wherever practicable upon our return to government those public sector operations which should be transferred to private enterprise. We have been commended editorially and supported by the profession. The thing that staggers me is that this Minister does not even seem to know the official view of private enterprise professional engineers in Australia. I know what these people have told the Minister. They have complained bitterly about the fact that they have been subjected to unfair competition. In those circumstances, the Minister's failure to indicate to the House the view of private enterprise is a dereliction of duty. Our opposition to this Bill is based on a simple premise: We will be able to reduce the tax burden on the average Australian worker only if we cut back on government spending. We will do that, and the workers of Australia will see that we are genuine and that our commitment is real. Unfortunately, the Hawke socialist Government, the biggest spending, heaviest taxing government in the history of this country, will fleece and fleece and fleece the workers of Australia to provide the revenues to fund its expansive and extravagant socialist policies. We will not have a bar of that and that is why we stand firm on every point we have made, even though the Government did not see its way clear to respond to any of the arguments put by any of the Opposition speakers in this debate. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.03) —I understand that the Opposition has requested this Committee stage to oppose clause 6. I will deal with that in a moment, but first I will take up a couple of the points put by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Firstly, on the issue of new headquarters for SMEC, it will be up to the Corporation to take some commercial decisions about its new headquarters. I know that it wishes to move its operations totally to the Back Creek site from North Cooma. In fact, the North Cooma component is to be consolidated into the Back Creek site. Eventually I expect the Corporation will have a totally new headquarters there. The pace at which it moves towards that and the construction of early buildings will be the subject of recommendations to SMEC by the new Board. That, of course, is the intent of this Bill. I was totally surprised by the attitude of the Opposition to the Bill in general and now its opposition to clause 6. Mr Hodgman —We are dealing with the Bill as a whole. Mr WEST —I thought the honourable member said the Opposition was opposing clause 6 and the Bill as a whole. Mr Hodgman —Because the Government wants this matter dealt with quickly, we are dealing with the Bill as a whole. We are not taking the Committee to a division on clause 6. Mr WEST —The Opposition opposes the Bill as a whole, implying that it opposes clause 6. Clause 6 is the heart of the Bill. It provides for the expansion of SMEC's operations. Importantly, as far as the private sector is concerned it is incumbent upon SMEC to expand its activities; as far as practicable to involve Australian engineering firms in the private sector in the performance of its functions overseas; and to promote the interests of the Australian engineering industry-that is, the private sector-overseas. I cannot imagine why the Opposition wants to oppose this clause. As I said, its State counterparts certainly do not support the Opposition. The reaction of the private engineering sector is, at the worst, mixed. Those involved are concerned that there might be increased competition in Australia as a result of this Bill, but they are certainly not unhappy about the proposal to involve them in extra work overseas as a result of SMEC's operations. I shall quote from a telex I received from the Australian Professional Consultants Council. This is a very influential organisation which represents private engineering consultancies. It states: . . . APCC acknowledges and respects SMEC's long and well regarded experience as a 'flagship' for the carriage overseas of Australian consulting skills. A number of the private sector member practices of APCC have benefited, and continue to benefit, by associating with SMEC on international projects. Over time this has resulted-as it should-in an increased ability on the part of these firms to go on to win and carry out international projects in their own right. The telex continues: . . . the proposed enhancement of SMEC's activities overseas, the involvement with it in such work of other Australian organisations and the Government's general desire for promotion overseas of the interests of the Australian engineering industry. APCC supports this emphasis and sees it as being in the interests of a co-ordinated 'Australia incorporated' approach to the highly competitive market for international projects that our members give their individual support to, and work alongside, the Corporation. Given Australia's parlous overseas trade situation, logic decrees that a 'united we stand, divided we fall'. . . . The Opposition says that there is absolutely no support in the private sector for this Bill. That is just not so. The Bill indicates what APCC is really talking about. Clause 6 of the Bill states that SMEC shall: (c) promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry. That is really what APCC is talking about. Once again, the Opposition has been exposed as having very little support within the industry, the community and the States. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr West)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 concurrently with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(12.10) —The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill are supplementary to the Budget provisions and they are not opposed by us. However, we are highly critical of the way the Government is dealing with education. These Bills form part of the testimony to the litany of broken promises and of expectations destroyed by this Government in the field of education. In typical Labor fashion, extravagant promises were made concerning education policy in order to win government, but having created high expectations, the Government has, of course, betrayed those who voted for Labor on the basis of its education policy. In fact, it is in breach of promises to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Government has been waging a war on non-government schools both financially and bureaucratically and in doing so it is hurting many low and middle income families who wish to send their children to non-government schools. The Government is putting higher education at risk. It has created some new places but has not provided adequate funding to help teachers educate the additional pupils. Teacher-pupil ratios have risen to levels detrimental to the education of those for whom additional places have been found. Moreover, 30,000 qualified students believed that the Government would find places for them in higher education and they now find that no places are available. They and their parents are very disillusioned as a consequence of Labor's broken promises. By contrast, they, and other students in our higher but overcrowded educational institutions, would be eligible for the open university which the coalition parties promised at the last elections and which we will implement when we win the next election. Since time limits of 10 minutes have been imposed on all speakers in this debate, I conclude my remarks by saying that the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), to the extent that she is able in her 10 minutes, will make some specific criticisms which are supported by the entire Opposition. When this matter goes before the Senate, the shadow Minister, Senator Peter Baume, will have the luxury of more time in which to place on record the Opposition's-and I submit the community's-concerns about the education policies of this Government to which these Bills and others relate. Senator Baume will then ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) many questions to which Australians are entitled to have detailed answers. Mr LEE(Dobell)(12.13) —I support the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Eduation Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. I intend to confine my remarks to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill. This Bill will increase Commonwealth grants to government and non-government schools to maintain the real value of funds provided to schools. Thirteen years ago I attended my first political meeting at Miranda picture theatre. At the time, Malcolm Fraser was the McMahon Government's Minister for Education and the question of funding to non-government schools was a controversial political issue. Mr Barry Jones —He had Science too, poor man. Mr LEE —He had Education and Science. The theatre was packed to capacity to hear a special guest speaker, Mr Bob Hawke, then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Bob Hawke spoke in support of the Labor candidate for Cook. I am happy to record that in the subsequent election, that candidate was elected as the member for Cook. I recall that many people could not enter the packed theatre because police were concerned that the large number of people crowded into the upstairs gallery would threaten the theatre's structural strength. This demonstrates that our Prime Minister won the trust and the support of the Australian people many years ago, and I can assure the House that he will continue to receive their support long after the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has lost the support of honourable members opposite. I clearly recall that amongst the people who were present at the meeting at the Miranda picture theatre in September 1972 were several demonstrators from a group known as the Council for the Defence of Government Schools, commonly known as DOGS. When a representative of DOGS attacked the present Prime Minister for not supporting the abolition of all Federal funds to private schools, he accused the group of seeking to divide the Australian community with hate. I also recall reading a brochure written by Malcolm Fraser which was placed under the windscreeen wipers of cars parked near Catholic churches in the electorate of Cook. This brochure claimed that if the Australian Labor Party's needs-based policy of education funding to non-government schools were implemented it would result in massive cuts in grants to private schools. During the Whitlam years, under one of Australia's greatest Ministers for Education, Kim Beazley, funding for all schools in need was massively increased with the aim of providing all Australian children with equal opportunity. Needs-based education funding was introduced in 1973, despite the opposition of the Liberal Party. It is interesting to note that in the Senate on 8 May 1984 the Liberal shadow Minister for Education, Senator Peter Baume, paid tribute to Gough Whitlam when he referred to 'Gough Whitlam's very honourable role in defusing the state aid debate'. Senator Baume paid tribute to Gough Whitlam because he helped to defuse the sectarian debate which Senator Baume's political party, the Liberal Party, sought to use to divide the Australian community to obtain short term political gain. The equity of the principle of needs-based funding to private schools was so widely accepted by 1975 that the Fraser Government could never return to the scandalous flat rate per capita grants system of the McMahon years. However, the Fraser Government sought to chip away at the needs-based funding principle. From 1976 until 1982 general recurrent grants to government schools were cut in real terms by 6 per cent. Capital grants to government schools were cut in real terms by 35 per cent. From 1976 to 1983 per capita grants to the wealthiest non-government schools increased by about 120 per cent, while the poorest non-government schools received an increase of only 60 per cent. During the Fraser years additional resources were given to those schools and those children least in need. The current Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan, has redressed this imbalance. Recurrent grants to non-government schools are now based on a fairer and more comprehensive approach to need. Non-government schools are classified on the basis of their income from private sources into 12 funding categories which allow for a more equitable distribution to schools on the basis of need. In August of last year the Government announced increases in real terms in recurrent funding over the next eight years for government and non-government schools. They amounted to real increases of $165m or 50 per cent for government schools, and $105m or 17 per cent for non-government schools, with the first four years' funding to be guaranteed in legislation. The 12-category scheme and the funding formula for categorising non-government schools received wide support when announced by the Government last year following advice from the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Senator Ryan has directed that the small number of schools which have been reclassified into a reduced grant category will continue to receive their present level of funding in dollar terms. This will allow them time to adjust to the effects of the redistribution which the new scheme has achieved. Most other schools will receive substantial real increases in funding. Category 12 schools, for example, will receive increased grants of up to 36 per cent in real terms by 1992. Funding for all categories will be increased for inflation over the funding period, allowing for the same level of funding to be maintained in real terms even for schools in categories 1 and 2. Some honourable members opposite may argue that there is no inequality in Australia's education system. The retention rates to year 12 in 1981 are a very good indicator. The percentage of students who commenced education and who remain until year 12, according to a study carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1981, was only 29 per cent for government schools. It was 46 per cent for Catholic schools and 89 per cent for non-Catholic private schools. A second study in 1982 suggests that a student at a non-Catholic private school has a 260 per cent greater chance of reaching year 12 than a student at a government school. A student at a non-Catholic private school also has a 170 per cent greater chance of reaching year 12 than a student at a Catholic school. A student at a non-Catholic private school has an 870 per cent greater chance of gaining entrance to a medical faculty than a student at a government school. A student at a non-Catholic private school has a 580 per cent greater chance of gaining entrance to a medical faculty than a student at a Catholic school. These figures demonstrate the inequality which still exists in our education system. I am sure the Minister's program of increasing funding to all schools in need will provide greater equality of opportunity for all Australian children. What alternative education policies does the Opposition put up for discussion? I draw the attention of the House to the following article published in the Melbourne Age on 13 October last year under the headline 'Liberals would consider selling schools': An Opposition frontbencher yesterday raised the prospect of Government schools being closed and sold off under the coalition's so-called ''privatisation'' policy. The Opposition's spokesman on the environment and the public service, Mr David Connolly, launched a paper recommending the progressive privatisation-or takeover of public sector activities by the private sector-of education. . . . It repeats Liberal Party policy to sell off ''prime targets'' like TAA, the equipment and installation activities of Telecom, the Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private), the Australian Industries Development Corporation and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The earlier policy also mentioned the Commonwealth Bank for possible sale . . . The concept of selling schools is mentioned as an example. The report recommends that a coalition Government ''consider various means (not only sale) of transfer to the private sector. For example, education can be progressively privatised by assisting parents to make their own choice . . . States Grants Education Legislation States Grants Education Legislation States Grants Education Legislation States Grants Education Legislation States Grants Education Legislation States Grants Education Legislation States Grants Education Legislation Questioned on the implications of the recommendation, Mr Connolly emphasised that the closure and sale of public schools was up to the States. 'If I was sensible I would not even buy into it,' he said. Perhaps the last sentence is an understatement. The Opposition therefore intends to sell schools as well as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Trans Australia Airlines, Medibank Private, Telecom Australia, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. I was staggered to hear the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in an earlier debate today describe the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation as 'a pocket of privilege and a job protection cartel'. I am sure the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Snow) would like the honourable member for Deakin to visit Cooma as often as possible during the next election campaign. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has placed all employees of statutory authorities and all staff at government schools on notice. The statutory authorities, their employers, are to be flogged off to the highest bidder. The Opposition appears to have adopted Margaret Thatcher's privatisation policies. In their desire to cripple the public sector the Liberal Party dries opposite should remember that the Thatcher Government has succeeded in achieving massively increased unemployment and a falling standard of living. I know that the Parliament's only true socialist party, the National Party of Australia-it is sad to note that there are no members of the National Party present in the House-will not allow the dries in the Liberal Party to attack any of the government enterprises which assist the rural community. I hope that the Opposition uses its many future years in opposition to reconsider and abandon its privatisation policies. Before I conclude I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very important event to be held in my electorate on Sunday, 26 May. On that day the Mater Dei College, the first Catholic high school within my electorate, will be solemnly blessed by Archbishop Clancy. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, will officially open the school. Before the Mater Dei College moved to Tuggerah, students had to travel great distances to St Edwards, Gosford. I extend my congratulations and best wishes to the Principal, Sister Judith Sippel, the staff and all students of Mater Dei College. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(12.25) —By voluntary arrangement, our time today is limited to 10 minutes. Therefore, I am very reluctant to spend any of my precious time toppling the tiny trees that grew in the speech of the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee). However, a couple of things he said cannot pass without comment. I will read his speech with interest, because it seems to me that the statistics he presented in relation to retention rates in the various categories of schools, as he chose to describe them, could be interpreted in a variety of ways. I would suggest that the honourable member for Dobell ought to explore all those possibilities and make himself clear, or else he will open himself to a representation of his views in a way which may not be entirely accurate, albeit that representation will be done without malice which is more than I can say about his misrepresentation of the Opposition's policy on education. The honourable member for Dobell is not the spokesman for the Opposition on education, and he is a pretty poor spokesman for the Government. I want to point out two salient points to him. He made reference to trends in education funding under the Fraser Government and referred to cuts in government school programs. I suggest to the honourable member for Dobell that he should make some analysis of what he referred to as cuts that might have been contributed to by the effect of the disadvantaged schools program which was initiated under the Whitlam Government and continued by the Fraser Government. People came to expect, after a decade, that there may be some result from the disadvantaged schools program, as indeed there was. Massive sums of money were pumped into it and there was an effect and a scaling down, and they had a right to expect that. On the other hand, the honourable member referred to the increase in non-government school funding, and indeed there was. Under the Fraser government there was a recognition of the principle that there should be basic funding for all students attending properly accredited schools in this country. The basic sum of money given for students in non-government schools, expressed as a percentage, is 20 per cent of the cost of educating a student in a government school. That was a fair system, which led to an increase in funding for non-government schools, but did not disadvantage the government schools sector. We are debating cognately the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. These Bills relate to financial provisions for schools, tertiary education and the participation and equity program. As such, the ambit of these Bills embraces almost the entire education policy and program of the Government. The schedules to the Bills list the total sums of money given under each of those three categories of headings for the entire calendar year 1985. I make the point in passing that funding in these programs is, of course, on a calendar year basis, not a financial year basis, so that they express the financial commitment of the Government to education in Australia for 1985 and those finances embrace the whole ambit of the Government's policies. I refer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who represents in this place the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. He said: These arrangements provide school systems and authorities with the confidence to plan ahead in the knowledge that grants will be maintained in real terms. What a cruel statement. If there is one thing that the non-government school sector lacks at the moment, it is confidence. There are two principal reasons for this. One has been the release of a report entitled 'Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools' by the Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners, set up by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, with a charter to indicate under what circumstances there ought or ought not to be funding of new non-government schools in Australia. That report was tabled in Parliament in March. It still lies before this Parliament. It will not be debated as such, but its contents are entirely relevant to this debate. The second aspect that causes this crisis of confidence in this very important sector of education in Australia today-the non-government sector-is the new categories for schools that were announced by the Minister in the last couple of weeks. I hasten to add, because the Opposition has been misrepresented on this on so many occasions, that the fact that I choose in the limited time available to concentrate my comments on the crisis facing non-government schools funding in Australia today does not mean that the Opposition pays no heed to the government sector-not at all. Huge sums of money were given to the government schools sector under our Government and we are fully committed to continued funding of government schools. However, the policies of this Government, which seek to disadvantage the non-government schools sector, cause us great concern. We must speak on behalf of that sector and on behalf of students in schools throughout Australia about the effects that these policies will have. The role of the private sector in education is to make a contribution to total standards of education. In that event, it is no different from other areas where we have dual systems, public and private; for example, hospital systems. I have over the past 11 years represented, either in whole or in part, the State of Queensland. I have had occasion in that time to speak in the Commonwealth Parliament on the subject of health funding. I mention that since Queensland is the only State with lengthy experience of a free public hospital system. The reason standards in that State were maintained at the level they were has been the co-existence of a very strong private sector. The fact that there was real choice under our health policies and people had real access to the alternative meant that there was pressure on the Queensland State Government and the Commonwealth Government to keep up standards in the public sector. Any pressure on the private sector which results in it not being available at a reasonable price to the general population, will mean a decline of that sector. It will mean that a larger and larger percentage of the population will not have a real choice and will lead inevitably to a decline in standards in the public sector. Mr MacKellar —And higher costs. Mrs SULLIVAN —And higher costs, as I am reminded by the honourable member for Warringah. It is in the interests of the public sector of education that the private sector also plays its part. Competition places pressure to perform on both sectors. In non-government schools the charging of fees is an incentive to be at least as good as the government schools sector. So far as the government schools are concerned, choice plays a part in maintaining standards in those schools, not only in teaching but also in facilities and funding. The community has specifically expressed its belief that there is a need for schools with moral objectives as part of its educational function. The Government ignores at its peril that there is a very large percentage of parents in Australia who believe that the spiritual and moral development of our children has a place in the classroom and who recognise the important role schools and teachers play in a child's moral development as well as that played by parents. I refer briefly to the report I mentioned earlier, and one of its recommendations. I reiterate: I hope that we have a chance to debate this report in the House in the future. The report states: In making those judgments, consideration will need to be given to a range of factors including . . . planned development of government and non-government schooling in growing areas in the context of an overall balance of school enrolments in government and non-government schools. The panel recognises that the determination of an appropriate ''balance'' is a difficult task. And well it might. The report goes on: . . . the consideration of a broad range of possibilities for the planned rationalisation of facilities and services both within and between sectors. The Government has totally endorsed the recommendations of that report. The Government moves intrusively and with a view to restricting the growth of the non-government sector on the basis of the recommendations of a report from a Commission it set up, whose terms of reference and objectives were set by the Government itself. Although I would like to say more about this report I must move on, to deal briefly with the tertiary area and the participation and equity program. The role of the tertiary sector in education in Australia has never been more important, with the demands of the technological revolution and the quite violent change it has led to in the area of employment. The Government has placed pressure on tertiary institutions to provide more places, without allocating the necessary additional funds. The Minister for Education, with a wave of her hand and some fine words, has said that the Government has provided 3,000 additional places. It has directed tertiary institutions to provide 3,000 additional places without giving the commensurate amount of funds. Finances in tertiary education, particularly in universities and colleges of advanced education, are worse under the Hawke Government than they were under the Fraser Government. Those institutions are feeling the squeeze. Why does the Government not give the funds necessary to provide for the places it says should be provided? One reason at least is that it will not look at other sources of revenue for tertiary institutions under any circumstances. Senator Ryan recently had a pyrrhic victory on the subject of fees. However, her rhetoric will let her down when it comes to the implementation of her policy. She has brought herself undone. In relation to the participation and equity program, I recommend to honourable members the speech given on 7 November 1983 on behalf of the Minister for Education by the then Minister for Finance which outlines the objectives of this worthy program. Time does not permit me to quote from it at any length. I will just give one brief extract. The Minister said: The participation and equity program will be a central part of the overall framework of youth policies that the Government is developing. Its twin objectives of increasing participation in education and of introducing greater equity in our overall provision for young people reflect the Government's basic priorities for meeting the needs of young people. I contrast that sentiment with the words and action of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Tuesday night in this place. When introducing cuts in the Forward Estimates, the Treasurer said: The Government has to determine priorities . . . Looking at the cuts that have been introduced, we see that the participation and equity program has a very low priority because the forward estimates in this area have been cut effectively by 14.6 per cent. There will be a negative growth in the participation and equity program next year. I conclude on this point: What these Bills portend for the future, when described in terms of the Government's policies in all areas of education, is typical of the Australian Labor Party in opposition and in government. In opposition it promises the earth on matters relating to education. In government it beggars the country. It trims the edges of its programs without facing the central issues of its basic approach to the economy. By refusing to face this central issue it reduces standards in the education sector in this country, which is something we can ill afford. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.38) —In supporting the package of Bills-the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills-I will focus my attention on the technical and further education sector and raise some concerns about the funding priorities of the Government in the provision of post-secondary education. The TAFE sector has the most economic delivery of all the tertiary education fields. The cost of putting a full time student through a college of advanced education is currently approximately $6,500 a year. For a university student the cost rises to around $8,500 a year. In the case of a TAFE the cost is approximately $180 a year. I accept that the different sectors are not directly comparable but, even allowing for error, TAFE by and large has a very economical delivery of its education services. Another point about technical and further education is that it is relevant. It draws much of its strength from the fact that people who instruct in that field come from industry and have a practical knowledge of what they are teaching. In my home State of Western Australia TAFE offers 3,000 subjects in over 500 different courses. Its flexibility may be seen in that it can arrange courses on demand. If new technology is introduced into the operations of an industry, it can call on the technical and further education sector to mount a special course. I was involved in conducting such courses prior to entering Parliament. Looking back at the TAFE sector, as it is now known, in the post-war period Australia went through rapid economic growth. The technical education division, as it was then known, did not have much to do because we imported most of our tradesmen. It never really had to meet a challenge until the country went into recession, people were becoming unemployed, and for the first time we had to provide education for our tradesmen instead of importing them as we had done in the past. In many ways, the 1950s and the 1960s were decades of lost opportunity. At a time when we could have been training our local people to take on the role of tradesmen we were content to import tradesmen at will and allow Australians to take up other jobs. In the last 10 years, certainly since the Whitlam period, TAFE has really gone ahead in leaps and bounds. That is due in no small way to the part played by the Minister for Education at the time, Mr Kim Beazley Senior, who for the first time conducted a thorough research into TAFE. He commissioned the Kangan report on Technical and Further Education in Australia. Many of the recommendations in that report started to flow into the technical and further education sector, and have really bolstered it. Like all people who take an interest in education, I was a little disappointed that cuts are to be made to TAFE capital funding. I understand that when cuts have to be made they have to be made across the board, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has assured us that the States will be asked to share some responsibility for capital funding. I am confident that, if they set their priorities right, the effect of these cuts will be minimal. I turn now to a subject I raised about this time last year in debate on similar Bills. I refer to the provision of free education in universities and CAEs. I stated then that I did not believe free education was achieving its purpose, and nothing I have seen in the past year has altered my view. Many working class people do not get to the tertiary sector because, by and large, disadvantaged children do not perceive a significant advantage in tertiary education. It is my belief that if it is our goal to make sure that tertiary education is available to all sections of society, we have to start not at the top, at the universities and CAEs, but down at the primary and secondary schools. The honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) referred to some figures that point to the truth of what I am saying. Those kids who go to the private schools, who can buy a so-called better education, by and large are the recipients of the benefits of the free education system at the tertiary level. I welcome the call of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for a discussion on this subject. We should have a really good look at where we are going in providing free tertiary education. A paper I have seen that was distributed by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) points to the fact that the student body has not changed greatly in the last 10 years. Having said that, I think there is a need for some type of means testing and for targeting to make sure that people who obviously cannot afford to get into tertiary institutions are able to get there with government assistance. I do not think that throwing money at everybody who wants to go into a tertiary institution is necessarily the most effective or efficient way of ensuring delivery of tertairy education to all who want to take advantage of it. It will be a tough decision if the Prime Minister goes ahead with it, but this Government has certainly shown that it can make tough decisions. In the tertiary fees debate all members of the Government were aware of the powerful education lobby. Within the Australian Labor Party it is held fairly sacrosanct by some sections. We had floods of telegrams and letters from the education lobby and the teachers' unions urging us to keep free tertiary education. I am one Government member who is prepared to stand up and say that we should start looking at whether it is achieving its objective, which was stated almost 10 years ago. Another aspect of that debate-I think the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) touched on it-is that where government funding of tertiary institutions is the only form of income, there are constraints on spending in tertiary education. Under a conservative government, if it were ever to make cuts across the board, as the Treasurer did, it could cut the funds to CAEs quite significantly and thereby disadvantage them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Canning has leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.45) —Last night I was set down to speak on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill, but because of the desire to get Parliament up at the end of next week I was one of those removed from the speakers list. I take this opportunity today to correct that injustice. The Bill passed through this Parliament off the air and unnoticed but ostensibly the Government has put through a Bill under the title of Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill to allow Telecom Australia and police to work together and tap telephone calls of distress. For instance, a caller might say he or she is about to commit suicide. The Government has now given-with the concurrence of this side of the House-permission for such a call to be traced so that the authorities concerned can go to that person's home or to the source of the call. The tapping of telephone calls is a subject in which I have displayed an interest virtually since my arrival in this House in 1966. I have been consistently opposed to the widespread use of telephone tapping. I have gone along over the years with the gradual changes that have come about, but of great tragedy last evening was the fact that the Government missed the opportunity to implement the promise made by this nation's Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) only some weeks ago that the Government would extend telephone tapping to State police forces to enable them to tune in to drug trafficking in this country. I do not quite understand the attitudes of Labor governments to this subject. Newspaper reports suggest that the Cain Government in Victoria is totally opposed to State police having the right to tap, and they suggest that the New South Wales Labor Government wants telephone tapping and that it does not want it. Last night the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) stated that none of the States have asked for it. I am of the view that it has become a political hot potato for the Australian Labor Party and it is simply pushing it to one side instead of coming to a decision. That is a great pity because had a decision been made last night the legislation would have been law within the next few weeks. I speak as one who has been totally consistent in years gone by in my opposition to telephone tapping; but circumstances in Australia have changed so dramatically, particularly in regard to the damage being done by those who traffic in drugs, that we have to change our traditional views on this subject. Drug damage has reached into the very homes of people well known even in Parliament House. Their children have been affected. We are told by newspaper reports of statements that the Hawke Federal Government had intended to implement changes to allow State police forces to have this authority. But we also read that the Government Caucus legal and administrative committee opposes the idea. The supposedly right wing members of that committee are Senator Richardson, Senator Evans, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) and, from North Queensland, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). Then, from the Centre Left-one needs a sharp mind to follow all the Labor Party factions-we have Senator Colston, Senator Tate, the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Bowman. I have not quite been able to work out the difference between the Centre Left and the Left. The left wing members on this committee are Senator Bolkus, Senator Coates, Senator Zakharov, Senator Cooney, Senator Giles and also the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott). I have no doubts as to the political leanings of the last group, but I share and understand probably more than anyone else on this side of the House their reservations and concerns about the wholesale granting of the right to tap telephones. I have gone out on a limb in my own party over the years on this very subject, so I do understand the reservations they feel. However, I believe we have come to a stage where it is absolutely crazy, in the mid-1980s, to deny State police the right to tap into the telephone calls of perhaps the most horrible people in this country-those who traffic in death. That is all they are doing. All they want is the dollar and they do not give a damn about the effects on the people who are hooked on the drug scene. These traffickers are the scum of our society. I have no hesitation in stating that. Obviously that Labor Party committee is very powerful. It caused the Prime Minister to turn away from his public announcement that the Government would give State police this authority. I can understand its reservations, but I will put to the Government measures which I believe the committee could accept. We missed a golden opportunity last night. The Bill passed through this chamber and will not come back from the Senate for months. In that time thousands more people could be introduced to the drug scene as a result of the marketers of drug products going undetected because of a decision taken in this House to sidestep the issue. We already have controls on the system in that when members of the Australian Federal Police want to tap they have to get permission from the judiciary. Not for one moment-I share here the views of Labor Party members-do I say that I trust 100 per cent of the police, but if authority were given-- Mr Cleeland —How many per cent? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am in no position to judge but estimates are that 85 to 90 per cent of police are as straight as can be. Those men will even lay down their lives in the course of duty to save citizens in this country. But there is that other percentage that sometimes misuses the powers it possesses. I believe that the suggestion that tapping should have to have judicial approval is a good one but over recent years we have from time to time seen judges on charges, so I do not trust all the judiciary either. I do not necessarily accept that they are all straight and free of corruption. I believe that that is the way this Labor Party committee thinks. If we introduce another system whereby reports on phone tapping by State police forces have to be given by the various States to the nation's Attorney-General and to the Leader of the Opposition of the day, we might overcome a lot of the fears that obviously have been voiced in the Australian Labor Party. It is time the Government got its act together, wrestled with this very difficult problem and brought in measures to ensure that the use of phone tapping can be extended to investigations into drug trafficking. This report system is already adopted in regard to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which reports to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(12.56) —I wish to follow on from my remarks of last Tuesday in relation to milk entitlement manipulation engaged in by leading members of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia. Today I bring to the House's attention another rort exercised by a National Party Minister. When introducing the Milk Act in 1977 the then Queensland Minister, Mr Sullivan, said: The main concern of the Bill, of course, is to achieve a more equitable share of market milk for dairy farmers. The Act established a Milk Entitlements Committee of the Queensland Milk Board to carry out this objective. Briefly, the system was that all milk processors and dairy farmers were allocated a market milk entitlement. If a dairy farmer dropped out of the industry part of his share of market milk-his entitlement-would revert to a common pool for distribution to disadvantaged suppliers. The House will recall that on Tuesday I tabled a set of documents relating to milk entitlement manipulation. Mr Leo McLeay —Devastating documents. Mr BEDDALL —Very much so. One of the documents was a memo dated 8 October 1982, in which the then Queensland Primary Industry Minister, Mr Ahern, approved a milk entitlement manipulation against the advice of his Department. He said: I ask that it be considered as the last one before 'the gate closes'. Despite the Minister's promise to close the gate, we find in a letter dated 20 April 1983 the Milk Entitlements Committee requesting advice from the Department of Primary Industries about a transfer of dairy registration on some 305 hectares from Herringe Research and Development Pty Ltd to Maralinga Pty Ltd, which purchased 38.86 hectares of the property. On 29 April 1983 the Acting Director of Dairying and Fisheries, Mr Crittall, indicated that the entitlement had now fully passed to Maralinga Pty Ltd. The entitlement passed to the 38.86 hectares purchased. The title was in turn transferred one kilometre away to the existing Maralinga property. The existing dairy was then closed down. Honourable members might well ask why this was done when the Minister had indicated on 8 October 1982 that there would be no more cases like this. Perhaps it had everything to do with Maralinga Pty Ltd. Maralinga had seven shares. Two shares were held by company solicitors, three were held by the sons of the director and two were held by the director. The three sons were Graham Andrew Hinze, Lindsay Russell Hinze and Roderick James Hinze. Mr Simmons —Keep it in the family. Mr BEDDALL —Yes, keep it in the family. The director of course was Russell James Hinze-a quite well known Queensland Cabinet Minister. Maralinga Pty Ltd borrowed $3m from the European Asian of Australia Ltd bank and paid $1m for the 38 hectares. I would not waste the House's time speculating what might have happened to the other $2m. There is, however, another feature of this sordid affair. I refer to a memo from the Department of Primary Industries dated 24 January 1983. Mr McVeigh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will this dingo repeat these accusations outside the House? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no point of order. I caution the honourable member for Groom against raising frivolous points of order and taking up the time of the House, and in particular the time of the honourable member addressing the House. I certainly will not tolerate another frivolous point of order from the honourable member for Groom. Mr BEDDALL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Unlike the honourable member for Groom I owe my allegiance to the dairy farmers, not to the people in the National Party who protect their own vested interests. The memo states that Maralinga had installed two vats-one for supplying a south coast dairy, the other for supplying Queensland United Foods. Under the Queensland legislation at it then was, a dairy was licensed to supply milk to one processor. Hinze had a licence to supply QUF; Herringe had a licence to supply the south coast dairy. However, honourable members will recall that Hinze shut down the dairy on the former Herringe property. This meant that he should have placed the new milk with one dairy. Under the legislation he would have lost half his entitlement into the drop-out pool. For the other half he would have been paid $50 a litre. This would have been a tremendous loss on his $1m investment. However, in another exercise to bend the rules Hinze was able to supply milk to two processors. In this way he received the maximum amount of money from the entitlement for he did not have to build another dairy. Approval for such a bending of the rules lay with, among others, a Mr Allen Hollindale. Hollindale was an executive member of the south coast dairy. Indeed he was a former managing director, and it is worth noting that Mr Hinze is a previous chairman. Mr Simmons —Who was? Mr BEDDALL —Mr Hinze. Hollindale was also a member of the Milk Entitlements Committee, the same committee which okayed the Hinze entitlement transfer and the Holm entitlement transfer. More recently Hollindale was rejected by his own processor group for continuing his membership of the Milk Entitlements Committee. As things happen in Queensland, he was ultimately nominated to the Milk Entitlements Committee by a Governor-in-Council decision made on a recommendation of the Queensland Cabinet. Hollindale was therefore being extraordinarily useful to Hinze. As a result of the decisions by the committee Hollindale is on, the Hinze family benefits to the tune of at least $104,000 per annum. Honourable members are in for another surprise. Hollindale is the person Hinze nominated as Chairman of the Totalizator Administration Board in Queensland. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have to remind the House what happened to the former Chairman of the TAB in Queensland, Sir Edward Lyons. So this was the pay-off. Hinze gained an entitlement, supplied two processors, and Hollindale was to be the TAB Chairman. No wonder Mr Hinze worked so hard to get rid of Sir Edward Lyons. Yet here we have Hinze hoist with his own petard. He demanded, and received, the resignation of Sir Edward Lyons because he had bent the rules. I have now established quite clearly that Mr Hinze and his company did precisely the same thing. The Hinze family company gained a milk entitlement quota, worth around $104,000 per annum, by bending the rules. Mr Hinze should follow the same principle he set for Sir Edward Lyons. He should do the honourable thing and resign his portfolio. The whole matter is amounting to one of the biggest scandals in Queensland's history. We now find two senior National Party Ministers and a senior vice-president of the Federal management committee of the National Party engaged in, approving of or benefiting from a blatant bending of the milk entitlement rules. It is no good Mr Holm saying, as he did in yesterday's Courier-Mail, that he believed that the buyer had bought enough land to run a dairy, even though he had not bought the whole property. It is no good Mr Ahern resorting to the defence that he does not have to follow departmental advice; the advice showed him his actions were against Government policy. It is no good Bjelke-Petersen trying to sweep it all under the carpet. He should show some leadership and some consistency. He should demand three resignations. I say to the dairy farmers of Warwick: 'I will fight this every inch of the way. I need your assistance in ensuring that the National Party moves to protect your interests. Together we can beat these people who have tried to hold your incomes down for so long'. Mr Acting Speaker, I have just come into receipt of a transcript of a channel TVO Brisbane Eyewitness News interview last night. Mr Ahern is alleged to have said that after the first sale he shut the gate for future doubtful sales by using the new guidelines. I have just proved to the House that this is totally incorrect. I have the proof that this did not occur. I can only say that Mr Ahern is misleading the people of Queensland. I appeal to Mr Ahern to resign in dignity before he is thrown out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I call the honourable member for Wakefield. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the speech of the honourable member for Rankin an attempt was made by the honourable member for Groom to interrupt him with a spurious point of order. It was ruled out of order. At the same time he used terminology which was a very bad reflection on the honourable member for Rankin and I wish you to ask him, if he is prepared to come back into the House, to withdraw his remark. He called a member on this side a dingo and I expect that term to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have placed the Chair in some difficulty. I was not in the chair at that time. I hope the comments have been noted. Mr Shipton —I rise on the point of order to say that the honourable member for Groom is not in the chamber. It would have been fairer had he been here to answer the point of order when it was raised. I will make an effort to contact him. Mr Fitzgibbon —He ran out before he could answer. Mr Shipton —He did not. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, for two years I have been a member of this House; for two years I have sat in this seat and been berated by honourable members opposite over the performance of the previous Government. For two years I have had to listen to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to every other Minister and to every back bencher allege that under the Fraser Administration we suffered seven disastrous years. So often has this untruth been told on the airwaves of Australia that even Australians are beginning to believe that there could be some semblance of truth in it. I stand here this afternoon as one who was not part of that Government; as one who is able, therefore, to be objective about its performance and as one who wants to defend the role that that Government played, including the way in which it managed the national economy. Day after day in Question Time, questions produce not answers but invective as the Prime Minister chooses to use selected statistics to deride the performance of the former Government. Day after day selective statistics are used, as has been the case this week, in an endeavour to focus attention unfairly on the performance of the Queensland Government. In the light of the comments made on Tuesday night about the Hawke Government's alleged enthusiasm for reducing the present disastrous deficit it has run up, I want to make some timely and, I hope, bipartisan remarks about the performance of the national economy over the last three decades. I want not to take the short term expedient of selecting the odd year with which to be critical of a particular government but to look at what has happened to the nation's economy over the last 35 years. The truth of the matter is that the average real growth of Budget outlays was lower under the Fraser Government than under any other government over the last 35 years. In other words, government expenditure grew more slowly-sadly it still grew-under the Fraser Government than under any other government. Less taxpayers' money was demanded. Expenditure growth was highest under the Whitlam Government and it is now, under the Hawke Government, at its second highest level. I make the point that these are not selected years, not selected statistics; they are the statistics for a 35-year period. They show that under the Fraser Government expenditure grew by 2.2 per cent, while under Whitlam it grew by 11.1 and under Hawke by 7.1 per cent. They are average figures for all of the years of those governments. In fact, a graph of those figures shows two distinct humps-one hump marked W for Whitlam and another hump marked H for Hawke. It is easy for the members on the other side to say: 'Oh well, look at the chaotic situation we inherited', but that statement cannot be substantiated. Furthermore, the Hawke Government has been in office for almost two and a half years and it is time it recognised the fact that in but three months time it will have handed down its third Budget. The direction the national economy now takes is very much in its hands. In spite of the fact that it is about to hand down its third Budget the graph of government expenditure still goes straight up under Hawke. On Tuesday night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) attempted to placate those of us who are concerned about the way in which government spending is going. He indicated that he was prepared to cut $1.2 billion from the national accounts. But 1.2 billion dollars off what? No one really knows. It was just as though the Treasurer was offering us a discount on a used car without telling us the original price. While we applaud the efforts of the Treasurer to prune government expenditure, it is worth reminding the House that, in spite of all the efforts to keep increases in Commonwealth expenditure below the growth in the economy, in only eight of the last 17 Budgets has that been achieved and all those eight Budgets were brought down under the Liberal-National Party flag. If this is the direction the nation is taking when we are experiencing what are, in rural terms, relatively good years, what will we do with the economy when we face the sad inevitability of another drought? In real terms government spending in the three years of the Hawke Government has gone up 22 per cent at a time when we ought to have seen the deficit trimmed. Currently the Government acquires 42c in every dollar that Australians earn, and that is akin to the Government saying to the people of Australia: 'We need 42c of every dollar you earn because we can spend it more wisely than you can'. Can there be a more audacious assessment of a government than that? Sadly, the people most affected by this high borrowing, high taxing Government are exporters and those in small business-that is, principally those people who live in rural Australia. I grieve today on their behalf. The irony is that the people most disadvantaged by this excess spending are also the people most disadvantaged by Tuesday night's statement on spending restraint. Where did the spending restraint come from? It came initially from pruning $116m off the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme; so in all probability fuel will go up by another 4c a litre. In many of the grain growing areas of Australia fuel will have risen by up to 12c a litre since the last grain growing season. In the face of that sort of cost one could not blame a farmer, particularly one currently borrowing money in order to sow his crop, for hesitating to put a crop in. The same sort of attack was made on rural Australia when the Government announced on Tuesday night that it would abolish the liquefied petroleum gas subsidy, at a saving of $1.4m. If that was not enough, we have seen in the allocation for roads in Australia what the Treasurer called a saving of $60m. A saving? As far as I know we are still collecting the 2c levy on the Australian bicentennial road development scheme, but from somewhere we are saving $60m. It suggests to me that some of the money that was earmarked for roads in fact is not heading there at all. So those roads that carry the produce that is a part of our economic recovery will now fall further into disrepair. The railways that carry produce-that produce without which we cannot have an economic recovery-are also to have their operating subsidy reduced by $5.6m. The very system transporting our economic recovery will be allowed to suffer further degradation. The problem with Tuesday night's statement is the inequity of it-the inequity that is so characteristic, that is so much the hallmark, of this Government. The inequity that is personified by the assets test has been perpetuated by Tuesday night's economic statement. The isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme has been pruned, as has priority project funding. Sadly, Tuesday night was only the tip of a formidable iceberg. Two and a half years of deceit in this House is now coming home to roost. I plead this afternoon for the innocent people of rural Australia, who have been most affected by the economic mismanagement of this Government and by its attempt to redress that mismanagement on Tuesday evening. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do you claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. During the grievance debate, the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) made a statement and I used the words 'You are a dingo. Will you have the courage to repeat those statements outside the House?' Standing order 98 and page 441 of the twentieth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, state clearly-occupants of the chair have consistently ruled in this way-that, if a withdrawal is not required immediately, it is not encumbent on an honourable member to withdraw a remark he makes. I stayed in my seat for some two minutes because of my personal and deep understanding of the rules of this Parliament. I have cited the relevant sections in case you desire to question the accuracy of my statement. Obviously I thought that the honourable member himself took no offence at being called a dingo-naturally realising he is one-and I then left the chamber. Mr Cunningham —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: This is not a personal explanation; it is a further reflection on another member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Groom please withdraw that statement? Mr McVEIGH —I was just repeating the statement I made but, if it is considered to be offensive, I am happy to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please withdraw it. Mr McVEIGH —I am happy to withdraw. I understand that, in my absence, the Labor Party Deputy Whip who obviously does not understand the forms of the House and the procedures as I do- Mr Cunningham —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not a personal explanation. The honourable member is using up the time of the House although he has been asked to withdraw what he said. He has admitted he said it and the rule says he should withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I remind the honourable member for Groom that he is intruding on the time of the House. Mr McVEIGH —I just refer to standing order 98 and the 20th edition of May at page 441, which spells out clearly that if the person is offended he must ask for the withdrawal immediately. He did not make such a request. I waited for two minutes and I think it ill becomes someone to attack me in my absence-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Are you prepared to withdraw your remarks? Mr McVEIGH —No, because I do not have to. I have quoted the Standing Orders. The withdrawal must be requested immediately; it was not so requested. I waited for two minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am aware of the Standing Orders. Mr McVEIGH —I just stand by a strict observance of the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I realise that. The House will consider your action. I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(1.19) —In February 1942 the Japanese landed 6,000 experienced troops in Portuguese Timor, only 600 kilometres north of Darwin. They were opposed by some 300 'civilian-soldier Australians' of the 2nd/2nd Australian Independent Company. The Australians were forced back into the mountains where they organised a guerilla war, living off the country and carrying their wounded with them. I want to speak today of one of those wounded soldiers. I wish to convey an important message to this Parliament from one of those very courageous Australian soldiers, Private Allan Hollow. Australia's battle against the Japanese in Timor, only 600 kilometres from Darwin, was a battle of life or death for Australia. That particular struggle is well recorded in the book Independent Company by Bernard Callinan, who served as second-in-command of the 2nd/2nd Australian Independent Company and who was, until recently, chairman of the authority building the new Parliament House in Canberra. Private Allan Hollow, as he was in Timor, was a soldier who, after being seriously wounded, was carried through the jungle by his mates. His courage and spirit was referred to by Bernard Callinan in his book. He records: One of the wounded men with Laidlaw was Private Hollow, who had received a burst from a machine gun which had taken away the whole of his lower jaw. It did not seem that he could possibly live; the loss of blood would be sufficient to kill him yet he was carried from above Bizar-Tete through very rough country for three days before the doctor saw him. It was only his will power, and the careful attention of Corporal Luby . . . that made it possible. In the months to come, when the doctor was so frequently moving his hospital to avoid the Japanese attacks, the brightness and spirit of Hollow were inspirations to us all. During that time he had had to be fed lying on his back and with what eggs and milk the doctor could obtain for him. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have taken the time of the House to establish the very fine credentials of Allan Hollow so that the House may better appreciate the message I convey on his behalf. Allan Hollow is a quiet, unassuming person. I have had the great pleasure of meeting and getting to know him well enough now to say that we are friends. Allan recently came to my Hindmarsh electorate office and he was obviously very concerned about the developments in Queensland, and more particularly about the recent statement reported in the Press that Queensland Premier Bjelke-Petersen was out to get the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra. Allan wanted somehow to alert the Australian community to the dangers of allowing the Bjelke-Petersen Government to run riot in its attempts to destabilise and destroy the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra. I suggested to Allan that he put his views in a letter and that I would undertake to see it was delivered to Bjelke-Petersen and to the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Allan later returned to my office and I would now like this House to hear his words, which I believe would have the support of all fair-minded Australians: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Dear Sir, As a Voter, I strongly object to one man or a small group of men destroying a Government which has been elected by me and a majority of the Australian people under our democratic system. This is the very thing I fought for and served four years in the Australian Army during the Second World War, until I was invalided out of the Service in 1944. In my opinion, a government elected by a majority, should have the right to serve its term without interference by individuals in opposition parties, i.e. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who has stated publicly, that it is his ambition. This destroys the right of the people who voted the present Government into Canberra. When Australians have no rights for the party they voted for to serve out its allotted time, we no longer have a democracy. This has already happened once before, i.e. the 'Whitlam Government', and it would indeed be tragic to see it happen again. Yours faithfully, A. R. HOLLOW A democratic system is a very important thing and Australian soldiers, seamen and airmen fought to have such a system, not to have the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland destroy the democratically elected Hawke Labor Government in Canberra. I refer to Hansard at page 1834. In an answer to a question about the situation in Queensland, the Prime Minister said: We even had the remarkable observation on 27 April this year when the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Queensland Premier as having said that he sacked 1,000 striking linesmen in February as a way to confront the Federal Government. That is the confrontationism of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland. He deliberately sacked 1,000 men. For what reason? To provoke confrontation with the Australian Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that the Allan Hollows of Australia have well and truly earned their right to express their views and their concern that the democratic system they fought for, that many gave up their lives for, is under a sustained attack by the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland. The Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 has brought home to thinking Australians just how far this Bjelke-Petersen Queensland Government is attempting to go. Thinking Australians can and will see that the things that Allan Hollow and his mates fought and died for are under very serious threat by the Queensland Government. I want to make some references to Human Rights Commission Report No. 12, which investigates this Queensland legislation. Page 10, which deals with forced labour, states: In view of the Commission, paragraph 3 (b), and section 4 of the Act-- that is, the continuity of supply Act- place workers in the Electricity Commission and any Electricity Board in Queensland in a position where they can be coerced to work against their will, and be subject to a penalty if they refuse. They are therefore subjected to 'forced or compulsory labour'. Again on page 10 the report states, in relation to the threat of penalty: An employee who refuses to carry out the directions of the Electricity Commissioner, for any reason whatsoever, has the threat of a penalty over him or her and the work carried out under such circumstances would, in the opinion of the Commission, amount to work 'exacted . . . under the menace of a penalty'. on page 12 of that report the Commission says: It could possibly be argued that the Electricity Commissioner would be judicious in exercising the powers of direction under sections 3 and 4, and only invoke them when an emergency arises. The Commission has no hesitation in indicating its view that such an assurance (if given) would not satisfy the stringent tests laid down in international human rights practice. It concludes therefore that Australia would be held to have failed to comply with its international obligations under the ICCPR if the Act continues to be law in Queensland. On page 14 the Commission says in its findings: For the reasons given in the foregoing paragraphs of this Report the Commission is of the view that the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act 1985 infringes a number of Articles in the ICCPR. In so far as Article 8 of the ICCPR is concerned, the Commission finds that the Act breaches this Article in that it effectively places electricity workers employed by the State Electricity Boards and Commission at risk of being subjected to 'forced or compulsory labour'. I do not think that the young lads who put on uniforms to defend Australia for a free, democratic Australia fought and laid down their lives so that these kinds of freedoms, these democratic rights, should be taken away by the tyrannical government that we currently have in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(1.29) —I wish to expose the so-called cuts in the mini-Budget for what they are. I believe that those cuts are an exercise in singling out certain sections of the Australian community, particularly the rural sector-I do not just mean farmers, but people living in rural communities-and making substantial cuts in the Forward Estimates for those areas. I wish to protest on behalf of those thousands of country communities that have had a gutful of being singled out for the whiplash every time we have a mini-Budget or a Budget brought down by the Government. We had a taste of this in the Whitlam years. One would have thought that the Hawke Government would have learnt, following the mistakes of the Whitlam years, that there is a limit to what country people are prepared to take. I make it thoroughly clear that my Party strongly supports any effort that the Government might make to bring down government expenditure across the board and lower the Budget deficit but it is not prepared to sit by and allow people to be singled out, as they have been in this mini-Budget, without exposing the Government's sleight of hand tactics and the problems that it is likely to cause the people concerned. No real attempt has been made to take the action necessary to cut down abuse in the social welfare area. I give some credit to the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) for having had the courage to come out and support the identity card principle, a principle that members on both sides of this House have espoused for the purposes of the social welfare system. I hope that it will not be long before real efforts are made to try to reduce this degree of abuse just as efforts have been made to reduce the degree of tax avoidance taking place in the general taxation area. I also hope efforts are made to crack down on the cash economy for taxation purposes. There has been no real effort to grapple with the high costs of education or the issue of university fees or, for that matter, the high cost of Medicare. As some newspapers have reported, the people suffering most as a result of these selective budgetary cuts are those living in rural areas, the aged, the sick and children of pre-school age. To understand the real effects of Tuesday's economic statement we need to separate the actual cuts in 1984-85 expenditure from the cuts in the 1985-86 Forward Estimates. That is an interesting exercise because it reveals for all to see that rural Australians have once again been hit particularly hard by this Government. Actual cuts in expenditure in the 1984-85 Budget total $237.2m and not the $1,259m referred to. An amount of about $1,000m is principally in the Forward Estimates-the ambit bids by departments. Those bids, of course, are made each year and it is the responsibility of the Department of Finance, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to wind back some of the ambitious claims that are made by departments. Over 76 per cent, or $182.3m, of the $273m of actual cuts in money terms to 1984-85 Budget expenditures will hit the rural sector. Let me detail some of the cuts. Roads expenditure will be cut by $60m. Most of that cut will take effect in the rural areas of Australia. The aerodrome local ownership plan, a plan designed to encourage local government, particularly, in association with the Commonwealth Government to upgrade airports in country areas, will be cut by $4.4m. The allocation for water resources will be cut by $1.3m, and the fuel freight subsidy scheme by $109.8m in net terms. The liquefied petroleum gas subsidy will be scrapped to the tune of $6.8m. It is one cutback after another for country people. If there was an element of even-handedness in the Government's approach to its Budget deficit problems, perhaps the Treasurer would be standing on stronger ground. As it is, this Government's approach is to bleed the non-metropolitan minority of the Australian community and worry about the other sectors of the economy at some time in the future. Take LPG, for example. The termination of the subsidy follows the move last year to slash payments under the scheme from $80 per tonne to $21.31 per tonne-a 75 per cent cut. I believe it is a shabby exercise, because rural Australians are being singled out and they are rapidly becoming among the more depressed people in the Australian community. Many will have to pay substantially more for fuel. It is not just the farmers who are affected, but the people living in country towns and villages as well as other parts of my electorate and electorates right throughout country areas who have to travel enormous distances for ordinary medical, legal and other services. Increases of up to 4c a litre can be expected in many of these areas after the decision takes effect next Tuesday. The wheat and grain growers, the sugar producers, the rice growers and others who are struggling to make ends meet will have to continue to face further rises in prices. Since this Government came to office distillate and petrol costs have increased by 32.5 per cent. Already we are having difficulty trying to match overseas competition in our export markets. Farmers are amongst the largest per capita users of fuel, and fuel is one of their greatest expenses. These cuts are illusory. They are based on nothing more than the wish bids of departments totalling about $1,000m, and there is no guarantee the cuts will be achieved because departments come back and bid for more from time to time. If the Government is in a weak mood, they are sure to get it. There is no guarantee, for instance, that the Belconnen Mall will be sold. I think it should be; we tried to sell it and I wish the Government luck. These cuts are a part of the traditional pre-Budget considerations. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have simply brought them into the public arena and Australians should not be fooled. I do not believe that the international monetary markets have been fooled by what has been done in this mini-Budget. The dollar has not responded to the statement. The mini-Budget was introduced to try to give the impression to the money markets that this was a responsible government and that it would really tackle its budgetary problems, but instead of that it has singled out and attacked sections of the Australian community. It is a disgrace. The Prime Minister said at Armidale on 18 November, when he made a bid to wrest that seat from my Leader, that the needs of the four and a half million people who live and work outside the major cities are at the forefront of his Government's concerns. What a lot of rubbish. The Prime Minister and his Government are showing a complete disregard for the people of country areas. This mini-Budget makes an absolute farce of the statement that the Prime Minister made in November last year. The Government needs to know that there will be a hostile reaction from people in country areas. This mini-Budget, with the resultant costs that will flow on to various business enterprises, to farmers and to the people in general, has ensured that the cost of living will rise and the quality of many services, such as roads, will fall for a large proportion of people living in rural Australia. It has also ensured that the burgeoning cost burden being faced by our primary industries will continue to grow with increasing fuel prices. In other words, this Government is actively eroding the ability of these people who play an important part in earning export exchange to compete on overseas markets. I wish to incorporate in Hansard some more expansive figures that do substantiate the claims that I have made. Leave granted. The document read as follows- MINI-BUDGET Increase in forward estimates (85/86) Savings against Actual over 1984/85 budget levels forward estimates change $m $m $m Defence 503.3 83.9 +419.4 Education 334.9 73.4 +261.5 Health 601.8 85.8 +516.0 Social Security &Welfare 1003.9 127.2 +876.7 Housing 131.3 112.7 + 18.6 Urban &Regional Development and the Environment -13.9 72.0 - 85.9 Culture and Recreation 114.6 25.9 + 88.7 Economic Services- Transport &Communications 106.1 180.6 - 74.5 Water supply, electricity and gas 7.7 46.4 - 38.7 Industry assistance and development 193.5 204.1 - 10.6 Labour and employment -48.1 47.9 - 96.0 General Public Service Legislative services 40.2 18.7 + 21.5 Law, order and public safety 31.4 8.1 + 23.3 Foreign affairs and overseas aid 66.4 27.9 + 38.5 General and scientific research 43.1 27.2 + 15.9 Administrative Services 272.3 54.9 +217.4 Not allocated to function Payments to or for States, N.T. and Local Government 20.1 62.4 - 42.3 Public debt interest 866.4 . . +866.4 Allowance for wage and salary increases 35.0 . . + 35.0 Total 4315.5 1259.1 3056.4 Note: (i) This table is based on the Government's Forward Estimates and the 'cuts' claimed by the Treasurer in the 1985-86 Budget initial Expenditure Savings measures May 1985 (May 1985 mini-Budget). (ii) The only actual cuts in real money terms on 1984/85 Budget figures occur in urban and regional development and environment; transport and communications; water supply; electricity and gas; industry assistance and development; labour and employment; and payments to or for States, Northern Territory and Local Government. ACTUAL CUTS TO 1984 BUDGET EXPENDITURE IN MONEY TERMS Keating claims $m $m 1. Transport and Communications Roads (ABRD-$40m + ALTP-$20m) 60 60 ANRC Subsidy 5.6 5.6 Aerodrome Local Ownership Scheme 4.4 7.0 Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme 4.3 5.3 2. Water Supply, Electricity and Gas Federal Water Resources Assistance Program 1.3 8.0 Electricity supply in Northern Territory 23.4 37.0 Terminate subsidy on LPG 6.8 1.4 3. Industry Assistance and Development Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme 109.8 116.0 Terminate Diesel Fuel Subsidy Barrier Reef 0.3 0.3 Revise Export Assistance arrangements 8.0 48.0 Staff reductions-Trade portfolio 2.6 2.6 Abolish Industry Support Schemes in ACT 0.7 0.7 4. Labour and Employment Reduce CEP Program 10.0 10.0 5. Local Government 0.0 62.4 Total Cuts in these areas 237.2 Note: The Keating claims in the mini-Budget in the 5 broad areas above also included other 'cuts' to Forward Estimates which were not actual cuts to 1984-85 Budget levels. When these are included the Keating claims total 541.4 million. SUMMARY Actual cuts on 1984/85 Keating claims Budget $m $m Transport and Communications 180.6 74.3 Water Supply, Electricity and Gas 46.4 31.5 Industry assistance and development 204.1 121.4 Labour and employment 47.0 10.0 Local Government 62.4 0.0 Total $541.4 $237.2 Note: (i) All other broad groups of measures announced show a reduction on Forward Estimates only, and no actual cuts to 1984-85 Budget levels in money terms. There are areas within these broad groups where there have been actual cuts, e.g. pre-schools. (ii) The actual cuts on the 1984-85 Budget figures were $237.2m not a total claimed expenditure cut of $1259.1m which was cut from Forward Estimates which are really Departments' 'wish lists'. ACTUAL CUTS IN MONEY TERMS AFFECTING RURAL PEOPLE Roads $60 million Aerodrome $4.4 million Water Resources $1.3 million Petroleum Product Freight $109.8 million LPG subsidy $6.8 million Total $182.3 million Total cuts in these areas $237.2 million The actual rural cuts of $182.3 million to the 1984-85 Budget on money terms are 76.8 per cent of the total cuts in these areas. Petroleum product freight subsidy cuts amount to 46.3 per cent of actual cuts to 1984-85 Budget in money terms announced in the mini-Budget. Mr HUNT —I thank the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Table No. 1 provides the actual change to Forward Estimates as a result of the Treasurer's announced savings; table No. 2 provides the actual cuts to the 1984-85 Budget in money terms, as announced in the mini-Budget; table No. 3 provides a summary of table No. 2 and highlights the impact of where the actual cuts are to apply; and table No. 4 details the rural burden of these actual cuts. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(1.39) —In this grievance debate today I wish to raise a serious incident which occurred yesterday when my electorate office was forcibly closed by a group of demonstrators. These demonstrators, who were parading under the banner of the name of a new dairy farmer organisation in Victoria, Concerned Dairy Farmers of Victoria, held a demonstration in Moe and they used that opportunity to use their terror tactics to gain publicity. There appears to be a very close parallel between the tactics used by this farmers group and the Builders Labourers Federation tactics that are often used in Melbourne. They came into my office yesterday under the pretence that they wished to deliver a petition which they had phoned about the previous day. My electorate assistant, who was the only one in the office, had said she would be happy to receive a petition on their behalf and that they could bring it in. Upon arrival they came in through the door with television cameras and then proceeded to push a dairy cow and a goat into that confined space-a small room with two desks in it and carpet on the floor. One can imagine the chaos that took place then. There was no halter on the cow; it was let free in the office and it absolutely terrorised my electorate assistant. To consider the parallel that I have drawn, one need only look at an advertisement that appeared in the Melbourne Age on Tuesday, 30 April. It has on it the logo of these so-called Concerned Dairy Farmers and it is authorised by none other than N. L. Gallagher, General Secretary of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, Box 53, Trades Hall, Carlton South in Melbourne. It seems strange to me that an organisation such as this seems to be working with the BLF. But the tactics they used in my office yesterday lead me to believe that they are working very closely together. These dairy farmers carried out this cowardly act of vandalism and terrorised and abused that female member of my staff-she was the only member of staff there-to the extent that she had to go home and the office had to be closed. As I said before, the cow was let loose. It was not restrained by a halter and it caused great chaos in that office. I was contacted immediately these people arrived in the office. My secretary rang me and said that she had the petition there. I asked her whom they were representing, and they said that they were from Concerned Dairy Farmers. I said that their organisation did not exist officially. They said they had just been formed into a new organisation called the Milk Producers Association of Victoria. I asked when they were holding their first meeting and they said it would be very shortly. I asked whether I would be able to come along and address the meeting and they agreed. So it is quite clear that the people who were in my office had every intention of being part of the newly formed Milk Producers Association of Victoria. I just wonder what the basis of that organisation is. They knew in advance that I would not be in that office, yet they went ahead with their action. They claimed they would be simply presenting a petition. In fact it involved a show of bravado akin to the childish act of smashing milk bottles at the front door of a person's home and running away. These people have done their newly formed body, if it is a legitimate body, irreparable damage. I wish here today to pay tribute to my electorate assistant who carried out her work above and beyond the call of her duties under this extreme duress. It was unfortunate that the police were required to enforce a request for the so-called protesters to leave the office, but when an obviously hostile group of people refused to leave no other option was offered to her. I wish to apologise to the people of McMillan who may have wished to avail themselves of the services of my office but were unable to do so due to the senseless behaviour of this group calling themselves the Concerned Dairy Farmers or, as I am told now, the Victorian Milk Producers Association. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a very sad day when a Federal member cannot leave an official staff member in charge of an office, which provides a service to the public, without that staff member being terrorised by people who claim to be responsible representatives of their industry. In condemning the senseless act carried out by these people I call upon the Milk Producers Association to dissociate itself from the people who carried out the attack on my office and to apologise for the distress caused to my electorate assistant and the resulting lack of service afforded the people of my electorate due to the closure of my office. It is a real tragedy that, whilst there are genuine concerns amongst the farming sector in the dairy industry, as shown by debate in this House over the last couple of days, the situation has degenerated to the point where people are taking advantage of the problems that exist and are setting themselves up as a new farmer organisation, a new breakaway group, that is prepared to use tactics which can only be described as despicable. My electorate assistant is a lady in her mid-40s who has never experienced this type of thing before. I believe it was rather irresponsible of the media to film this incident, which was shown on Channel 8 last night. It was a good news story for television but it is terrible for a person going about her duty to be terrorised to such an extent. I wonder when I look around here whether even some members of the National Party of Australia, who at times appear to be way off beam in relation to what the farming community really needs, may be behind this breakaway group that is trying to split the Victorian dairy industry and is using these types of tactics. I know that they do have genuine concerns about their industry. Nobody would know that better than I do because I have been involved in the industry for a long time. I was even on the central council of the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria. So I am fully aware of the politics of the industry; I am fully aware of how people should carry out their duties. But I condemn, and I am sure that 99 per cent of the dairy farmer organisations and the industry condemn, the type of tactic employed yesterday. It was totally unnecessary and it was frightening for some of the people concerned. I do not yet have a list of the names on that petition-that will be coming through to me today-but I have had a call already from the so-called new leader of the Milk Producers Association, following a telegram I sent to him yesterday, protesting vigorously about the attack on my office and electorate assistant in Moe. He has told me that as far as he knows his people were not involved. Yet the people whom I spoke to directly on the phone mentioned presenting a petition. The situation that arose in the office can clearly be seen on the television clip. I was talking to my electorate secretary as she was trying to handle the cow problem and calling the police to get these people out. So there is not any doubt in my mind that somebody somewhere along the line is deliberately organising a breakaway group in Victoria. What their reasons are I do not know but I am sure that if they continue down this path eventually they will have the sort of reputation that is clearly expressed in the advertisement I have referred to today which appeared in the Age of Tuesday, 30 April. I repeat that it is signed by Norm Gallagher, General Secretary of the BLF. I deplore the tactics this group employed. It is disgraceful that those tactics were used and I call on this organisation to apologise for what it has done. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(1.48) —This debate provides me with the only opportunity in this parliamentary session to discuss the major decision by the augmented Australian Electoral Commission to change the name of my electorate from Balaclava to Goldstein. The decision to change that name was taken after the appeal process regarding the redistribution of the boundaries was completed. There was no warning to me or any of the other candidates of the change of name and no opportunity was given to the constituents of Balaclava to consider the matter or to appeal against the change. I agree with the policy of naming electorates after distinguished Australians and I am delighted that a special effort was made to rectify the shameful neglect of distinguished women, but I believe that a debate in the electorate would have been appropriate and beneficial. Percy Grainger, for example, was born in the electorate and Adam Lindsay Gordon died there. Each of them lived there long enough to have had a substantial association with the area and to justify having their names considered. I could mention others, but that illustrates my point. I believe that the augmented Electoral Commission should have sought my views and those of other candidates and I will ask the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to recommend that legislation be introduced for the purpose of obliging the Commission to so consult in future. But, having expressed that grievance, I must say that I am honoured to represent the electorate named after Vida Goldstein. Indeed, the more I read about this truly remarkable and wonderful woman, the more I feel that had I been consulted I would have ultimately expressed a preference for her name over that of Grainger, which would otherwise have been my preference. Grainger used his talents to the joy of the whole world and he died as a citizen of the United States of America. Goldstein devoted her talents to women and children and to our democratic institutions and provided ideas, energy and achievements most relevant to the work of this Parliament. Leslie Henderson wrote an enthralling biography entitled The Goldstein Story, and many biographical essays pay her a most merited tribute. Last week a plaque was unveiled in the gardens of the Victorian Parliament in memory of this warm and remarkable Australian. The few minutes available to me in this debate will not enable me to do justice to her many-sided achievements but I will nonetheless outline them. Vida Jane Mary Goldstein was a pioneer feminist, publicist, newspaper editor, political crusader, pacifist and social reformer. She matriculated with honours in 1886 from the Presbyterian Ladies College in Melbourne and, instead of continuing her studies, she chose to work for charity and social reform. With her mother, Vida took an active part in campaigns aimed to rid Melbourne of its slums and to improve Victoria's prisons. Through this, she gained an insight into the shocking conditions in which most working people had to live. Her public career began around 1890 at the time the movement for the emancipation of women was just beginning to make headway. She helped to collect signatures for a monster petition on women's suffrage and the widespread support for the petition induced a majority of the candidates for the Victorian elections of 1891 to pledge themselves to support a franchise Bill. In fact, such a Bill passed the Lower House in Victoria time and again during the next 17 years but was consistently rejected by the Upper House until 1908. With the financial crash of 1893, Vida decided to earn her living as a teacher. With the help of her sister she opened a preparatory school for boys and girls in East St Kilda, a suburb which was later named Balaclava, thus providing the name for the electorate. Vida was a firm believer in the value of co-education but, even while running the school, she continued her social and political activities, including work in the slums. Vida's greatest triumph as a part time activist was her ability to raise money in an appeal which founded the Queen Victoria Hospital. In 1899, after the death of the President of the Women's Suffrage Society, Vida became the leader of the women's movement. She closed her school in order to devote all of her time to working for women's suffrage. She had come to the conclusion that conditions for women and children would never improve until women gained the vote and used it intelligently. She spent many hours in the galleries of the Victorian Parliament when any measure affecting women or children was being debated. This had the advantage of giving her an intimate acquaintance with the intricacies of parliamentary procedure. In 1900, Vida began to publish a monthly paper called the Australian Woman's Sphere, of which she was the owner and editor. Naturally, the paper was devoted mainly to feminist interests and ideology, its most important service being the light it threw on the social conditions then prevailing. Her stories often highlighted the issues that primarily affected the working class. One of her articles inspired the case for a basic wage. The Sphere ceased publication in 1905 as Vida found that it was taking up too much of her time and energy, which she felt should be given to the suffrage campaigns in Victoria. In 1901, Vida accepted an invitation from the American Women's Suffrage Association to attend a conference in Washington, DC, at which it was intended to found an international women's suffrage society. A newspaper report at the time of her departure said that Miss Goldstein hoped for great things for the suffrage because of the educative influence it would have on women. She believed that women were readily alive to their responsibilities and that, given an active interest in the concerns of the community, would speedily become acquainted with the needs of society. At the same time the Victorian Government commissioned Vida to inquire into American methods of dealing with neglected children, the prison system and labour problems. The conference in Washington was attended by representatives of nine countries and Vida made such a favourable impression that she was appointed conference secretary. While in Washington, Vida Goldstein met the President, Theodore Roosevelt. On arrival back in Australia in 1902, Vida, through her desire to arouse women from their political apathy, formed the Women's Federal Political Association and became its President. At about this time she announced her intention to stand for parliament in the 1903 Federal election. This was certainly a bold step because people were just getting used to the idea of women voting, let alone standing for parliament. Although Vida Goldstein did not win a seat, she was seen as a candidate of great sincerity and integrity. After the election, Vida devoted herself to the consolidation of her organisation, the Women's Political Association, and to working for women's suffrage in Victoria, the only State left in which women were still disenfranchised. In 1906, thanks to Vida Goldstein's persistent campaigning, Victoria's first children's court came into legal existence. Vida had worked very hard for this reform and managed to get various improvements made in the Act during its passage through the Parliament. In 1909, Vida launched another paper called the Woman Voter. It ran for 10 years and went to every corner of the world where women were striving for political liberty. It gave most of its space to reporting on social evils in which the interests of women and children were directly or indirectly involved. It also took a keen interest in the militant suffragettes campaigning in England where women were still without votes. Vida Goldstein became committed to internationalism, particularly pacificism and an international sisterhood of women. A universally acknowledged leader of feminists, Vida was a source of inspiration and practical advice not only to women in Australia but also to women in England and America. In 1910 Vida Goldstein stood again for the Senate. In 1913 and 1914 she decided to stand for the House of Representatives seat of Kooyong. In 1917, she made her fifth and last attempt to enter parliament. Although she failed on all occasions to secure a seat, the quality of her speeches and her persistent demand for conscience and principle in public affairs greatly impressed the public and her opponents. Although utterly opposed to the war, Vida Goldstein was ready to make any effort to relieve poverty or distress caused by it. She did a great deal of valuable social work during the war years for which she got very little recognition. In 1915, Vida formed and became President of the Women's Peace Army, and in 1919 she was an Australian representative at the Geneva Peace Conference. After that war, she devoted her life to Christian charity and became President of the Christian Science Church in Melbourne. Vida Goldstein was a trailblazer who provided leadership and inspiration to innumerable people. She was humane, kind and sincere, public spirited and believed in and practised Christian principles. She was universally respected by supporters and opponents alike, and her influence was far reaching. She is recognised as one of the most respected and best known pioneers of feminism. Madam Acting Speaker, you and I and, I hope, most other members of this Parliament recognise that many of the issues for which Vida Goldstein stood and devoted her life are relevant today in extended forms such as those concerning discrimination against women which still sadly, in spite of laws of this and other parliaments, continues to be a real issue and a real problem for women and very often for children in this electorate. In spite of my earlier grievance about the way in which the change of name occurred, I am very proud to represent an electorate named after such a warm and truly remarkable person. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(1.57) —I had hoped to spend a bit of time today rebutting the claims that have been made by Opposition spokespersons in support of the United States strategic defence initiative, particularly observations that the strategic defence initiative program has facilitated and improved the prospects of arms control and disarmament. I had hoped to cite some evidince that would show that the contrary is the case but of course, there is very limited time. I will just make a number of brief observations. An article which appeared in the Scientific American titled 'Space-based Ballistic-Missile Defence' in the October 1984 edition, authored by a number of physicists of distinction, including one Nobel Prize winner, is reflective of the very broad cross-section of United States opinion, by no means confined to the Left or the so-called liberal element of that opinion, which found the prospects of the SDI's so-called Star Wars program distinctly frightening. The article makes reference to a background report titled 'Directed Energy Missile Defence in Space', which was released earlier this year by the Congressional Office of Technology. The author of that report had full access to classified information. His conclusion on the Star Wars program was as follows: The prospect that emerging 'Star Wars' technologies, when further developed, will provide a perfect or near-perfect defence system, . . . is so remote that it should not serve as the basis of public expectations or national policy. I refer to the specific text of the article. It says: In our view the questionable performance of the proposed defence, the ease with which it would be overwhelmed or circumvented and its potential as an antisatellite system would cause grievous damage to the security of the US if the Strategic Defense Initiative were to be pursued. The basic thrust of this and a number of articles on similar themes is that the SDI, far from leading potentially to the abolition of all nuclear weapons, would, on the contrary, provoke a new stage in the arms race. In particular, the probable response from the Soviet side would be a massive buildup of offensive capabilities and increases in the numbers of launches and warheads, with the aim of being able to penetrate any conceivable defensive system that might ever be deployed. For that reason, I think it highly irresponsible of the Opposition to persevere in expressing unconstrained support for that proposal. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr RUDDOCK —I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether he, as Minister, draws any parallel between the outrageous statements by the Victorian President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr George Crawford, who, on behalf of the State Administrative Committee, has called for a halt to the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees following what he has described as extraordinary violence witnessed at recent functions arranged in various parts of Australia to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the victory of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, and the Minister's own publication of the threats by Mr Thach to refuse to co-operate in the family reunion program should this violence continue. Will the Minister assure the Parliament that his statement last night was a complete denunciation of any support for the Victorian Branch of the ALP in its demand for a halt to the settlement of Vietnamese refugees? If this is the case, what effort will the Minister take to ensure that action of a disciplinary nature will be taken within the party against these efforts by the Victorian Branch of the ALP to undermine the bipartisan and non-racist approach to our refugee obligations? Mr HURFORD —Of course I do not draw any parallel. It is absolutely ridiculous that that should be the implication of the honourable member's question. The Government and, I believe, every member of this House rejects the resolution of the Victorian Committee. It was my duty to point out that the violence was disrupting the program of orderly departures from Vietnam. I will continue to do so. It is my duty to do so because, until I can get the support of the vast majority of the Vietnamese people-I believe I have that support-to help us bring their own nationals into line, we will not have as many people coming to Australia from Vietnam under the family reunion program as we would have liked. Already moves have been made to rescind this resolution at the next possible opportunity. I look forward to that happening. Mr GRACE —I refer the Prime Minister to the statement released today by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia in which he said that the Keating mini-Budget falls into two categories, namely, actual cuts which will mainly hit rural Australians and illusory cuts which are basically meaningless. Can the Minister assure us that the expenditure cuts announced in the May economic statement are real and enduring? Mr HAWKE —I regret that my friend the Deputy Leader of the National Party does not seem to be in the House because he is a man I respect. I regret very much that he seems to have made the statement referred to by the honourable member in which he divides the cuts into what he calls actual and illusory cuts. The National Party, through its Deputy Leader, seems to be saying that the cuts which affect what it perceives to be its constitutency are real and the cuts which affect everyone else are illusory. That is a totally ludicrous proposal to put forward. It is very interesting to look in the media to see what the National Party is proposing to do about this matter. According to an article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald, the Leader of the National Party is recorded as having set up a committee. This committee is going to look into what sort of recommendation it should make to its cosy bed-partner in coalition. If the Leader of the National Party is setting up this committee of the National Party to look at what the Party's reaction should be, the necessary implication is that in the totally unlikely event that the National Party ever got back into government it would want to promise that it would restore the scheme which has been cut by the Government. Here again we have another piece of evidence-it is coming up day after day-of the increasing competition and division within the Opposition on this matter. In the article which reports the Leader of the National Party as saying that the National Party is to set up a committee to see whether it will recommend restoring a scheme, what do we find the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying? Once again, the good old Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in this respect, is showing a discernible degree of responsibility. He is quoted in the same article as saying-it is worth quoting-that the Opposition was 'not making any promises to reinstate any program cut in the mini-Budget'. Those words are from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, we have it clearly and unequivocally, if one can believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; he is saying, on behalf of the Opposition, that it will not make any promise to restore any program that is cut. For our part, we have been very careful to ensure in our economic statement that the burden that has to be borne will be spread evenly, fairly, and in a non-discriminatory way across the community and that the decisions that have been made will be enduring and will cut down the structural component of the deficit. That will mean, not only for 1985-86 but also for future years, that the burden upon the Australian people of an unnecessarily high level of deficit will be reduced and they will get the benefit from it. I say in conclusion, again in the light of these contradictions between the National Party and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that we have to ask, and the people of Australia have to ask, who is really running the Opposition. It is one hell of a choice. Is it the National Party, that set of neanderthals, or is it the increasingly divided Liberal Party? Whichever way one looks at it, it is an appalling spectacle. The coalition offers neither insight nor principles. It is a shambles. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the widespread reports in this morning's Press that the Government has had yet another go at defining its wages policy in the light of the apparent bad drafting of the economic statement on Tuesday night. I ask the Minister: Was the purpose of the economic statement to restore confidence, predictability and certainty to all aspects of the Government's economic management, including wages policy? I therefore ask: In the interests of that confidence, predictability and certainty, will the Minister state categorically, firstly, whether the Government will argue before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at any future national wage case for a discounting of the price effects of the depreciation of the Australian dollar and, secondly, whether he agrees with the view expressed by the Prime Minister on 10 April 1985 that, following the depreciation, there should be no productivity increases for any productivity gain that had occurred prior to 1985? Mr WILLIS —The statement made by the Treasurer on Tuesday night in relation to wages was clearly in relation to the devaluation and it made the position quite clear in that it said absolutely specifically and without any difficulty of understanding, I should have thought, that as a result of that devaluation we have to have, during the period of adjustment to that devaluation, a lesser level of real wages than would otherwise have applied. That was said utterly unambiguously. What follows from that is that, under the centralised wages system, there are two ways in which that lower level of real wages than would otherwise have applied can be achieved. It can be done either by discounting in the indexation cases or by postponements and phased implementation, when it comes, of any productivity increase. There was some discussion in the Treasurer's statement of the difficulties, in relation to the prices side, in getting to know exactly what those effects were, and both of the alternatives were clearly postulated as alternatives available to the Government. It remains the situation that the Government will decide which is the better way to go. There is clearly before us, in relation to the productivity case, an opportunity to get that lower level of real wages than would otherwise have applied without discounting, but there is also the possibility that discounting could come. Those are matters that we are still working out. We shall take the approach which will best ensure the continuance of our wages policy. But, whichever way it is, the end result will be, and must unambiguously be, that the real wage level will be less than would have applied without that devaluation. We shall ensure that we achieve that outcome. Mr HAND —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister seen media reports today-such as that which I have in my hand-of a resolution passed by the Victorian Labor Party Administrative Committee, seeking suspension of Australia's Vietnamese refugee program because of recent violent demonstrations? Mr Ruddock —You should have been here at 2 o'clock. Mr HAND —The honourable member should not get excited. Does the Minister, as I do, deplore that section of the resolution which attempts to interfere with the Government's refugee program? Mr HURFORD —I am very pleased to have another opportunity of repudiating that particular resolution. I am very grateful to the honourable member for Maribyrnong, the honourable member for Melbourne and others for so swiftly joining with me in rejecting the resolution. The small group of people who have been responsible for that resolution have isolated themselves from all responsibile Australians. Certainly they do not make any policy for this Government. I am told that Mr Hartley was the prime mover, and he certainly was the spokesperson on this morning's AM program. I say in passing that it is typical of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the fashion in which it works that neither I nor anyone else was given the task of responding on behalf of responsible Australians to those Hartley allegations. One has to be a wishy-washy, all-things-to-all-men Democrat, or a Domican, or a ratbag like Hartley to get a regular go on the ABC. I want to return to the subject of Mr Hartley and make known what I feel about the matter. His record in failing to oppose repressiveness elsewhere is well known, and it is relevant in this context. I am glad to have the support of all honourable members on the Government benches when I say that our Labor Government's policy, in contrast, is firmly for the continuation of a non-racist, humanitarian refugee program. We will not penalise innocent refugees because of the violence of a minority. As I indicated in a reply to the honourable member for Prospect last Tuesday, those boat people have experienced direct personal political oppression. Well over half a million of them-556,000 to be exact-have risked their lives in dangerous seas over the last 10 years. They have taken horrifying risks. It is not only the seas; it is also the piracy that has been involved. Over a third of them, even today, are perishing. In those circumstances, we, as a nation, have a humanitarian obligation to those refugees. Indeed, we also have a fraternal obligation to the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, our fellow nations in Asia, which are the places of first asylum. I visited some of those nations and received from Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers their personal thanks to the Government of this country for the job that we are doing. Above all this, there is this nation's word which must be taken into consideration. Our undertaking at the 1979 United Nations conference on refugees from Indo-China was given by a previous government, but it will be honoured, as it has been honoured and is being honoured, by this Government. It was supported by Labor when in opposition, and we did not make political capital out of a difficult situation at that time-as indeed, sadly, political capital was made a year ago in other circumstances. However, that has been corrected, and I pay tribute to honourable members opposite for that. I say these things in sorrow as well as in anger, because these facts could not have been known to the small majority that passed that resolution. I pay my tribute to those who were in a minority and who fought against that resolution on that occasion. In summary, our Australian position is this: We shall continue to condemn the violence of the few, and our authorities will make increasing efforts to stamp out that violence. We shall continue to appeal to that vast majority of Vietnamese who are settling into this country well to help us in our task of apprehending those few. We shall continue to upgrade the family reunion program, and we have taken steps to do that. We shall continue to take refugees from those countries of first asylum. In short, we repudiate that resolution. This Government will be continuing the humanitarian and compassionate traditions of the great Australian Labor Party. Mr PEACOCK —I compliment the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In the commendable answer of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs just now, he referred to interviews on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation network. Perhaps I can cheer the Prime Minister by referring to an interview of his own on the ABC last night. I refer him to his own words, spoken with all the clarity that one would expect from an Australian Prime Minister. In answer to a question, he said: What I'm saying is that if certain things weren't done if certain protective measures weren't able to be taken and you were confident they could be taken if you couldn't take those if you weren't certain about them then there could be a price and so we want to expose to the community that it would be ideal in our belief to get to that position-- Mr Hawke —What is the question? Mr PEACOCK —Does not the Prime Minister want to hear his own words? He continued: But we want to expose to them the sort of things that we think would need to be done in terms of protecting those who would otherwise be hurt-- there is quite a bit of trouble in reading this- and it's going to be a question for judgment by us and by the community as to whether we can all be sure that those protective mechanisms can be put in place. Government members interjecting- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Will the Leader of the Opposition get to his question? Mr PEACOCK —The other fourth-graders did not want to hear their co-student on that matter. He cannot count; he cannot speak. I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the quotation that I have just read, will he explain to the House whether this is his preferred position on taxation? Mr HAWKE —There can be no doubt that there is a God because the Leader of the Opposition gives me an opportunity to give him a little lesson in economics. I wish to begin with a most sincere apology to the Leader of the Opposition. More than any other member in this House, he has profound difficulty in understanding any statements or expositions in matters economic. So, knowing his great difficulty in understanding matters economic, I do apologise if I superimpose upon his intellectual limitations in this area the problems of complicated syntax. In the area of tax reform, before I state clearly a preferred position-I will state it in short sentences-let me make a few introductory observations about the Leader of the Opposition. I think that sentence was only about three lines long. It is a matter of complete hilarity to everyone in this House that the Leader of the Opposition should talk of tax reform. He was a member of a government which for seven years presided over the worst haemorrhaging and decaying of the Australian tax system in our history since Federation. Unfortunately, it did that not by accident; it did it as a result of a deliberate intent to allow the rich and the privileged in this country to make the paying of taxes a matter of choice and not a matter of law. In the event, ordinary taxpayers in Australia have had imposed on them an inordinately high burden. The ordinary people of Australia have carried much more of the burden of tax than they should have done. They have done so because the Leader of the Opposition and those on the other side of the House deliberately allowed the haemorrhaging of the tax system. We have addressed ourselves to this issue. We will produce a White Paper in the first week of June which will do these things: It will expose the growing decay of the existing revenue base, a decay which is attributable entirely to the weakness and, indeed, the wickedness of those opposite. Opposition members-Ooh! Mr HAWKE —I would think that the vast majority of Australians would describe as wicked a deliberate intent to allow the rich to avoid and evade taxes and to impose a greater burden on the poor in this country. We on this side of the House certainly define that as wicked. If Opposition members do not, that is their business and they will pay a penalty for it. Having exposed the decay of the existing revenue base, we will set out logically the alternatives that are available to the Australian community to bring equity back into the tax system. In the process of exposing the alternative steps that can be taken, there will be a lead-up to a position which in our judgment will offer the greatest opportunity of getting a significant cut in direct personal taxes. In the process, that will point out the difficulties that can be involved and the way in which we believe those difficulties may be capable of being overcome. Mr CAMPBELL —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Has the Government yet received the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on fertiliser bounties? Has the Government considered it? Has it reached a decision? If not, when will this happen? Mr KERIN —The Industries Assistance Commission is due to present its final report on fertilisers in October. The IAC was asked to present an interim report before 30 June this year, mainly because the current fertiliser subsidies are scheduled to expire then. This interim report was presented to the Government in March. The IAC has recommended that the subsidy cease on 30 June and that short term assistance be provided to Australian manufacturers of high analysis phosphatic fertilisers through a bounty on local production of $180 per tonne of phosphorous contained in phosphoric acid. As all honourable members opposite know, the superphosphate and fertiliser bounty is not in the Forward Budget Estimates. However, the pro-farmer Hawke Government has decided to reject these recommendations and, instead, to continue the current arrangements for another 12 months pending the release of the final IAC report. So, happiness is restored to the land. The Government considers that no changes in this significant assistance to the rural sector should be made without the benefit of the final report. The IAC has been asked to consider in its final report such broad long term issues as the Government's commitment to improve the international competitiveness of our rural industry and the comparative levels of assistance given to the rural and other sectors. The Government considers it essential to have the IAC's final views on these issues before changing current arrangements. This decision means that the rural sector will continue to have the benefit of this very large Government assistance measure, worth about $55m a year. The subsidies will help contain farm costs which are of such concern to our farmers at the moment. The legislation will be introduced into the Parliament this session to continue the subsidies. The IAC interim report will be released as soon as possible. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Treasurer. He will recall that, in his mini-Budget, the defence spending vote was shown as being cut by $83.9m in 1985-86. I ask the Minister: As the Minister for Defence confirmed yesterday that the defence budget will be increased by an amount identified in Senate Estimates Committee D as being between $350m and $400m in 1985-86 to offset the devaluation of the Australian dollar brought about by his Government's policies, will the Treasurer now admit that in dollar terms his so-called cut in defence spending is merely a mirage? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the National Party of Australia fails to appreciate the elementary distinction between real changes in the volume of defence outlays and the effect of prices and exchange movements. I remind the Leader that the defence financial program is made in constant prices. I can assure him that there is nothing whatsoever illusory or short-lived about the lower rate of real increase to which I referred the other night which, I think, from memory was about $84m. But the effects on defence outlays of movements in prices and exchange rates are not regarded as implying real changes in defence spending. The actual amount by which the 1985-86 defence budget will be adjusted for exchange rate movements will, as previously, be determined nearer Budget day having regard to the final movement in the exchange rate nearer that time. Mr TICKNER —I address my question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House of the progress towards the implementation of the Government's initiative for a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Hughes for his question. The working party established at the Tuvalu forum of last year has been meeting regularly and is currently holding its fourth session in Suva. Australia continues to chair the meetings of that working party and I believe, after considerable canvassing of views amongst the forum member countries, the working party is well on the way towards being able to put before the next meeting of the forum in Raratonga in August of this year a draft treaty establishing a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. On the assumption that the South Pacific Forum does approve such a treaty, I am very happy to note the indications that the Government can now expect a supportive attitude to its initiative from the Opposition. Honourable members will recall that I drew attention yesterday to an interview published in yesterday's Australian Financial Review by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs in which he said that the Opposition was committed to such a treaty and always had been. I think members of the House will be very pleased to note that the honourable member for Goldstein's view has been confirmed by a spokesman for him quoted in today's Canberra Times. It is stated in the newspaper: . . . we would support a limited nuclear-free zone which would allow the passage of allied ships and allow us to keep our existing commitment under the ANZUS treaty and other defence alliances. It is very good that we have that statement from the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs because all members of this House will recognise that I explicitly made it clear, both in this House and outside it on a number of occasions, that those sorts of conditions would be met. I will not read the whole of my statement in this House which was made on 5 September last year, but I made it clear in reporting on the Tuvalu meeting that those conditions would be precisely met. In that statement I said: All of this means that the obligations which we have under international law, and under treaties such as ANZUS, are not affected in any way by the nuclear free zone proposal accepted by the Forum. It was in response to that statement which outlined those conditions that the honourable member for Goldstein says are the conditions necessary to attract the Opposition's total support that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition. He said yesterday that he regarded the pursuit of the zone as absolutely a mickey mouse proposal and total hyprocrisy. The Government very much welcomes what is now an apparent change of position by the Opposition repudiating the Leader of the Opposition's statement in this House last year and the apparent acceptance now of a different and more reasonable position by the Opposition as enunciated by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is a great tragedy for this country that the Opposition's national interests have, up to this point, been muddied by the fighting that is going on in this grubby little triangle of competition between the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Goldstein. We, on this side of the House, welcome the statement by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledging that the conditions that I talked about on 5 September satisfy the total support of the Opposition for our proposal. If, after our meeting in Raratonga in August, the Australian Government is party to a nuclear-free treaty in the South Pacific, accepting that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs speaks for the Opposition, I will be able to give it the support not only of the Australian Government, but of the whole Australian Parliament. Mr LLOYD —The Minister for Transport will be aware of the crisis of confidence Tuesday night's $60m reduction in road finances has caused in the road construction industry. In view of this, will the Minister confirm that to save the $40m from the Australian bicentennial road development program allocation for expenditure for 1985-86, the ABRD legislation will have to be amended to allow the Government to confiscate the fuel levy money? Alternatively, is the $40m saving just phoney bookeeping and, in fact, will the money in question just remain in the trust account for 12 months? Does this mean that total Commonwealth expenditure on roads for 1985-86 will now be $1,185m rather than $1,245m? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member's question exhibits an abysmal lack of understanding of the Government's proposals that were announced several weeks ago and of Tuesday night's statement. The statement said that there was a $40m reduction in the ABRD proposed forward expenditure. That figure was $480m. If the honourable member, aided by his colleagues, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who I thought would have been up to date on this issue, had done his homework and watched the figures in the ABRD annual report, he would know that a $60m balance is held in the ABRD trust fund and that the expenditure this year is $417m. We propose to spend next year's collections and interest which will be about $420m for the ABRD program, and take $20m from the balance in the trust fund. That provides a total of- Mr Sinclair —What about the- Mr PETER MORRIS — I know it is hard for you, George. You are better at signatures. The $420m collections in interest for 1985-86, and the $20m from the balance of the trust fund makes a total of $440m. The $810m is the amount being provided under the legislation now before the chamber. Together, those amounts come to $1,245m. The amount being provided next year is $1,245m, the largest amount ever provided by any Federal government under roads legislation to improve the roads system in this country. It fulfils the election undertaking of the Prime Minister and of this Government that we would maintain the greatest road construction program in the history of this country. It will mean that by 1988 we will have completed, to appropriate standards, the national highway system right around this country. It is the greatest feat of any government in transport infrastructure. I am sorry my colleague the honourable member for Murray has misunderstood the figures. I would have thought that somebody over there would have advised him better. Mr MARTIN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Science, who represents the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce in this place, to the Steel Industry Authority report dated 26 April 1985 in the designated category: 'Cold Rolled Strip and Sheet Excluding Tinplate'. Can the Minister advise what were the findings of that report, what actions the Government proposes to take in respect of these findings and what is the likely effect of recent trends in the industry on the steel industry plan? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his question. The Steel Industry Authority in its report of 26 April recommended that no action be taken about, or as we say in Canberra, 'in respect of' cold rolled strip and sheet at this stage. In reaching this conclusion, the SIA noted that the average market share held by a local industry for cold rolled steel during 1984 was 75.2 per cent. However, the Authority considered it unlikely that the industry's average market share in 1985 will fall below the 1984 level. Indeed, several factors, such as the designated category preference removal, the devaluation of the Australian dollar and anti-dumping actions are likely to bring it well above this level. The SIA also took the view that the actual volume of throughput by the industry is more important than the market percentage. On this matter the local industry sales and transfers in 1984 were 118,000 tonnes, well above the 1983 level of 683,000 tonnes. The present order levels are healthy and profitability has improved significantly. The SIA commented that although the industry's performance had improved considerably there are still steps it could take in terms of quality, delivery and marketing efforts to improve its position and ensure its long term outlook. The SIA has, nevertheless, drawn attention to options that could be considered if action becomes necessary, including voluntary export restraints with major supplying countries, or an upward adjustment of the bounty. The Government is currently examining both issues raised by the SIA in its report and looking for appropriate responses. The Government has demonstrated, by its actions, that it intends to meet its obligation under the plan and it will continue to do so. During 1984 the industry's market share declined but, as I say, there was a sharp increase in sales. In the three months to January 1985 the industry's market share was around 77 per cent, compared to 74 per cent at the end of 1984. If the SIA's predictions hold, further improvement can be expected. Mr McARTHUR —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Trade. Now that the Minister has had some 24 hours and 30 minutes to bone up on his new-found portfolio, can he tell me and the Parliament whether the 1984-85 Budget Papers allow for $60m for prospective non-defence wage and salary increases? Has any money from this allocation been spent, or is any proposed to be spent, on the payment of additional claims by the Export Development Grants Board in the period prior to 30 June 1985? If so, how much, and can this underhand switching of budgetary allocations be justified? Mr KERIN —I have had plenty of chance to bone up. My instinctive reaction yesterday was correct. Just because the honourable member has got hold of a leak from the Department of Trade, there is no reason for me to feel it here. I said yesterday that I would reply to him and I will reply on the allegations he is making. By and large, the information he is talking about, if it is correct, has not been announced by this Government and I am certainly not going to comment on what is speculation or what is a leak. Mr CLEELAND —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to this claim by the honourable member for the Northern Territory on 22 March this year: The Minister has said that I offered to grant title to Ayers Rock to the Aborigines. That is so, but at the time the Federal Government was pointing a gun at my head. Rather than the Territory lose everything, it was preferable to try to save some chestnuts from the fire. Can the Minister advise the House whether government records for the relevant time indicate any tension between the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth over the issue of Uluru? Mr HOLDING —I am unable to answer the question in terms of the records of the Department by virtue of the fact that there is in existence a convention which prevents a Minister from examining the records of a previous Minister. However, in terms of the public record that is available, certainly that does not seem to justify some of the statements that have been made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. I will see whether officers of the Department can prepare a memorandum based on an examination of the records but, basically, I believe that the convention which has been honoured by all Ministers on both sides is an important part of the conventions of this House and I would not readily break it. Mr WILSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Does he agree that it is vital that Australia take full advantage of the golden opportunity of the $2.5 billion manufacturing and employment potential of the further development of the active decoy rocket known as Project Winnen? Can the Minister assure the House that adequate funds will be made available to ensure that the joint venture arrangements entered into will preserve for Australia at least a 50 per cent interest in this project? Mr BEAZLEY —This is a very appropriate matter for the honourable gentleman's concern and for the concern of the whole Parliament. The questions involved in the future of Project Winnen are a matter of some delicate negotiations between ourselves and some potential partners. That is necessary because it is difficult to establish within the framework of the Australian maritime environment a justification for proceeding with the project on our own. Undoubtedly, good as the technology is, it is perhaps more relevant in other maritime defence environments than it is within our area. We are anxious to establish an appropriate relationship if we are to go forward with that. That is a matter for discussion at the moment. I am unable to advise the honourable member when those discussions will be completed, but when that occasion arises it will be a matter for decision by the Government at that time and an appropriate public announcement will be made. Mr LANGMORE —My question is to the Minister for Territories and relates to the $5m from the reserves of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority which is to be used for improving community facilities in Belconnen. Is the Minister aware of serious inadequacies in the provision of community services in Belconnen? What processes will be used for deciding on priorities for improvements in community services in Belconnen? Mr SCHOLES —The honourable member for Fraser ensures that I am kept well informed of the community needs of Belconnen and other areas in Canberra, as do other members for the area and representatives of the Canberra community. It is almost a full time job. The Government has confirmed that it will provide community facilities in the Belconnen area. This was an undertaking in part of the program for the development of the Belconnen Mall by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. These plans have been in suspension because of the accumulation of capital of that Authority in respect of earlier proposals for its development of the Tuggeranong Town Centre. With respect to the development of a proposal to meet the undertaking given as part of the decision to dispose of the Government interest in the Belconnen Mall, I have already asked my Department to consult with community groups. Consultation will also take place with the National Capital Development Commission, which will assist in drawing up a proposal. It is expected that a number of community facilities in that area which are lacking-child care, accommodation and adequate facilities for young people, and recreation and sporting facilities-will be developed within that package. I have also asked the NCDC and my Department to identify sites in the area for cinemas and other recreational activities which would normally have been developed in the area but for the commitment in respect of the Belconnen Mall. The honourable member can be assured that his representations on behalf of the community will be taken into account by the Government and that a full process of consultation will take place. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Political Exchange Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Central Land Council annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —I do. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —On Tuesday, 30 April 1985, during an open line program in Hobart called The Sue Becker Program, which goes right around the State, there was a discussion on petrol prices. After the program I received many letters and phone calls which indicated that something was wrong. After I received this letter, from a Mr J. Porter of Howrah, I felt it was necessary to come into the House and make this personal explanation. The letter says: I heard your program with Sue Becker. I am afraid you made a very bad mistake. You gave the price of petrol in gals instead of litres. I find it all most confusing as I always think in gals. There are many other Australians like me. Could you please forward me information on the difference between a gal and litre, or, better still, could you mention it in Parliament so that other Australians can understand I now table my evidence if you do not mind, Madam Acting Speaker. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Will the honourable member show me how he has been personally misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —This container that I produce is the Hawke gallon at $2.75 and the other container is the Peacock gallon at $2.30. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Franklin that he makes a personal explanation by indulgence of the Chair. He is straining that indulgence considerably when he puts on a performance such as this. I ask him to remove his containers from the chamber. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Cunningham,Mr Griffiths,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Ms Mayer and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Gorman,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Saunderson and Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for women for 'Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. Remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. Keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Baldwin and Mr Chynoweth. 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 light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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, including farms, 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 enterprises finally sell these assets are not ''windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets 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 Fife and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The financial plight of grape producers, their families and their respective local communities. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government Act now during the 1985-86 Budget considerations to: Remove the sales tax placed on all Australian produced wines Restrict the ease with which wines produced in E.E.C. countries have access to the Australia market place. Provide funds for the establishment of an institution to administer the needs of the grape producing industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher and Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assests Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitious and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Andrew. 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 Hicks. 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 menace 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the introduction of the Federal Government plan for the dairy industry will put thousands of dairyfarmers and even more people associated with the dairy industry out of work. Australian dairyfarmers, in particular Victorian and Tasmanian, are the most efficient in the world, the loss of such an efficient industry to the Australian economy would be devastating. The undersigned humbly petition the Federal Parliament to carry out an impact study with the dairy industry before any introduction of the proposed dairy industry plan. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st of March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June, 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposed cutbacks in funding for the ''First Home Owners Scheme'', that the House of Representatives undertake to oppose such a move, in regard to its effect on young married couples in the community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should undertake measures to restore the level of payments previously available under the scheme. 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 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 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 Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we condemn that Australia should assist the United States of America by participating in the testing of MX Peacemaker missiles, or any similar weapons, from Australian shores. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should- 1. seek to reverse this deplorable decision and, 2. ensure that Australia's commitment to a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific be maintained. by Mr Tickner. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: We electors of South Australia ask that the Federal Government recognise God in our National Anthem by replacing the word ''Advance'' in the last line with ''God Bless'' reading ''God Bless Australia Fair.'' in the last line of each verse because- (1) seeing the words of Advance Australia Fair are being changed for our National Anthem, it would be desirable to include recognition of God; (2) a recent survey showed that 89% of Australian people believe there is a God. This is a large majority; (3) if we ask God to bless us, He will; and (4) God has promised, if people turn from evil to Him, He will reward them. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to make this alteration and recognise God in our National Anthem. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of 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. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I seek your indulgence, Madam Acting Speaker. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has just made a personal explanation which related to petrol pricing. In support of his personal explanation, one got the impression that he was trying to draw the attention of the House to two containers which one may have thought contained petrol. Madam Acting Speaker, I ask that you-- Mr MacKellar —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Speaker. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I am hearing a point of order at the moment. Mr MacKellar —That is what my point of order is about. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I would like to continue to hear this point of order. Mr MacKellar —It was not a point of order. The honourable member asked for your indulgence. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for Grayndler asked for my indulgence. I am giving him my indulgence. Mr MacKellar —You did not mention that, Madam Acting Speaker. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member did ask for my indulgence. Mr MacKellar —You did not answer him. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I am sorry. Mr LEO McLEAY —Madam Acting Speaker, will you undertake to inquire for the House how the honourable member for Franklin brought containers into this House that may have contained inflammable liquids? Mr Sinclair —He carried them in. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! This is quite an important point. I ask honourable members to be quiet. Mr LEO McLEAY —Opposition members might need something to blow them up but I am sure that all honourable members remember the tirade from those opposite when there was once a suggestion that the security of the House was not in order. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! I take on board the honourable gentleman's request. I will have inquiries made as to how the containers were brought into the House. Assent reported. Madam Acting SPEAKER-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The threat to the Australian scientific research as a result of the Government's mismanagement. 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 MacKELLAR(Warringah)(2.56) —We on this side of the House have noted and endorsed the public commentary of the scientific community deploring-that is not too strong a word-the handling of science and technology policy by this Government. The purpose of raising this matter of public importance is to urge the Government to think again about the shallow perspective it has endeavoured to introduce in public policy towards science and technology. An additional purpose is to put to the Government that not only has the presentation of the issue been retrogressive at the leadership level, examplified in the statements by Senator Button, but also more importantly, the administrative effect is beginning to show. In summary, the Government has tampered stupidly with the administration of science and technology. In the process of sorting out the differences within the Australian Labor Party, it has left the administration of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in limbo, because that is exactly the situation we have at the moment. Honourable members will know that the governing body of the CSIRO is known as the executive. The executive consists of a full time chairman, two other full time members and five part time members. They meet on a regular basis to establish the policy strategy of the Organisation. The executive is supported by the office of the executive, a not inconsiderable body responsible for policy and administrative development. The present full time Chairman is Dr J. P. Wild, a very distinguished scientist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. He is also a fine leader and thinker with a proven capacity to evolve innovative administration and, as the CSIRO reports over the last couple of years show, he has a capacity to respond to national demands which place practical and performance tests on the CSIRO. I mention that those practical and performance tests on the CSIRO take place consistently. The CSIRO has, under Dr Wild, a sound scientific morale. In the past, it has felt wanted and respected, and with very good reason. It has felt encouraged. It has been creative and has developed new materials and technology for Australian industry. The sad news is that not only does Dr Wild leave the Organisation in September, when he will retire, but there seems to have been precious little action by this Government to advertise for his replacement. Clearly, the selection is one of tremendous importance, if the new chairman is to succeed in upholding the great objectives of the Organisation and respond not only to government perceptions but also, perhaps of even greater significance, to the perceptions which emerge from the work of the Organisation and its interaction with the dynamics of international scientific effort. As we approach mid-year, there is nothing on the public record which demonstrates that the Government is making a serious efforts to replace Dr Wild with a man of equivalent stature and competence. I remind the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) that one should not underestimate the difficulties created in finding suitable appointments at a time when the Government is pursuing a review of the CSIRO which was imposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) without adequate public argument for it. I ask the Minister specifically today to say what action he has taken or will take to shift the processes of government into attending to this problem. I hope that the Government, in addressing this appointment, will perform a little differently than it has in its approach to permanent head appointments, where Labor Party credentials have clearly been a major factor. The point at issue is this: Here we have Australia's premier scientific body. We know that the chairman is leaving. To appoint a replacement in a university, for instance, we would have advertising taking place around the world and we would have significant encouragement for suitable people to put forward their names for consideration. At this stage I know of nothing on the public record which would suggest that any consideration has been given to the replacement of Dr Wild. Not only will the impending executive vacancy left, apparently, unattended by the Government create an undesirable and avoidable hiatus, but also the other positions are in a state of flux. The term of at least one of the two full time members expires at about the same time. Mr Barry Jones —The same day. Mr MacKELLAR —The Minister for Science says it is the same day. Thus the full time voice of the authority will be greatly weakened at a time when the Organisation has to be responsive to an inquiry reviewing it. It is true that the experience of the retirees will have significance and they will have intellectual standing in their own right but the weight of their voice will be diminished. So we face the grim prospect that in September the Organisation could have only one of the present three full time members of the executive fully committed. Mr Barry Jones —As a worst case. Mr MacKELLAR —As a worst case, if the Minister has not done anything about it. I hope we will hear in full what he has done about it and what he intends to do. When we turn to the part time membership of the Organisation we find the same sorry, unsatisfactory situation. I understand that two part time members were due to terminate their appointments at the end of last year. They heard nothing at all prior to the termination of their appointment-nothing to thank them for their work and nothing as to whether they were required in the future-until about mid-January of this year when they were written to and asked whether, after the expiry of their terms, they would serve for another six months. The Minister shakes his head. He had better check the facts in relation to this. If his action was unjustified, I hope he will apologise. As I hear it, that was the situation. These people did not know anything about their intended fate until mid-January of this year, and then they were offered what was virtually an insult-an offer to stay on for another six months while the Government has a look at the situation. This means that at the end of June two part time members are due to retire. Moreover, shortly after the retirement of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, another part time member will be nearing the end of his term of appointment. So by September-October, instead of having a full executive of eight members, appointed official office holders in CSIRO, we could be left with an executive of three. That would be the worst case situation. The fact that it is possible at this late stage of the year is a direct and severe indictment of the administrative abilities, if nothing else, of the Minister for Science. This is a highly unsatisfactory prospect for an organisation with a budget of over $330m a year. What shareholders of an enterprise of that scale in this country would feel happy about the chairman of a company which allowed its board of directors to fall into wastage like that? CSIRO is not just any organisation with a budget of over $300m; it is the principal custodian of the intellectual enterprise required to put Australia into a technologically competitive world and keep it there. Its work, along with other scientific work in universities and institutes, is fundamental to the reputation of the nation and of basic generic significance to economic performance. Its role in primary industry research has helped to keep Australia competitive in rural production. Its skills are being made available internationally, particularly to disadvantaged nations. It has in recent years properly put effort into works of outstanding merit in the production of technology for seconday industry. Again I refer to the reports of the organisation. We are not just nit-picking about the Government's administrative performance. We are saying that to avoid a charge of national delinquency the Government needs to address, as a matter of urgency and of public importance, the need to get the executive strength of the Organisation into a stable and efficient condition. What explanation do we have for this state of affairs? We know that the Prime Minister is imposing a review on the CSIRO, and, as the public understands, it is not wholly with the active concurrence of the Minister for Science. We know that the Prime Minister and Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, probably on Senator Button's instigation, decided to dismember the Department of Science and Technology and transfer the Division of Technology to Senator Button's Department of Industry and Commerce. What has to be said of that development is that it has little or no support from any expert view on the institutional arrangements for governing and promoting the technological development of a nation. Australian governments have righty held in certain esteem Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development thinking on international economic issues. They, presumably, must be idealogically disposed to take account of the OECD views on the need to keep science and technology in the forefront of national effort. The OECD makes two essential points which I would draw to the attention of the House. In 1980 it produced an important general statement on the significance of the relationship between technical change and economic policy. Firstly, it recognised that technical innovation is absolutely central to the solution of the present economic malaise. Technical advance, it argued, cannot be taken for granted, and the rate of slowdown in the OECD community was substantial. Private sector initiatives were considerably important, but government policies are essential. It called for a better integration of research and innovation policies with government policies, particularly economic and social ones. This year the OECD addressed the question of whether these objectives were best furthered through a separation of technology from science. The Age of 18 March this year reported: Just as the examiners from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development were polishing their draft report on the state of Australian science and technology late last year, the news came from Canberra that there had been a shake-up in the second Hawke government. Technology moved into Cabinet under the wing of Senator John Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Science and the ebullient Mr Barry Jones stayed in the outer ministry and low in the pecking order. The three OECD examiners were doubtless puzzled. They had read the situation and the country's needs totally differently and make their judgment plain. ''Many of Australia's technological opportunities lie in facilitating the process of transition from science to technical application: It would be perverse to divide the two within central goverment.'' 'It would be perverse' are interesting and very important words chosen by the OECD examiners. What a weight of condemnation of government decision lies in that understatement! The Government might have obtained expert opinion from the OECD before hacking into the Minister's portfolio. Indeed, the Government has made itself look stupid as a government in OECD circles. It gave the OECD the message: 'To hell with expert opinion on such a matter of vital importance. What they know, we do not care to know'. The Button-Hawke relationship obiously needed some restoration. What does it matter if in the process one destroys national incentives in technology as people will not be able to give an accounting for that for another few years? So Senator Button was listened to and obeyed. I turn from the disruptive administrative environment into which the Government has plunged CSIRO to another aspect of Senator Button's interventionism. I recognise the significance of Senator Button's motivations. Industry restructuring is important. His Department needs a technological unit to improve the quality of technological guidance to the Minister. I recognise, as do the CSIRO and the OECD, the fundamental importance of these linkages, but these were being put in place by CSIRO. It is depressing and misleading to suggest otherwise. On 9 May I drew the attention of the House to a statement Senator Button made at the National Meeting of Concern on Science. He said: To endorse basic research, however is not necessarily to say that it has to be at the same level as at present. Full marks for bravado. He was addressing a meeting of scientists stirred into action by the last Budget cuts, which were unargued and unexplained and which remain unjustified. Scientists had witnessed the splitting of science and technology and the emergence of a knee-capping psychology in the treatment of scientific endeavour. The Government's handling of the science and technology portfolio is proving most disruptive to the Minister's own administration-to wit the state of the CSIRO I have referred to and its effect on the morale and confidence of the total Australian scientific community. I came away from that national meeting concerned with the feeling of those scientists, that they and their work were unappreciated and ignored by the Government. They saw no possibility under the present arrangements of having their views listened to, let alone accepted. The sense of alienation and hopelessness they felt in respect of the Government was depressing in the extreme. What a terrible outcome from the promises of this Government at election. The Minister's attitude raised hopes; the pronouncements and decisions of his leaders dashed them. Over the last few years we have had a series of depressing instances relating to this Minister's handling of his portfolio and the effect it has had on the scientific community generally. We have had the review of the CSIRO at the instigation of the then Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). We now have the Australian Science and Technology Council review. We have had the OECD draft report which said that science and technology should not be split, that it would be bad if they were split, and it gave cogent reasons for its views on that matter. I would like to hear the Minister's response to that report. We have had the formation of a committee of concern by scientists from all around Australia. The position is a disgrace and it is putting Australia's scientific community at very real risk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(3.11) —I congratulate the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for his success in securing the consent of his colleagues to propose the first matter of public importance on science and research in this House since the election of the Hawke Government in March 1983. It is a first step, but long overdue. I hope that we do not have to wait another 26 months for a second matter of public importance on this subject. It is a measure of the extraordinarily low priority the Opposition has given to science and research that the shadow Minister for Science has not been given the opportunity to ask a single question without notice in the House since his appointment. That is not his fault, but it reflects the view of the intellectually bankrupt Opposition that there are no votes in science. I point out that in my two years as shadow Minister for Science and Technology I proposed six matters of public importance which were on science and related areas which were debated in the House. I thought the proposed title of the matter of public importance was slightly misleading, because it was so extremely general. It did not refer to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation at all. I want to draw particular attention to the main thrust of the honourable member for Warringah's speech, which was the potential hiatus in the leadership of CSIRO. Mr MacKellar —It is not their fault. Mr BARRY JONES —I am not saying it is CSIRO's fault at all. It must be stressed that the reason for the part time and permanent appointments terminating so close together is that the former Government, in its wisdom, chose to make them for the same period, rather than staggering them. We have the extraordinary situation that between June and September 1985 five of the eight appointments will expire. I instance the positions of three permanent members. Dr J. P. Wild, FRS, Chairman and Chief Executive, retires on 24 September 1985. The more senior of the remaining full time members, Dr Keith Boardman, FRS, also retires on 24 September 1985. Both of them had seven-year terms, both were appointed on the same day. That was an asinine piece of timing by the then Government-- Mr MacKellar —It does not stop you moving to replace them. Mr BARRY JONES —Just one moment. There are also three part time members whose terms will expire: Professor D. P. Craig, FRS, Mr Baillieu Myer and Mr Graham Spurling, whose appointments end between the end of June and September 1985. I refer to the situation of the reappointment of the part time members, about which the honourable member spoke quite misleadingly. I spoke to Mr Baillieu Myer and Professor Craig and invited them to extend their terms until the future organisational structure of CSIRO was determined because I had a view and other members of the Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), have other views as well. With five members coming up for appointment, two full time and three part time, it seemed an obvious opportunity to consider the question provided that the risk of a long, drawn out hiatus, which would be damaging for morale, was avoided. On 29 October 1984, I wrote to the Prime Minister proposing, without prejudice to any possible restructuring of the CSIRO executive, that the retiring members should be continued in office. I stated that Mr Myer and Professor Craig were making an important contribution to reviews being conducted by the executive on aspects of the Organisation's work, in addition to their normal responsibilities as members of the governing body. Mr MacKellar —Did you tell them that? Mr BARRY JONES —I talked to them beforehand. I discussed with them that they should have their terms extended. Then, and I am sure the honourable member for Warringah will remember this, we had an election. I was concerned at the fact that the appointments had not gone through the Executive Council. So I wrote to the Prime Minister, and received an acknowledgment from the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, pointing out that in the light of the caretaker convention that then applied-the proposed appointments be left in abeyance until after 1 December 1984. On 14 December 1984 the Prime Minister wrote indicating his agreement to the extensions. The matter was then put before the Executive Council. I do not have the exact date, but I think it was put before the Executive Council at its last meeting on 19 December 1984. If I am wrong about that date, I will let the honourable member know. I had the opportunity to discuss the matter, because I was a guest at a dinner put on by Mr Myer some time in early December at Myer House in Melbourne. We discussed the whole matter very freely. He understood the position and the embarrassment involved in the fact that it was obviously highly desirable to get the appointments in well before the end of 1984, but with the caretaker convention and the inevitable disruption of the normal processes of government, because of the conducting of the-- Mr MacKellar —And Professor Craig? Mr BARRY JONES —Professor Craig was not at the dinner. Mr MacKellar —He did not have the opportunity to talk with you? Mr BARRY JONES —I would be very surprised if I had not spoken to him. I think I spoke to Professor Craig by telephone. It is conceivable that it was done via Dr Wild. Certainly, I was aware of the fact that the recommendation of the executive itself-obviously this had been discussed at the executive level-was that the terms of Professor Craig and Mr Myer should be extended for a six-month period. As I say, there is no doubt that I wrote to the Prime Minister as early as 29 October. The cycle of the election period and the restructuring immediately after the election period did create-- Mr MacKellar —When did they know? Was I right or were you right? Mr BARRY JONES —I was right. Mr MacKellar —They were written to by mid-January? Mr BARRY JONES —They were not written to until it had gone through Executive Council. That is absolutely correct, but they were aware of the situation. The CSIRO executive was very conscious of it and both continued as members of the CSIRO executive. The executive members were perfectly clear as to what was being done. Mr Cohen —That is the normal procedure. Mr BARRY JONES —The problem lies in the caretaker tradition, which perhaps ought not apply in cases such as this. Perhaps short extensions for the people already in office should be regarded as being in a different category from appointments de novo. The timing of the Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry is entirely appropriate, given the opportunities for a new direction which are implicit in the end of the term of two fulltime officers. Dr Wild has indicated that he does not want an extension of term. Dr Boardman has indicated that he is a contender for an extension of term. To overcome the possibility of a hiatus, there are several ways in which it can be handled. There could be an extension of the terms of all five potential retirees to cover the period until the section of the ASTEC review relating to CSIRO is delivered and the Government has had an opportunity to deliberate on it. The other possibility, as the honourable member for Warringah has suggested, would be to advertise. That is something we have considered. Mr MacKellar —What are you going to do? Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member will not be the first to know. The initial decision will be made by Cabinet and we will announce the appropriate action. I have been assured by the Prime Minister, which I unhesitatingly accept, that there will be no hiatus, even if we extend the members' terms to solve the problem. It would be unthinkable if the Organisation should be allowed to go for any length of time without effective leadership and without knowing in what direction it was to go. I have been handed a note that the Executive Council extensions were approved on 21 December 1984. Mr MacKellar —There is no doubt about that. When were the two members written to? Mr BARRY JONES —The members were not written to-it was undoubtedly a discourtesy on my part not to have written to them-until some time early in January. Mr MacKellar —That is what I said about a quarter of an hour ago. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member said that they were left in ignorance, but in this technological era there are other ways of communicating than by letter. It may come as a surprise to the honourable member, but in this age of electronic communication I certainly had discussions at some length with Baillieu Myer and my recollection is that I spoke to Professor Craig. I would not be absolutely adamant about that, but there is certainly no question that Baillieu Myer was well aware of it. It is not my habit to be discourteous to people who perform very valuable services to the Commonwealth. There is no question about it on my part that I was concerned about the delay. The delay was for reasons that were well out of my hands, as the honourable member would know, because he was at least peripherally involved in the election campaign and he ought to be aware of the reasons. I believe that some of the most important issues that can be addressed in the ASTEC review are the reasons for those inhibiting factors that are preventing the private sector from making an effective contribution to Australia's research and development capability. Let me quote from the excellent review on national science policies by the examiners sent out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paragraph 8 of that report states: The period of institutional innovation in Australia since 1974-- I draw attention to that date- has been a time of disappointment-indeed of deterioration-in several important functions of Australian science and technology. One often-mentioned indicator, which we discuss further below, is the sharp decline in research and development funded and performed by Australian industry. With industry funded R and D falling from 0.48 per cent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 1968/69 to 0.21 per cent in 1981, and with an associated decline in total R and D from 1.34 per cent to 1.01 per cent of GDP. The comparable current figure for all OECD medium R and D performers is 1.64 per cent of GDP, of which 0.93 is funded by industry. Another indicator is the small and declining proportion of tertiary education students-less than 8 per cent of the total-enrolled in engineering and technology subjects. The most valuable contribution that the ASTEC inquiry could make would be to look at what are the inhibiting mechanisms between industry-complicated, of course, by the very high degree of foreign ownership, particularly in high technology areas where companies are inclined to buy their products as mature, proven technology off the shelf-and the use of the extraordinary resources we have tied up, principally in CSIRO. I also draw attention to the enormous resources that are tied up in universities and institutes of technology as well. That is a national scandal. Frankly, it is something on which we ought to take a bipartisan approach. We ought to recognise that it is one area where the future of the nation is very much tied up. Unfortunately, science is not yet part of our political culture. It does not have the priority it deserves, and we ought to be working together for that common end. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is now concluded. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 20 May, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 21 May, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 22 May, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 23 May, at 10 a.m. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.28) —It is with some regret and disappointment that I rise to oppose the Australian Sports Commission Bill. I had hoped that the Government and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) would have been able to introduce a better and fairer proposal. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Bill we are considering today is historic. This is the first time the Commonwealth Government has sought to legislate in any significant way in connection with sport in Australia. This Bill, although basically simple in its structure and objectives, demands careful examination of its underlying philosophy and the principles of government on which it relies. The Opposition has considered the Bill carefully and, on the basis of this consideration, is bound to oppose it. Our position is based not on perversity but on our fundamental philosophy and view of the role and responsibility of government. We on this side of the House have a commitment to the rights of the individual Australian and, by extension, the right of Australian sport to self-determination. We do not believe that government should seek to mould or change society. Rather we believe that government's proper role is to provide a framework within which individuals are free to associate, determine their priorities and objectives, and pursue them as they see fit. In our country, as in other nations throughout history, sport, both as a participatory activity and as entertainment, has been fundamentally linked to national morale and national image. It is true to say that Australia is sport crazy. It is because of its importance to the men and women and, particularly, the children of this country that governments must be very careful of their activities in this area. The potential and preparedness of politicians across the whole political spectrum to manipulate sport for political purposes and so mould national consciousness in the direction that they desire is obvious. The gladiatorial contest of ancient Rome served a political purpose, just as the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc nations see sport as an essential part of their propaganda effort, integrating sporting and cultural activities within their foreign policy. Perhaps the most notorious use, or, more accurately, abuse, of sport has been perpetrated by the fascist regime of Nazi Germany. Few people would not be aware of the despicable use of the 1936 Olympic Games by Hitler and his propaganda Minister, Goebbels, to promote their racist views of an Aryan master race. That repugnant regime consciously used sport to galvanise German national pride and to make sport part and parcel of the Nazi propaganda machine. It is of great concern to the coalition that we again see this technique used throughout the world today to manipulate and control national attitudes. Unfortunately, Australia and its governments cannot claim to be above the politicisation of sport or sportsmen and sportswomen. Australian political parties have shamelessly sought to use sportsmen and sportswomen for political purposes. I am sure most people can remember party political advertisements that contain sequences taken from major sporting events, events such as the America's Cup and finals of swimming and athletics events, these sequences juxtaposed with shots of the politician whom it is sought to promote or popularise. I say to the House, sincerely, that I disapprove of this technique and that I believe it should be condemned for the dangerous propaganda tool that it is. In previous capacities, I have acted as campaign director for the National Party. I assure the House that I have never used that technique. I do not approve of it, and I will never countenance it on behalf of myself. It is because of the capacity of power-hungry politicians and their political machines to manipulate sport for their own purposes that we must carefully consider the potential uses and abuses of any legislation that we enact in this area. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that this Bill broke new legislative ground in this Parliament. The founding fathers of this nation did not give this Parliament specific power to legislate for sport. Perhaps the issue did not cross their minds. Perhaps it did and they rejected it. I do not know. But, because of the omission of any mention of sport from the Constitution, this Bill is based on three powers, the relevance of which to sport is not immediately apparent. They are the powers in relation to statistics, territories and external affairs. The resort to the territories and external affairs powers is understandable, if dubious. It is the use of statistics as a power which is curious. Will the proposed Sports Commission conduct a sports census to determine how many red-headed discus throwers or blue-eyed leg spinners we have, or is this power to be used in connection with the distribution of funds? Later, we shall see that it is intended that the Sports Commission will distribute funds by grants, et cetera. Are these grants and other assistance measures to be conditional on a sporting organisation's provision of detailed statistics on its activities and the activities of its members? In my opening remarks I mentioned the significance of the underlying philosophy of the Bill. The Bill establishes the Australian Sports Commission as a statutory authority, but the Commission has no autonomy. To understand the relationship established between the Government and the Commission by this Bill, it is necessary to consider a number of specific provisions. I shall paraphrase them. The Minister, by written notice, can give directions to the Commission with respect to its policies and practices. The Commission may, with the written approval of the Minister, make grants, lend money or provide scholarships or like benefits. The Minister has control of the membership of the Commission. The Minister appoints the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and between 10 and 20 commissioners. It is instructive to contrast the lack of autonomy, the lack of independence and the degree of ministerial control proposed for the Australian Commission with that given to other comparable statutory authorities, such as the Australia Council, which were also Labor Government initiatives. When speaking to this Bill, the Minister said: I draw the attention of honourable members to those aspects of the Bill that define the powers and responsibilities of the Minister. The Government is anxious to ensure that the Commission operates within the framework of overall government objectives and policies, which will guide the strategic plan to be prepared by the Commission for consideration by the Minister. The Bill provides that the Minister must approve the strategic plan. He continued: These provisions make it clear that the Commission will remain directly responsible to the Government. The coalition disagrees with this degree of ministerial control on two fundamental grounds: First, we believe that a basic principle of self-determination should apply. We believe that sport and its representatives should be able to determine their own development and direction and the pace at which they develop. The model that the Government has introduced in the Bill is based on the techniques used in Eastern Europe-the East German model of sport development, and the restriction to a government plan. I personally believe that that is obnoxious. Why has the Minister not seen fit to follow the recent precedents established by his colleagues and provide for direct representation on the Commission of national sporting organisations? There are many fine people on the Commission. They are, indeed, representative of Australian sport; but they are not representatives of Australian sport. That is a very fundamental and important distinction. Australian sport should not be subject to the control, actual or potential, of a quango in turn controlled by the Minister of the day, staffed by public servants and required to operate within the sport policy of the government of the day. The coalition believes that it is inappropriate and potentially dangerous to require an organisation such as the Commission, which has both an administrative and a financial role, to be subject to the policy of the Government. In this area, I ask the Minister to explain the implications of this statement contained in his second reading speech: The Commission has no power or charter to intervene in or direct, without the direction of the Minister, the affairs of any individual organisation. Why would the Australian Sports Commission want to intervene in or direct the affairs of a national sporting organisation? I ask this question not flippantly but sincerely: Has the Minister based his recommendations in this area on the constitution of the Australian Labor Party, which provides for Federal intervention all too frequently? The coalition's policy, by contrast, is quite clear. A coalition government would establish a Federal body to be an autonomous, independent adviser on sport and recreation. It would be representative of national sporting organisations and charged with providing a forum to stimulate national levels of participation and achievement in sport and recreation. This body would be autonomous and would advise the Government of long term policies and programs to develop the diverse needs of the Australian community at all levels. It would not have an administrative or interventionary role. Our policy is supported by a majority of national sporting organisations. Undoubtedly the Minister will be able to table representations that he has received from national sporting bodies, saying that they support his initiative. I could do likewise. The exercise would prove nothing. This whole debate really revolves around the fundamental philosophy of government, the difference between the people on the Government side of the House and the coalition on this side of the House. The Opposition is truly amazed that the Government has chosen to introduce such significant legislation without ensuring widespread public debate. It is a strange approach for a Minister in a government committed to consensus and summitry. Does it represent a ditching of the principle, or merely a double standard? The Government so far has steadfastly refused to release the report of the Interim Committee on the Sports Commission, even in response to requests made under the freedom of information legislation. I find that absolutely amazing. It is harder to get hold of that report than it is to get hold of some royal commission reports. I do not understand it. Surely the document cannot have a security rating. What possible suggestions could it contain in relation to sport-and that is the issue-that make it essential to maintain confidentiality and secrecy? I ask the Minister to explain why this is happening and what possible difficulties could arise from the releasing of that report. The detailed provisions of the Bill have been secret. The degree of consultation with sport throughout Australia has been minimal. The Confederation of Australian Sport, which acts as a major umbrella organisation for Australian sport and which represents some 122 organisations and about 5.3 million participants, has expressed concern at many aspects of this legislation. It shares many of the fundamental concerns of those on this side of the House. The Confederation, on behalf of its members, undertook a survey of its constituent organisations to ascertain the degree with which they had been consulted on this issue. The survey revealed almost no consultation on the part of the Government and widespread dissatisfaction at this and concern at the implications for the future operations of the Commission. The background to the drafting of this Bill is unusual, to say the least. The Australian Sports Commission currently exists, not as a statutory authority but as an office in the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. It is appropriate to note that the present Government's policy on sport has been, as the Minister frequently tells us, successfully implemented without the Sports Commission being a statutory authority. The Australian Sports Commission and its staff-the Chairman and commissioners, all of whom will continue if this Bill is passed by the House-have been in consultation with the Department in the process of drafting this legislation. It is almost like writing one's own job description without consulting the people for whom one is supposed to work-in this case, Australian sport. This also raises a point about which this Government, with its new-found commitment to fiscal responsibility, should be acutely aware, that is, the potential not only for duplication between the Australian Sports Commission and the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism but also for rivalry and conflict, all of which reduce efficiency, increase costs and cause waste. This is to say nothing of the effect of any such conflict on the morale of the staff of the two organisations. Quite frankly, this proposal really means more bureaucrats and more paperwork. I do not believe that the Minister has satisfactorily justified the need for both the Australian Sports Commission and the continuation of the Department, particularly in view of the considerable powers and responsibilities to be given to the Australian Sports Commission. We look forward to a more detailed explanation. I wish now to address my attention to the coalition's concerns at some of the functions and powers of the Sports Commission. The first listed and presumably paramount objective of the Australian Sports Commission is to encourage the private sector to contribute to the funding of sport. Sport in Australia already relies heavily on private sponsorship and contributions. The major private sponsors of sport in Australia have done an excellent job over many years. Without naming them, I pay tribute to their support and contributions. Notwithstanding the substantial existing support, it is a laudable objective to increase such contributions. The coalition supports the objectives but has significant reservations and concerns at the method proposed by the Government. The Australian Sports Commission is to establish a company. This company is to be known as the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. We are told that consideration is being given to making donations to the Foundation tax deductible. This is in line with the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the last election campaign. As with all his other promises, I expect that we can confidently assume that it will be honoured! Our concern arises from the relationship to be established between the Foundation and the Sports Commission. The Foundation will be controlled by the Sports Commission. It will have no independence. It will need to comply with the Australian Sports Commission and its strategic plan and ultimately, of course, with the policy of the government of the day. The effect of this arrangement is for the Government to gain control of private donations to sport by giving preferential treatment to the Foundation, that is, tax deductibility for gifts to the Foundaton but not tax deductibility for gifts to any other national sporting association or private foundation supporting sport. If this Government is truly committed to encouraging private funding for sport, why does it not give tax deductibility status to all significant private sports foundations and national organisations? This is the approach adopted with charitable organisations, the effect of which is to maximise private contributions by maximising the marketing effort. I note that in his second reading speech the Minister said that he was confident that the Australian Sports Commission would demonstrate entrepreneurial initiative. Quite frankly, I would rather rely on the entrepreneurial initiative of a number of private organisations than of one quango. I hope that the Minister will not reject this by suggesting that it is impractical, or dismiss it by deprecating the organisations involved which would stand to gain considerably from such an initiative. The Australian Olympic Federation or the Commonwealth Games Association would certainly be responsible organisations and which I am sure the Minister would be prepared to trust with such authority and responsibility. If it works for charities, why can it not work for private sports foundations and national organisations? The Minister should explain how it is preferable and more efficient to have double handling of donations. Does he believe that he is more proficient at physically presenting cheques than the managing director of a public company or a private donor? Another aspect of the relationship between the Commission and the Foundation needs to be examined in some detail. Who will bear the costs of the administration charges? Will it be the Commission or will it come off the top of the donations? The legislation gives no guarantees that private donations to the Foundation will entirely end up in the hands of sport in Australia. What will be the management charge between the Commission and the Foundation? Sport in Australia deserves clarification of this and preferably an assurance that no charge will be made on private donations to this Foundation. Earlier I made reference to our concern arising from the ability of the Minister of the day to control absolutely the financial activity of the Sports Commission. The Bill proposes that the Commission will require written ministerial approval for all grants, loans, scholarships and other such benefits. This, coupled with the Minister's capacity to hire and fire the Australian Sports Commission's Chairman, commissioners and General Manager, provides massive potential for political leverage. I believe this to be inappropriate, not only in the light of my earlier references to the propensity of politicians to exploit sport and sportsmen and sportswomen, but also because of the control this Bill gives the Minister over private funding and the inequitable and discriminatory way in which this control is achieved. Further, we on this side of the House are concerned at the potential implications of the area in which it is proposed that the Australian Sports Commission will operate as well as its responsibilities and activities. In our opinion, it is totally inappropriate to give responsibility for and control of the Australian Sports Commission to the Minister in the Government who also controls the Information Co-Ordination Branch, the National Media Liaison Group and the Ministerial Media Group. A moment's reflection on the activities of these units will reveal the potential problems that could arise if sport is added to this grouping. In my opening remarks, I stated that the coalition regrets that we are unable to support this proposal. I hope that will not be treated to a superficial response from the Government, with accusations of the coalition's being anti-sport; I assure the House that we are not. Honourable members will remember, I am sure, that it was the initiatives of former coalition governments that established the Australian Institute of Sport, the Australian Coaching Council which embraces the national coaching accreditation scheme and the original proposal for the Australian Games. I wish to note at this time that, although the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism attended the Australia Games, not one other Minister in his Government bothered to attend the Games. Mr John Brown —Were you there? Mr BLUNT —The Minister asks whether I was there. Of course, if he had spent a little more time there, he would have realised that I was present. A review of the Government's Forward Estimates shows the potential for decline in its support for sport. If the Minister is sincere in his approach to sport and in his commitment on behalf of the government to fund sport, he should give an undertaking to sport that as a result of this Bill there will be no slackening in the Government's budgetary contributions and that he does not intend to replace budgetary allocations with private donations which are available to sport in other ways. In summary, this Bill gives sport no representation, no independence or autonomy and no guarantee of government funding, but it does give Government an immense opportunity to interfere in and control sport. I say again that we are not anti-sport. Our concerns are genuine, our philosophy is fundamentally different from that of those who sit on the other side of the House. We would approach the need to provide assistance to sport differently. I hope that our fears will not be realised. We oppose this Bill. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(3.51) —This Government's commitment to sport has been substantial over a large number of years. In opposition, we spoke very strongly about sport and our commitment to a certain number of objectives. Principal amongst those objectives were encouragement of the development of excellence in sports people, encouragement and support for participation in sport by all members of the community and an encouragement of an appreciation that the adoption of a healthy and active lifestyle was for the betterment of society. We realised that the quality of the lives of individuals in this country is enhanced and enriched by their involvement in sport. In many ways it touches the lives of almost everyone in this country. More than five million Australians are registered with official national sports organisations. That represents nearly 35 per cent of the population. On top of that, many are involved in recreation in an official way. As mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), there is a significant sector whose livelihood is obtained through sport and leisure industries. Of course, the vast majority of Australians are entertained on a weekly basis by sporting events. This legislation extends our already strong commitment to the objectives and it recognises the value of sport to the fabric of our life style and to our national identity and unity. This is, as has been mentioned, landmark legislation. This is the first time since Federation that sport as an issue has been the subject of legislation in this Parliament. In 1941 there was the National Fitness Act, which was a response to the fact that Australian recruits for the Second World War proved to be less fit than we would have liked, but before and since then there has been no legislation before this House with regard to sport. This legislation is not ill-conceived or ad hoc. It has been part of the policy of the Australian Labor Party for some time. Indeed, we have gone to two elections with this standing as part of our platform. There has been a significant amount of planning to bring about this legislation. Indeed, in September 1983 an interim committee was set up to look at the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission. It represents a recognition of the inadequacy of past planning and commitment of governments in this country to sport. For too long we paid lip-service to our sportsmen. Many of us sat and basked in the glories of our sports men and women, but we did precious little to assist them. This legislation is an attempt to rectify the mistakes that have been made in the past. Anybody who has been close to sport in this country on a domestic or international level would be well aware of the fact that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s Australian sport was left behind. While it may not be a barometer of everything that is happening in sport, if one looks at our international performances one finds that in 1956 Australia won a significant number of gold medals at the Olympic Games and 20 years later, in 1976, the best we could do was a silver medal. Another country which has perhaps an ideology that we may not agree with, East Germany, has shown entirely different results. Its commitment to sport over that time and to the fitness of its community brought about significant results at the very highest level. In 1956 East Germany won one silver medal and then there was a turnaround. In 1976 more than 50 gold medals were won by that country. While we may not support its ideology, I think it is a recognition of the fact that there was a significant commitment to sport in that country and many other countries and Australia was left behind in that regard. We now have an Australian Sports Commission which will provide a solid base for advice to the Government. We have a Sports Commission which will ensure stability of funding for sport in an appropriate sense. There will be a planned approach to sport and we will have avenues whereby sport can be directly associated with government and have direct input. We will also take advantage of the opportunity to tap alternative funding sources. It is my belief that the Australian Sports Commission will provide flexibility and autonomy to get that job done and to ensure value for the sports dollar. Members of the Opposition have come in here today with criticism and humbug. Today they had an opportunity to establish their credentials in sport. Sadly their credentials in sport are very disappointing. It might be salutary at this time to look at their record. In the 1950s and 1960s their contribution to sport in this country was, at the best, piecemeal and ad hoc and not substantial in any way. In 1972, for the first time, the Ministry of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was established by a Labor Government, but in 1975 on taking office that was dismantled by the coalition parties and their first significant move was to take $100,000 from the team for the Montreal Olympic Games. Following an inquiry after the poor performance of that team, they changed their commitment somewhat but even then, during the late 1970s, the real funding for sport by the coalition parties was less, in real money terms, than that which had been provided by the Labor Party in 1975. In 1980 we had for the first time the politicisation of sport to a marked level in this country when the then Prime Minister strode around the country browbeating sporting groups and organisations into not competing in the Moscow Olympic Games. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), has been talking about politicisation. I believe the greatest perpetrators of difficulties in that area were his colleagues. The then Prime Minister did not get his way because there was a significant amount of autonomy in sport but, as a consequence, he took $500,000 away from that Olympic team and subsequently we heard that millions of dollars in compensation have been paid to various groups which have suffered as a result. Indeed, the cynicism of members of the Opposition came to a head in 1982 at the Commonwealth Games just prior to its demise as a government. I will quote an article from the Bulletin of October 1982. Mike Gibson, referring to the Brisbane Commonwealth Games, said: Another great performer was the Prime Minister. Representing a government that is internationally notorious for the miserly attitude it adopts towards its greatest advertisement-our sportsmen and women-Malcolm Fraser seemed to bob up at the Games whenever a television camera presented itself. He took the gold medal for cynicism. No wonder most competitors to whom I spoke merely grinned wryly and shook their heads at the mention of his name. I believe that Mike Gibson in that comment encapsulates the commitment of the coalition parties over a long period to sport in this country. That was the high point of the Opposition's hypocrisy. Yet members of the Opposition come in here today and have the gall to criticise the Government with regard to this issue, a government that has gone to the electorate with a substantial policy-that of the Sports Commission. They have no credentials and their record is contrasted with that of the present Government. Expenditure on sport in their last year in office was $14m and now, two years later, under this Minister and under this Government expenditure has risen to $54m. There has been an increase in coaching and administration programs; increased assistance to Olympic and international teams; increased assistance to disabled people for sport and recreation; a junior participation program; the reintroduction of Federal funds for recreation programs and continued and increased assistance for life saving and other groups. The Australian Institute of Sport has been expanded and decentralised and the international sports facilities fund has been updated and improved to the new national standards sports facility program. At the beginning of this year we saw the inaugural Australia Games. This Government has done much more, but I just wanted to mention those particular matters. With the establishment of this Sports Commission we have given further effect to our commitment to sport. Indeed, the functions of this Commission will be to advise the Minister in much the same way as the previous Government's Advisory Council advised it. The Sports Commission will define and recommend priorities. It will recommend the allocation of funds and administer the disbursement of those funds. It will consult with sporting bodies in the community. We find that within the legislation any number of times the word 'consultation' used. The Commission will take the opportunity to generate funds in order to supplement those funds that are provided by the Government. Through the Sports Aid Foundation I have no doubt that the lot of our international sportsmen, who have suffered so greatly over the years, will be improved. I take this opportunity to say a few words about those criticisms which have been directed at the Sports Commission by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond. He was particularly concerned that there was no direct representation for sport on the Sports Commission. Again, the previous Government established the Sports Advisory Council in exactly the same way, by appointment of the Minister, and I find it very difficult to believe that the honourable member can be serious. Are we to expect that the Sports Commission should have a representative from every sport in this country? Are we to expect it to have 120 representatives? I find that frightening. Are we to expect that people representing sport should have merely sectional interests, rather than a generic interest in sport to gain a complete and overall picture? Indeed, the committees within the Sports Commission are already operating and they are tapping into the expertise that is out there in the community. Consultation has been one of the fortes of this Commission in the seven months that it has been operating. The honourable member's second concern is that the Sports Commission has no autonomy or financial independence. Again, I stress the fact that this Commission is an advisory body, but more so than any other body, it is at arm's length from the Government. The suggestion that the Government should abrogate its responsibility to sport is a horrendous possibility. The taxpayers want value for their sports dollar and I believe there should be audit and parliamentary scrutiny of what goes on within the Sports Commission. It is amazing to imagine that a coalition government would abrogate that ministerial responsibility that we all see as being part of the Westminster system. The honourable member is also concerned about the proposals for the Sports Aid Foundation and tax deductibility. I think it is very important to consider that if we open that tax deductability to all sorts of groups and organisations, we will open up a can of worms-an administrative monster. I would like to speak longer but unfortunately time is limited. It needs to be said that when it comes to sport the coalition has failed, and it has failed over a number of years. Honourable members opposite are yesterday's men. They do not have the ideas and they do not have the confidence of the public. Australians did not work under the previous coalition Government, nor did they have the opportunity to play. We are putting them to work, hopefully, and providing them with the opportunity to play and to be involved in sport. For the first time in this Parliament we have significant legislation in sport. I would have hoped that the coalition parties would have supported it; I have no doubt that the Democrats will support it and I look forward to this legislation serving sport and the Australian community well in the coming years. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.05) —I join the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) in opposing the Australian Sports Commission Bill. There is, in this Parliament and around the nation, bipartisan support for the need to expand the sporting and recreational opportunities of all Australians. What is at issue today is how best to do that; how best to ensure that individual sports men and women can develop their talents to the level of their choice; and how to do this in a way that ensures maximum opportunities are created and that there is the greatest possible community input into the development of sport. We live in a country that has three spheres of government. This legislation is aimed at centralising the management, leadership and sponsorship of Australian sport. In the past, sport has developed because of the encouragement of Liberal-National Party governments and also because of the encouragement of a previous Labor Government. Mr John Brown —Oh! Mr WILSON —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism mocks the great development that occurred in Australian sport over the seven years of the Fraser Government. He should go back and study the record, because during that period some very dramatic landmark decisions were taken. These shaped and are still shaping today-in some cases with this Government's continuing encouragement-the development of Australian sport. I get tired of the way in which the Government in this House is never prepared to give credit where credit is due. Credit was due to the Fraser Government for the establishment of the Australian Institute of Sport. Mr John Brown —It is in the second reading speech, if the honourable member can read. Mr WILSON —The Minister's interjections deny everything he said in that second reading speech. On this side of the House we object to the method that is being adopted by this legislation to centralise government involvement in Australian sport. It would have been possible for the Government to have pursued sporting policies at the national level by using a government department and having the Minister in charge responsible for the actions of that department. Yet this legislation will go on to the statute book-if it is carried-to create a charade, the pretence of an arm's length body. What nonsense the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) put before the House. He said that the type of statutory authority, as implied by this Bill, would be at arm's length from the Minister. One just has to look at the legislation itself to find that it is unique. This legislation sets up a statutory authority that gives the Minister the widest possible power and discretion to direct and to order the Commission as to what it is to do. He has the same powers over this statutory authority that a Minister would have over his own department. Is that arm's length autonomy for a statutory authority? Not at all. The legislation requires the Commission to establish and formulate a strategic plan. Is that to be done at arm's length, with autonomy, with independence after consultation with Australian sport? Not at all. It is to establish a strategic plan which can only become the strategic plan of the Commission if it is approved by the Minister. How can a body that is at arm's length move and act only with the approval of the Minister? It is a nonsense in this case to establish a statutory authority and pretend that it has independence. If the Minister wanted to do what he is seeking to do in this legislation, it would have been far better for him to have left the matter in the hands of his own Department. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure had something to say on this matter. In a recent report, which was totally ignored by the Government and the Minister, the Committee said that it had an 'open mind' on the desirability of the establishment of a national sports commission as an independent agency, absorbing functions that were previously carried out by the Department. I ask honourable members to note the words 'as an independent agency'. The Committee had an open mind which rather implies that there were differing views on that Committee in this regard. The report went on to say: However, the Committee believes that a Commission structure was only one and not necessarily the best of a number of organisational models, including a department or an advisory committee, which could achieve the leadership objective. In the Committee's view however, the need for leadership extended beyond sport to cover recreation. While the Committee did not want to second guess the interim committee that the Minister had set up the report went on to say: . . . it felt bound to make some remarks on the scope and operation of the National Sports Commission. The Committee talked at length about the need for the Commission, if it were to be established, to involve recreation and recreational sport so that neither became the poor relation of elite sport. The Committee expressed its concern in the report in these terms: The Committee was concerned however to avoid the possibility that such an arrangement would institutionalise an unwanted distinction between sport and recreation and allow the National Sports Commission to continue the Commonwealth's emphasis with elite sport. More significantly, the report went on to say: The Committee believed that the Commission model, if adopted, is one which should ensure its independence and hence its ability, if it so wishes, to give advice that may not be attractive to governments. There is the danger that the Commission's role could just as easily and more effectively be performed by a Department of State. There is a danger. That danger is now before this House. The Commission is no different from a department and yet there is a pretence that it is a body that will be at arm's length. The legislation does not give it the independence, the autonomy, the separate existence and the right to act and advise in a free and autonomous way. Not only does it have to comply with the Minister's direction and put in a strategic plan which would become its strategic plan only if the Minister approves, but also under the clauses relating to the financial arrangements for the Commission in the preparation of its estimates the Minister can insist on a line by line basis and on a specific allocation grant basis that it indicate to him what it is proposing; the estimates will be made available only if they have the detailed approval of the Minister. The Commission will have no independent autonomous discretion to determine the allocation of funds according to its assessment of the needs of Australian sport. As the honourable member for Richmond has pointed out, the legislation provides for the establishment of the Australian Sports Aid Foundation-another shell or sham company to mask the control of the Minister. He said in his second reading speech that there was a need for a mechanism to give much greater direct involvement by sport in determining the needs, priorities and strategies for action. This legislation certainly does not set up the appropriate mechanism whereby there can be a greater involvement of sport. In fact, it will reduce the involvement of sport in the decision-making process. The second reason the Minister advanced for establishing the Commission was to allow it to open up alternative sources of funding. It is on that basis that he seeks to set up the Foundation. Under this legislation it will be as much under the Minister's control and direction as the Sports Commission itself. My experience as a Minister was that if a government wants to encourage the private sector to support a worthwhile activity one of the least effective ways of doing so is to endeavour to siphon the funds through a public sector instrumentality. I suppose it is not surprising because most people see their payments to the public sector as taxes. They pay their taxes and they think that from taxation revenue governments and parliaments should allocate appropriate amounts to satisfy the public sector needs. The Minister was silent in his second reading speech as to whether he, his Department or his Government would guarantee that for every dollar given to the Sports Foundation an additional dollar will be spent on Australian sport. My own experience-and the Minister might well experience this in the future-leads me to believe that if a Minister raises $1m through the Foundation the Department of Finance and the Treasury will say: 'That is good. We believe that the Government's effort in sport should be $Xm. You have raised $1m and the Government now needs to put in only $X minus $1m.' There is no guarantee that there will be any extra spending on Australian sport as a consequence of the establishment of the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. No evidence is advanced by the Minister that this is the best way to maximise funding for Australian sport. I believe that the best way to maximise funding for Australian sport is to encourage sporting groups and organisations to raise their own funds, to encourage the public sector to give direct to sporting organisations and sportsmen and to encourage sport. A great deal of that is going on now. Public sector support, under both this Government and past governments is only a small proportion of the public's expenditure on sport. It will always remain so. This Minister is setting up a mechanism that will reduce people's efforts through giving directly to their own organisations. He will do it in a way that will give the Minister power over more money but the net result for Australian sport as a whole will be a lesser allocation and availability of resources. Our approach is not opposition to encouraging the expansion of Australian sport; it is not a failure to understand the importance of the dual role of encouraging elite sport and participatory sport; it is not any lack of understanding of the importance to Australians of their involvement in competitive sport and recreational sport; it is a concern at the absurd methodology employed by this Government in pursuit of its sports policy. We believe that by establishing this mechanism the Government will do great harm to the future development of Australian sport and the opportunities of Australians generally to participate in and enjoy it. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.18) —Prior to the election of the first Hawke Government in 1983, a major policy statement was published which outlined the plans and objectives for sports development assistance of the Government. Central to those plans was the creation of the Australian Sports Commission to draw together more effectively our national sporting efforts. The policy was developed as a direct response to criticisms from within the sporting community that the Federal Government was not doing enough to co-ordinate Australia's sporting effort and was not offering sufficient leadership in the attempt to achieve the greatest impact of available resources. Those legitimate complaints are addressed directly by the establishment of the Commission. It will be able to offer a focus for a co-ordinated approach to specific sports development challenges and opportunities. It will be able, through the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, to increase the flow of funds to sport from the private sector. It will be able to offer the sporting community more avenues into the process of defining priorities and making decisions. It will not, as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has consistently said, have any mandate to interfere with or direct in any way the plans, priorities or autonomy of individual associations and organisations. The Commission has a very specific brief to advise and assist the Government in its attempts to get the best possible use out of the resources available for sports development assistance. It is interesting to hear honourable members opposite say that there has been a lack of consultation and no deliberation on this important issue. To them I say: Humbug, absolute nonsense. The Australian Olympic Federation at its recent annual meeting wholeheartedly endorsed the ASC as have other key organisations in sport in Australia. The Confederation of Australian Sport recently held lengthy discussions with the Minister on this issue and said, in a letter to all members of the House: Whilst the Confederation does have some reservations . . . we believe that our fundamental commitment to the development of sport in Australia shared by the government. We have advised you of the concern being expressed by a number of our member associations and we must . . . rely on your good offices to ensure that the government ameliorates those concerns. The Confederation understands and notes that the Australian Sports Commission will assist government in the implementation of its sport policy. As expressed to you in our discussion, the Confederation offers its services and resources on a continuing basis for the benefit of sport. This Government, in its commitment to continuing discussion and liaison with those in the sporting community who want to play an active role in the development of this Commission through its own system of Caucus committees has had considerable discussion and deliberation with a number of representative sporting groups in the community. The Caucus infrastructure sub-committee on sport and recreation has received numerous responses congratulating this Government and this Mininster on their foresight in getting involved in sport. The Australian Wrestling Union-honourable members opposite will know something about that-has stated: We are particularly appreciative of the funding provided to allow us to employ a professional administrator and increased funds for development projects that occurred in our 1984-85 grant allocation. My organisation would hope that the minister would be able to increase funding for the development of our sport to allow us to give some support to our affiliated state bodies . . . We feel that these appointments would give the sport of wrestling an opportunity to penetrate the school system . . . Earlier it stated: The Australian Wrestling Union applauds the increase in funding for sport in the last two budgets and in the directions in which the funds have been spent. There are many other similar letters representing a number of different sporting organisations with which this Government liaises and with which it certainly holds lengthy and meaningful discussions. In order to formulate its policy it goes to the people, it goes to those organisations and community groups who participate in sport. It does not sit back here in the chamber and hypothesise about what should or should not happen. We go to the people and find out what they want. I think the Opposition could learn from that. These consultation processes include direct and daily contact with Australia's national sporting organisations and umbrella groups, and there are a number of other significant examples where this has occurred other than those I have mentioned. All national sporting associations have been provided with information about the role and objectives of the Sports Commission as well as issues which are to be considered by the Commission. Two full Interim Commission meetings have been held to date, and after each meeting a summary report is circulated to all national sporting organisations. Honourable members opposite tell me there is no consultation. What absolute nonsense. I move on to some of the advantages that will flow to the sporting public in Australia because of the institution of this significant piece of legislation. I refer specifically to some of the policy options that will be encompassed within that legislation, and in particular I will concentrate on the question of junior sport. The area I represent has been renowned over the years for the production of sports men and women of great prowess who have gone on to international fame. In the sport of rugby league I could list people ad infinitum. The St George Rugby League Club is just about full of Illawarra exports. I will not go into what happened to the Steelers last night. That is another matter, and we will probably pick up next week when we beat St George in Wollongong, with a home ground advantage. In junior sport-again taking rugby league, the greatest game of all-in Saturday and schoolboy competitions on the South Coast over 3,000 boys now participate in that sport. There are over 1,500 girls and boys up to the age of 15 participating in little athletics in areas such as Picton, Bargo, Wollongong, Dapto, and Lake Illawarra. About 4,000 juniors, both boys and girls, participate in soccer. In netball we have approximately 1,600 along the Illawarra coast. This Commission will give these people, these sports men and women of the future, an opportunity to improve because coaching schools are proposed and a range of other things. It is important that these people, the champions of tomorrow, are given this opportunity. Something was made of the way East Germany and other Eastern bloc countries train their sports people. The Opposition hates their political philosophy. It might well be pointed out that the people of East Germany and other Eastern bloc countries-I understand this has been proven-generally live longer because they have embarked upon a fitness program. They are a lot fitter and live a lot longer. I suggest to some honourable members opposite that they should try doing that. They should come running with me in the morning or go swimming with the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). Indeed, the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) could play them at hockey by himself and he would probably thrash the lot of them. The anti-sport policies of the Opposition are to be deplored. It is fraudulent to say that this Government does not consult. It is fraudulent to say that it is not concerned with the sporting community of Australia. Indeed it has been shown time and again that the commitment by the Government is there. Lastly I say to the House that comment was made about the problems of ministerial control and how terrible that would be. I can think of no better Minister to whom we could entrust ministerial control of this portfolio than the man who sits at the table now, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. He is committed to the sporting public of Australia and he is to be applauded for it. He is also to be applauded for introducing this legislation. I commend it to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(4.28) —The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who spoke just before me, used the term 'fraudulent' in relation to certain things that he claimed the Opposition had done. I cannot help but wonder whether he might use that term in relation to the practice of selectively quoting from letters, which is what he did in his speech. He qouted from a letter from the Confederation of Australian Sport which is addressed to 'Dear Member of the House of Representatives,' It might have occurred to him that Opposition members of the House of Representative also received that letter. I should like to add to the quotation he made. Mr Martin —Can you read? Mrs SULLIVAN —Yes, I can. The letter said in part: The following is the text of a letter today sent to the Honourable J. J. Brown, Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism arising from his response to the Confederation's paper titled 'Australian Sport Commission-A Point of View' . . . The letter continues: Our attention has been drawn to your letter of 9th May to Federal Members and Senators which was a response to the Confederation's ''A Point of View''. There are a number of details raised in your letter with which we respectfully disagree. That was the rebuttal by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) of the case made by the Confederation of Australian Sport against the Australian Sports Commission. I will give honourable members a small quotation from that letter because it sheds some light on the performance of the Commission to date, which might give us some indication of what we can expect in the future. It is a total vindication of the views put on behalf of the Opposition by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), our shadow Minister for Sport. In that leter, dated 15 April 1984, the Confederation of Australian Sport through its President, makes this statement: Since that meeting-- that is the meeting of the Confederation- a number of national sporting organisations have expressed concern at the effects of decisions being made by the Australian Sporting Commission. Actions and decisions relating to key sports issues, such as Children In Sport Australian Coaching Council Australian Sports Aid Foundation have each indicated a desire on the part of the Commission to exert control rather than to co-ordinate and co-operate as Sport was to understand by statements by the Minister. Those same statements are in the second reading speech of the shadow Minister in relation to the Australian Sports Commission Bill and they are not rebutted by the content of the Bill. The Minister's speech has some very fine words. It has wonderful headings such as 'A New Era in Sport'. The Minister is either an excellent speech writer or he has an excellent speech writer. But there are many fancy words which do not go to the key issues. Claims are made in relation to what the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Sports Aid Foundatin will do, but they are not borne out by the Bill. I intend to deal with that in some detail in my speech. I turn my attention briefly to the comments of the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), who is, of course, an excellent sportsman. He has represented Australia with distinction at the Olympic Games and I congratulate him. I say that he is a good sportsman, but he makes a lousy lawyer. He cannot read a Bill and understand what is in it. In his speech he made many assertions about what is in the Bill, but they are just not there. He took the Minister's word for it. He should have read the Bill. Maybe he did read the Bill, but he did not understand it if he did. He made certain statements about the performance of Liberal and Labor governments in relation to sport. Dr Charlesworth —And they were disgraceful, and you know it. Why don't you admit it? Mrs SULLIVAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask under what circumstances another member's microphone can be switched on so that he can drown out the person who has the floor? I do not want an answer at this point, but perhaps you will take responsibility for checking that subsequently. I point out also that we are voluntarily under a constraint of time, less than our alloted time, in order to help get through the great pressure of legislation that we have. I do not want my time wasted in that way. The honourable member for Perth said that this Bill will assure stability of funding. What assurance is there? There is no assurance in the Bill. What problem does the honourable member for Perth have? Does he think the Government might change its mind about future funding? There is no more assurance about stability of funding than sport has under the present arrangements, because it will be subject to government appropriations and decisions about how much money government is prepared to give, apart from what the Australian Sports Aid Foundation might raise, which I will come to in a minute. The honourable member for Perth said that it will tap alternative funding. That is one way of putting it. Those who might be tempted to contribute to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, if this Bill passes Parliament, will find that they are being asked to write a blank cheque. They will fill in the amount, but they will have no control over its direction. Dr Charlesworth —You do not know that; you are making it up. Mrs SULLIVAN —The Bill does not say it, and that is the critical issue. On the subject of the record of the Whitlam Government, frankly the performance of the Whitlam Government and its Ministers on the subject of sport amounted to the greatest pork barrelling exercise this country has ever seen. Proud as the honourable member might be of Labor's record, he might check how sports appropriation fared in the 1975 Hayden Budget. He might get a little surprise if he cares to find out the facts. The gold medal for cynicism was referred to by the honourable member in relation to Mr Fraser being at the Commonwealth Games. Those games certainly would not have been held in Brisbane, and probably not in Australia, but for the millions of dollars the Fraser Government gave for their establishment. They would not have been held without that Federal funding. The Brisbane City Council, the State Government and the Federal Government all contributed. However they would never have got under way, we would not have got the bid for those Commonwealth Games, without the assurance of that Commonwealth funding. The latest gold medal for cynicism-indeed the new Australian record for cynicism-goes to Mr Hawke for his performance at certain sporting functions in the past two years. I turn to the Bill and, because of the time constraints, I can say only a few brief things. The Minister makes claims about the merits of the Bill, but they are just not in the Bill. Why do we need the Australian Sports Commission at all? All its objectives and functions, as outlined in clause 6 of the Bill, were performed by previous Australian governments, with the exception of those parts of the clause that refer to getting money from the private sector for the Sports Aid Foundation. That is the only additional function that the Government cannot do itself at present. All these functions are already being performed. The Minister has claimed credit for it and his members have heaped credit on him for it. Why do we need the Commission? It is under ministerial control and direction, so what is different from the present situation? It is not an independent body; it is at all times subject to the Minister. That is very different from the term 'arm's length' that the honourable member for Perth used in relation to it. Arm's length traditionally applies to such bodies as the Australia Council-there is no parallel at all. The Australian Sports Aid Foundation received some little attention in the Minister's speech. He said: With reference particularly to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, the Government recognises that it is essential to provide sufficient incentive to ensure that the Foundation receives the maximum support possible from individuals and corporations within the community. In line with a commitment given during the last election campaign by the Prime Minister, the Government is giving full consideration to the provision of full tax deductibility for donations to the Foundation. Lest any well meaning people in sport-there are many hundreds of thousands of them in Australia-should think that that is the same as saying that there will be tax deductibility, let me disabuse them and tell them to look for the fine print in the Prime Minister's campaign speech as well as in the Minister's second reading speech. That is not a commitment to give tax deductibility; it is a commitment only to think about it. There are various ways that tax deductibility can be achieved. It is granted in relation to other bodies and causes and it can be done in relation to sport. The honourable member for Perth said that various sports organisations cannot be trusted. He said we should be very careful and that tax deductibility for all sorts of organisations would open a can of worms. What on earth did he mean by that? Did he mean that giving tax deductibility other than through the Australia Sports Aid Foundation, if money were to be given direct to certain sporting organisations, as it is for example in the case of humanitarian aid, those organisations might abuse the special position that that tax deductibility gives them? I would like to see the piece of legislation allowing tax deductibility that did not dot all the i's and cross all the t's in relation to accountability. The explanatory memorandum to this Bill states: The Bill also defines . . . the powers that the Commission will have to undertake its work. These include the vital provision to establish an Australian Sports Aid Foundation to increase the volume and value of private sector funds for sports development. What does the Bill itself actually say about the Australian Sports Aid Foundation? It is summed up in only six lines in clause 8: (1) The Commission may form a company, to be known as the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, for the purpose of raising money for the development of sport. (2) Except to the extent necessary for the performance of its functions in relation to the Commission, the Australian Sports Aid Foundation is not empowered to do anything that the Commission is not empowered to do. So the Foundation is under the control and direction of the Minister. Dr Charlesworth —Thankfully. Mrs SULLIVAN —The honourable member for Perth says 'thankfully'. He admits that that is what it is; it is not arm's length after all. Finally, I refer to the statement of the honourable member for Perth that he believed the Australian Democrats would support this Bill and it would pass with their support. I issue a challenge to the Democrat Senators. If they are tempted to support this Bill because they support the sentiments of the Minister's second reading speech, they should make the Bill do what the Minister's second reading speech claimed it does, but it does not. I say to the Democrats: 'If you want an independent Sports Commission, amend the Bill to make it so'. I could not guarantee that the Opposition would support it-I very much doubt that it would-but if the Democrats claim to support it for these reasons the Minister gives in his second reading speech, they should put in the amendments that will give effect to the Ministers assertions. We would see what the Government would do then. Would the Minister let go, of his control of the Sports Commission? Would the apron strings be cut? Or are they in fact puppeteers' strings? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The honourable member for Moncrieff mentioned a matter during her address to the House in regard to the microphone of the honourable member for Perth. That certainly should not have occurred. I will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to avoid such an incident occurring again. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.38) — I am sure members of the Australian community will be happy to hear from the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) whenever they can. They recognise his skills in sport- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Stirling to the fact that, whether or not that may be so, every honourable member has the right to be heard in this chamber without the sort of interruption that took place because of the microphone of the honourable member for Perth being turned on to the extent that it was. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I trust that the members of the Opposition will give me that courtesy, although their performances usually have shown that they do not, but I will proceed anyway. There are a couple of points to be made at the outset. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) spoke about the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Prime Minister talked about tax averaging, not tax deductibility. The honourable member for Moncrieff should get her facts straight. She was quite inaccurate. When the Prime Minister spoke about tax matters in the election campaign, he was talking about tax averaging, not tax deductibility. A number of months have passed since the election and I would have thought that the honourable member would have learnt the difference by now. Another point that I find extraordinary is that the honourable member for Moncrieff and other members of the Opposition spoke of sports people being puppets of the Minister. I am amazed that they should choose to insult sports people because that is what they have done. They have insulted Herb Elliott, Ted Harris, Bruce MacDonald, Mike Fitzpatrick, Roy Masters. These are all people whom we are expected to assume will be willing puppets. There are others: John Newman- Mr Martin —Mark Tonelli. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, Mark Tonelli and Colin Hayes. The Opposition claims these people are puppets of the Minister. I do not know where honourable members opposite have been all their lives but they must not realise that these people have established their reputations in the Australian community as independent people of great standing. The honourable member for Moncrieff thinks these people are puppets. Phil Coles had some connection with the Australian Olympic Federation. I refer also to Glynis Nunn, Grant Kenny, Vicki Cardwell, Ray Lindwall, Pat Clohessy, Neale Fraser, Betty Cuthbert, Wendy Pritchard, Andrew Lederer, Jim Yates, and Margaret Pewtress. The Australian community should know that Opposition speakers have indicated these people will be puppets of the Government. I hope all Australians and the people in question have heard what the members of the Opposition have said. The honourable member for Moncrieff talked about puppeteers. Mrs Sullivan —The Bill makes them puppets. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —That is precisely what she said. The honourable member for Moncrieff will have to rest on what she said in her speech. She alleged that all of these people would be puppets of the Australian Government. The honourable member has succeeded in collectively insulting all of those people. Mrs Sullivan —They will have to do as they are told. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —We have a different view of it. We are not afraid to say that these are skilful people. We recognise their achievements in sport. We welcome their appointment to the Australian Sports Commission, and we are very glad that they have accepted. I also add, because the Opposition is slow to learn in these matters, that these are the sorts of people who are capable of conducting themselves with success and integrity in matters of sport. I know that success and integrity elude the Opposition, but they have not eluded the people appointed to the Sports Commission, and we ought to recognise that. The Opposition speakers referred to the structure of the Sports Commission. If we take it that in Australia there are about 120 sports, is the Opposition saying that it wants a 120-member sports commission? Mr Peter Fisher —No. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I wish that the Opposition would clarify its thinking on that matter, because I find it rather extraordinary. The Opposition members also stated that we as a government did not want to give the Sports Commission financial independence. Does the Opposition want a totally, financially autonomous body to be set up? I wish the Opposition would clarify that point. So far, Opposition speakers have collectively insulted the members of the Sports Commission, which has been operating so far as the Interim Sports Commission. Honourable members opposite really have to lift their game, if I can use the sporting term, because honourable members on this side such as the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) have shown that they can lift their game. We ought to be saying to the Australian community that we are setting up a structure that gives a commitment to sport. Such a commitment was absent from the previous Government. All that we got was a degree of divisiveness-that was characteristic of their policy in all respects-with respect to sport. We have only to look at the events that led up to the Moscow Olympics. The honourable member for Perth would remember them very well, as would many other Olympians whose sporting careers were tampered with by a very repressive government that sought to victimise people who did not do what it wanted. We are doing something different. The Sports Aid Foundation is designed to provide a structure whereby private donations to sport can become tax deductible. We believe it is important to set up such a structure and that is what we intend to do. We believe that it will provide an enormous impetus to Australian sport. It is extraordinary that donations to art were tax deductible but donations to sport were not. Let us get some credit on the line and recognise that sport is very important. I cannot understand why the Opposition seems to have the attitude that sports men and women should be second-class citizens. The Opposition has chosen to oppose the Bill. In its term in government it treated them as if they were second-class citizens. We have the opposite view. Interestingly, the Australian community seems to think that they are not second-class citizens because they enjoy seeing them compete on weekends and in major international and national sporting events. We recognise their position and that approach to sport is embodied in this legislation. With respect to the members of the Sports Commission, the Opposition has said that it does not think that those people are able to stand up and argue the case for sport. Opposition members are prepared to say that collectively, and we can expect no better of them, because they really are B-grade when it comes to sporting performance. When it comes to political performances, they are C-grade. Let us not fool around with that point. The Opposition is saying that members of the Sports Commission such as John Newman, Mark Tonelli and Colin Hayes are not capable of conducting a Commission independently of the Minister. If that is the Opposition's view of these people, it should say it to them and it should say it to the Australian community, but it must accept the consequences. We know that the Opposition's attitude in the game of politics is basically to bad mouth people. Opposition members should keep that up. It is a very good approach to the business of politics. The honourable member for Moncrieff has done it and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has done it. We can expect other honourable members opposite to parrot those views and to say the same things later in the debate. One issue I have already touched upon is the question of tax averaging. Now that we are in government we recognise-I remind the honourable member for Moncrieff that this is a matter which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to in his speech-the importance of tax averaging, particularly in high contact sports where people have very short sporting careers but often end up paying very high marginal tax rates. Such people often go from earning an income of $12,000 or $14,000 to earning an income of up to $50,000 to $60,000. After a short sporting career of maybe four or five years, they return to earning moderate incomes. We are saying that we ought to make it possible for those people to average their tax over a longer period and therefore pay tax at lower marginal rates. It is a sensible proposition. We expect a report compiled on this issue by some consultants to come to us. We will then look at that position very carefully, because we recognise, even if the Opposition does not recognise, that injustice has been done to many men and women involved in sport whose sporting careers have been relatively short. The Interim Sports Commission will become the Australian Sports Commission hopefully after the passage of this legislation, unless the Opposition chooses to king-hit it. It would not be out of the ordinary if the Opposition chose to knock it off in the Senate. We expect from the Sports Commission the establishment of a framework to develop Australian sport. I applaud the Sports Commission for choosing to fund a feasibility study into a national football competition. I am sure the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) recognises that as being important, because that looks towards the proper development of Australian Rules football as a national sport. It must be remembered that we must have a commitment to junior sport and to local club sport. We have that commitment. The Sports Commission legislation recognises it. I move to the final point which I wish to deal with, that is, the question of sporting transfers and disputes over contracts. I have spoken about this matter before, but I refer to it again in this debate. One of the major problems in professional sports these days is caused by disputes over where sports men and women will play. Currently, those disputes are being settled by paying lawyers rather high sums of money to settle them under common law in the various court systems. It would make sense to bring all of those disputes under the arbitration system, whereby sports men and women would be regarded as employees and the managing bodies for which they work would be regarded as employers. It would be a very straightforward and economical way of dealing with that problem. By following that course we would be able to establish a very quick and straightforward method of settling disputes. I know that honourable members opposite find that proposal strange because so far they have chosen to enjoy and promote conflict. Honourable members on this side of the House are about resolving problems. I remind the Opposition that in 1979 the Trade Practices Commission said that it believed that that could be a way to deal with the settlement of disputes involving sporting transfers. That is a matter that the Sports Commission ought to be looking at. In summary, this legislation is historic. It recognises a major commitment by this Government to sport. We recognise the commitment and involvement that sports men and women have given to sport. It is time that governments in this country started to provide the necessary framework and support. We are not afraid to do that. The Minister has provided that leadership, for which I congratulate him. I believe that the Government has provided that leadership. What the Opposition chooses to do by casting doubts upon the people who support us, such as the Sports Commission, is of its own making. Our position has always been clear. We are pleased to support sport. I am pleased to have spoken in this debate in support of my colleagues, the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Macarthur, who have made a major contribution. I congratulate the Minister on the impetus and leadership he has given to sport. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(4.49) —Many people today still wish that sport was set aside from the world of commerce and returned to the principles of amateurism and friendly competition. That time has now passed. Many people also would seek a return to success at local and international level, free from this commercial support. That time also has passed. Sport and recreation today are big business. In fact, it would appear to many that the chief importance of sport in a modern society lies, in fact, in its economic implications. It has become large scale business based on specialisation, professionalism, ruthless competition, at times exploitation of many performers, and, of course, exaggerated publicity. One of the outstanding features of sport in Australia, however, has been its ability to flourish without stiff class divisions, which are obvious in some countries. Sporting careers have been open to talent wherever it might be displayed. The great majority of our athletes who have achieved excellence have not come from leisure-class homes or high income groups. They are products, in fact, of the cottages rather than the mansions. These are Australian traditions that I believe should be preserved. In developing the Opposition's policy on sport and recreation prior to the last election, I was able to consult countless sporting individuals and organisations, and two great characteristics of Australians became clear: First, there was a belief in self-reliance and a right to a fair go. Individuals needed the encouragement and education to provide for themselves wherever possible. This, of course, does not absolve government at the local, State or Federal level from ensuring that the environment, be it economic or attitudinal, provides a diverse range of opportunities. I believe that it is up to the individual to decide which is the best way to spend his leisure or his sporting dollar. Recent studies by the South Australian Department of Sport and Recreation indicate that the majority of Australians hold the same view, namely: They do not wish to be organised and are very individualistic in their tastes. People don't like to be told they should do this or that. A strong interest in outdoor activities reflects the wish for unstructured activities. We are more affluent, educated and mobile than 30 or 40 years ago. A government's role, therefore, is to ensure that people have the capacity, the opportunity and the facilities to decide the best way to spend their leisure or to participate in sport. Governments have responded to this at the Federal level over recent years in the continuing upgrading and growth of national sporting facilities, the creation and planned growth of the Australian Insitute of Sport, the assistance to national sporting associations to maximise their administrative and coaching potential and, of course, the assistance to bodies that complement our sporting impetus, such as the Australian Olympic Federation, the Commonwealth Games Committee and the Confederation of Australian Sport. This process and support should continue, and I in no way undervalue the significant growth of funding and involvement in sport by the present Government, as I acknowledge the initiative of the coalition Government since 1981. I particularly mention, in this involvement of both governments, the work of the late Frank Stewart and Bob Ellicott-two Ministers who made a very real impact on the sporting life of this country. The second characteristic of Australian sport, of course, has been its healthy reliance on and involvement of the voluntary sector. This voluntary participation in administration, organisation and finance is as important to our way of life as is the competition. It is for these two reasons that I oppose the Australian Sports Commission Bill, which seeks to establish the Australian Sports Commission as a statutory authority. The coalition policies have never given support to such a concept. In doing this, we do not make a criticism of the present Sports Commission. We believe that many of the programs that it has initiated since its inception have been good and beneficial and that the results it has produced have been great for sport in this country. Obviously, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was very confused when he spoke this afternoon. Obviously, he did not know the difference between a campaign speech, or his own election speeches, and the policy document of the Australian Labor Party, which clearly states that Labor will implement tax deductibility and will implement tax averaging for sportspeople. The honourable member suggested that we should take disputes such as those in progress at present, such as where our cricketers should and should not play, to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is one of the most outlandish views that I have ever heard projected in this place. The coalition has always seen the need for a Federal body. In fact, we established the Sports Advisory Council. However, we have always believed that it should be an independent adviser to government, that it should be representative of national sporting organisations and that it should be a forum for stimulating participation and achievement. Above all, it should be free of government control. It is the role of the Minister and the Department to administer and determine the distribution and level of funding. A sports body such as the Commission must be autonomous and advise the Government of long term policies and programs to meet the diverse needs of the Australian community at all levels. Let there be no misunderstanding about the level of control that this authority will give to any government or any Minister, today or in the future. I quote the words of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in the second reading speech: I draw the attention of honourable members to those aspects of the Bill that define the powers and responsibilities of the Minister. The Government is anxious to ensure that the Commission operates within the framework of overall government objectives and policies, which will guide the strategic plan to be prepared by the Commission for consideration by the Minister. These provisions-- the provisions in the Bill- make it clear that the Commission will remain directly responsible to the Government. Together with the provision to allow the Minister to issue directions to the Commission, they will ensure a due and proper degree of ministerial overview and responsibility. I simply ask: Do sporting individuals and bodies want this? Sport already is taking on too many business-like and work-like characteristics. In a word, it has become bureaucratised. Concern is expressed about the attraction of bureaucratised sport to the supporter and the viewer. The real question is whether the public will continue to be attracted to sports which are arranged around the needs of television networks and which are treated by players as work and dominated by business interests? The Minister cannot say that he will not abuse such control. I remind him of his occasional outbursts against any individual who challenges him. I cite as an example the fiasco in Los Angeles concerning the promotion of the Australia Games, or the current attempt at restriction of civil liberties and even abuse of some of our talented cricketers who seek to sell their services as business and commerce sell their products and trade. I fully supported the creation of the Australian Sports Commission, and I did, as stated in the Minister's Press release of 18 April, speak of it in laudatory terms at its launch last September. But I object to the Minister using this as an indication of my support for a statutory authority. There is a distinct difference. The Commission already has achieved much, but it has done so under its present concept, and its own success shows that a statutory authority is both unnecessary and highly bureaucratic and ultimately will be expensive. What a paradox this Bill is. I noticed the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the chamber a few moments ago. Recently we have seen him changing statutory authorities, reducing them in membership so that he, on behalf of the Government, could obtain control. Here, of course, we see the Minister- Mr John Brown —Which one are you talking about? Mr PETER FISHER —We are talking about all sorts of authorities in the primary producing area-the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation and the Australian Dairy Corporation. But here we have a large membership, publicly funded-unlike those boards which are funded by levies on those who contribute to them. The same result is being achieved here, but different guidelines are being set down to achieve it. I turn to the creation of the Sports Aid Foundation. As I have said, sport today is big business. Popular sports attract corporate sponsors and attract high ratings for television networks. Sponsorship will continue to be an attractive proposition for sporting bodies, giving economic support to many professional and semi-professional sports. It also has provided the necessary financial infrastructure for a number of lesser known, amateur-oriented club and country sports bodies. But the key participants in commercial sports sponsorship are basically large companies and organised spectator sport-not always the best combination if we are interested in broadening participation and extending interest in diverse sport and leisure activities. At the same time, of course, we see public agitation-much of it ill-informed-and government philosophy is putting pressure on many areas of traditional sponsorship. I need mention only tobacco and alcohol advertising, but the bandwagon of pseudo-medicos is already white-anting the sugar and red meat industries with the same arguments. These factors are understandable and the reasons for the support of a Sports Aid Foundation by many of our smaller sporting bodies are understandable. But, if the big sports lose the big advertisements, that will increase dramatically the need for public funding and will affect the sponsorship now available to low profile but high participating sports involving many young people. The real difficulty that I have with this proposal is its relationship to a statutory authority. Government, through the Minister, will direct the allocation of funds. Such a power cannot and will not be exercised without patronisation, politicisation or philosophical direction. There is nothing wrong with the objective of a foundation but I believe the Minister has ruined its effectivenesss and acceptance by his desire to exercise control through this quango. Sponsorship is a vital component of sport in Australia. But it has brought a change in the attitude of players and has undoubtedly modifed spectator attitudes. The spectator today is less concerned with the aesthetics and skill of the game; witness the violence of soccer in the United Kingdom or the demands from spectators for acts of daring and continual acts of heroism in all sports. Player-club relationships are now more like the employee-employer contracts in the business world, with more emphasis on reward, secure contracts and a range of fringe benefits. I conclude by acknowledging the contribution of Australian sports people, supporters and administrators. As with the experience and dedication of members of the present Sports Commission and personnel in the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, so hundreds of thousands of men and women, through a love of the game and in a voluntary capacity, have raised the identity of Australians through sport. I do not believe that the Sports Commission, structured as a statutory authority, will either contribute to or enhance the progress of the last five years or meet the aspirations of Australia's sports community. Mr SMITH(Bass)(5.02) —As only a few moments remain, I will be very brief. It seems to me that the issue with regard to the Australian Sports Commission Bill is not whether one supports sport, because both sides of the House do. The question is really of how best to help sport. We on this side of the House believe that this Bill presented by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is not the correct way to do this. But perhaps we should also look to more independent people who are more involved in sport in Australia. The Confederation of Australian Sport, which is the major umbrella organisation in this country, represents 122 organisations and about 5.3 million participants. In its submission on this legal legislation, it said: . . . proposed legislation will establish the Australian Sports Commission as a statutory authority, despite the fact that it is widely accepted that statutory authorities are cumbersome, unwieldy, costly, difficult to change, and virtually impossible to dismantle. Such a permanent step should only be taken when the benefits to Sport, not Governments, are obvious, tangible, and measurable. I think the key words there are that the benefits should be to sport and not to governments. What we contend is that this Bill will create an authority that will be put into the hands of government-an authority and power that it should not have. Further on it poses the question that sport asks of why it is necessary to have this commission. This is what it said: Sport already has its own forums in the form of the Confederation of Australian Sport, Australian Olympic Federation, Australian Commonwealth Games Association and the Australian Universities Sports Association. It does not want any bureaucratic organisation to oversea or in any way control these organisations. I will quote further-I am not surprised that government members do not wish to hear this-for it states: No cogent statement yet exists to convince sport that the existing system was so wrong that a huge, expensive, irrevocable bureaucracy is needed to replace it. That is the genesis of what we are trying to say on this side of the House in our opposition. What concerns me is that what the Minister might be doing is splitting sport in this community by overt political interference. We have had representations to us, and I am sure that the Minister has too, from the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, the National Football League of Australia, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia, a leading surgeon in Melbourne, and I am sure there are others, all expressing reservations with the legislation. Mr Tim Fischer —And the dead hand of government. Mr SMITH —And the dead hand of government. Dr Charlesworth —Four out of 120. Mr SMITH —We have not heard anything from the hockey organisation but I doubt whether we will. Let us look at what the Minister said on 14 December 1983 in Melbourne. He said: The Sports Commission will act first and foremost as a co-ordination mechanism able to draw together, through extensive consultations, groups and organisations . . . That is fair enough. He continued: It certainly will not be making a bid for the role as the ''supreme voice'' of Australian Sport . . . I think that is what the Minister is doing. He is trying to get the supreme voice of Australian sport and I think that is wrong. It is bad for sport. I will just make a few other points, some of which have been raised by other speakers. The Australian Sports Aid Foundation, to be established under this Bill, has the potential to cripple private funding for local sporting bodies because of the consideration being given to making donations to the Foundation tax deductible while not extending this proposal to other donations. The Government should give tax deductibility status to all significant private sports foundations and national organisations, if it is to be consistent. Secondly, the Minister of the day will have full control over the Commission which in turn will control, as opposed to co-ordinate, sports administration, which seems to me to be in direct contradiction with what he said on 14 December. The Commission will be nothing but a tool for this Government to propagandise sport. The Minster also controls the Information Co-ordination Branch, the National Media Liaison Group and the Ministerial Media Group, so all the arms of advertising are controlled by this Minister. The point I raise is: Is the Government merely cashing in on the jingoistic attitude of most Australians to sport and sporting success? It is a wonder the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not here because he has been noted for his presence wherever teams win around the country. The third point I make is that the national Government intervention to centralise sports administration is not necessarily compatible with our federal system. The rapid way in which governments have been able to extend their legislative competence into areas not originally envisaged for them is something that we in this Parliament should be ever mindful of. The functions of the Commission are largely already carried out by the Confederation of Australian Sport and the existing Commission in its existing role. The fourth point that I make is that little or no consultation was engaged in by this Government with either the Confederation or national sporting bodies. That is shameful. All sporting bodies are upset. Many of them are upset because the Minister has not consulted widely. It looks to us as though he has just tried to push this through very quickly. The 16 commissioners of sport will be appointed solely by the Minister and will not necessarily be representatives of sports administration bodies in Australia. Of course, this does not, as was suggested by someone on the other side of the House, mean that we in any way impugn the honour, integrity or ability of those who will be on the Commission. We certainly do not. The point we make is that those in the administration of sport do not get representation on that body. However, the thing that concerns me most is the very real threat posed to private funding of local sport. By this proposal all money could be channelled into the Foundation because people will be seeking the tax deductibility aspect of it and, therefore, other bodies, because of their inability to get donations and to offer tax deductibility, may well miss out. The coalition strongly opposes the Bill for the reasons that I, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and other speakers have outlined. I commend the opposition to this Bill to the House. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(5.08) —in reply-In summing up on this Bill, I will make a few points. I have circulated four amendments which involve simple wording changes to the Bill but do not really alter the nature or the spirit of the Bill. Mr Peter Fisher —Where are they? Mr JOHN BROWN —They were circulated at 1.45 p.m., the Clerk tells me. They are simple word changes as suggested by a legislative committee of the Senate. I will move those at the Committee stage. I wish to say a few words about the opposition to the Australian Sports Commission Bill. This is an historic Bill. This Parliament has been representing the people of Australia since 1901 and it has taken 84 years for a Bill pertaining particularly to sport to reach this debating chamber. Not surprisingly, the Opposition fails to support this Bill. In fact, it opposes it. In opposing it, it shows all of its paranoias and phobias about sport. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), spoke about the denial of freedom of choice, the manipulation of sport, and the moulding of public opinion. He even drew his bow wide enough to talk about the Berlin Games of 1936 and to suggest that the experience of the world in 1936 was akin to what is proposed in this Bill. Such cynicism in one so young and, might I say, so stupid. The abiding memory of the 1936 Games is not of German armies marching up and down: It is one dignified black man, Jessie Owens, a sportsman, who won gold medals galore against the might of the Aryan race standing up there like the proud sportsman he was accepting a medal. That is what the world remembers about 1936-the dignity of the sportsman, not the indignity of the nazi masses. For Opposition members to suggest that that is a parallel to this Bill is an arrant insult, not only to this Government, not only to every sportsman in Australia- Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is misrepresenting me. I have not suggested that this Bill has any relationship to the 1936 Olympic Games. I suggested that the 1936 Olympic Games represented the manipulation of sport for political purposes. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —I reject absolutely that this Bill is an attempt to mould public opinion or to suggest that sport will become the tool of this Government. Far from it. This Commission is set up to remove sport and the funding of sport from the influence of politics. I found it rather laughable that a former Minister, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), should stand up and talk about arm's length funding, when measly amounts of money were provided for sport in his term of office. Let me tell honourable members what the Commission has done this year. Some $8m has been disbursed to sporting associations all around Australia by the commissioners appointed, with no supervision by the Minister or the Government. We appointed commissioners to make sure that money was disbursed to sporting bodies on the strength of their submission, not as a means of political patronage. I refer honourable members to the record in government of the honourable member for Sturt. When I became the Minister and looked at the grants, I was surprised to find that the biggest grant went to yachting. Nobody could tell me that yachting was the biggest sport in Australia or the one that most needed funding. The honourable member for Sturt, the ex-Rhodes scholar, the ex-lacrosse player- Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This Government has given $30m to yachting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point or order. Mr JOHN BROWN —I noted that the honourable member's own sport of lacrosse received $49,000, one of the biggest grants given to sport in that year. Yet Opposition members have the hide to accuse use of political patronage. Every cent of that $8m was distributed by those independent sports commissioners the honourable member for Richmond has sought to impugn by his suggestions that they will become puppets of this Government. Mr Blunt —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. At no point during my remarks did I mention any sports commissioner by name or suggest in any way that they would be puppets of this Government. The Minister is deliberately misrepresenting my remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) used that exact term-that the commissioners would be puppets of this Minister. I think the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) pointed out in very clear terms what an insult that was to the integrity and independence of 20 remarkable Australians who are members of the Sports Commission. This Commission was set up in the first place to be a statutory authority. The Bill translates that Commission, which now has very little status, into a statutory authority. The basis for doing that is that this Government is contributing large amounts of public money to sport. That money needs to be audited properly. It will be audited by this Commission in the best possible way, independently, to see that sport is the winner and that money is not used to prop up this Government or its statute, not used as a means of political patronage. That is exactly why this Commission is being set up as a statutory authority. The reasons there are clauses in the statutory authority Bill that make sure the Commission remains under the control of the Minister is simply that in the previous Government's term of office it set up a lot of commissions with very little control, commissions that are now running out of control. That will not happen with this Commission. It certainly does not happen with the Australian Tourist Commission. This Commission will be under the control of the Government, as every statutory authority should be. The Opposition's paranoia about commissions stems from its inability to set up any sort of statutory authority that exercised the policy of the Government, which is what it is there for. The Sports Commission in its short term of operation has set up a remarkable record. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) was decent enough to suggest that a lot of the things it has done have been excellent. Let me tell honourable members about some of them. The Australia Games was mooted by the previous Government and was one of the original policies of the late Frank Stewart, the first Minister for Sport in Australia. I note that his proud daughter is sitting in the gallery today. She is very pleased to see that some of her father's dreams are being realised in this Bill. The Australia Games took place because of this Government's determination. For the first time ever in Australia we had handicapped athletes competing on an international basis on the same program as Australian and international athletes who are not handicapped. We will set up the Australian Sports Aid Foundation to bring tax deductibility to contributions to sport. The cynicism of members of the Opposition is such that they immediately suggest: 'Oh, well, you will get a $1 from somebody else and take it away from government funding'. That is an absolutely blatant lie. The difficulty the previous Government had in getting any money into sport from the corporate sector was that it did not give any itself. Now we are contributing $54m of public money. Not one letter has come to my notice from any member of the public suggesting that that is an improper use of public funds. Mr Blunt —Let us have an undertaking now. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member can have an undertaking any time he wants. I will get the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who is the Leader of the National Party, to give the honourable member one. He is very good at giving undertakings. Tax deductibility for contributions to sport will come about because of the setting up of the Sports Aid Foundation. I can assure honourable members that this is not a ruse to limit the amount of public money that goes into sport. What we can do, because we have put up this amount of public funding, is go to the corporate sector and say: 'Hey, we are doing our share with public money, what about you doing your share to help contribute to the functions of sport in Australia?' The other thing that is happening, and it is something which professional sportsmen in Australia have desired for generations, is tax averaging for people in high contact and dangerous sports. It is a simple matter of fact that many of Australia's leading professional sportsmen have a very short earning career. They earn a lot of money in a very short period and pay a lot of tax. Why are they not entitled to the same sorts of benefits as a farmer, author, inventor or artist? This Sports Commission will see that tax averaging is introduced for professional sportsmen and that social justice is at last given to another section of the community. A committee has been set up to investigate sport for the elderly. By the year 2000 there will be an enormous percentage of Australians in the elderly level, including a lot of us. It is high time that something was done to introduce a healthier life style for people who are getting on in years. Sport for the handicapped has become a reality under this Government. The handicapped sports men and women of Australia who got not one penny from the previous Government got $1m of public money this year. Is it not an insult to all Australians that that was the case and that we had to redress that imbalance? The most important committee we have set up is Kid Sport 1988. This committee will see that every Australian child has the opportunity to play sport at whatever level he or she can aspire to. The Sports Commission's desire is to see that we lose one of the worst world championships we hold, that is, a very high level of heart disease. I think we are now the third worst in the world, all because previous governments have done nothing, with the possible exception of those thee marvellous years of Stewart's rule, about getting Australians involved in sport. I could probably stand here for an hour telling honourable members about the things that have happened. I will not do that because they are all on the record. I will mention only one. Before this Government not one cent of public funding went to recreation pursuits. The great bulk of Australians have some sort of recreational pursuit, but now they are being funded in all their aspects, whether it is marching girls, bush walkers, stamp collectors, chess players or bridge players. They are all being funded, and so they should be. The Surf Life Saving Association of Australia, probably the most noble of all sporting pursuits, is now being funded to the extent of $1.1m. The funding in 1982 was $400,000. We still have the odd sight of young lifesavers standing at traffic lights with buckets collecting coins to make sure that their operation keeps going. Their sport is saving lives. The Opposition ignored them when it was in government but they have not been ignored by this Government and they will not be. Most particularly the Sports Commission has been able to invoke the basis of our philosophy for sport, that is, to get participation levels up. I am happy to tell the House that in almost every sport in Australia participation rates in the last two years have gone through the roof because of the attitude that the Sports Commission has taken towards the funding of sport. Sports bodies are now not funded on the old basis of political patronage. There is a simple set of guidelines-the sports that have the highest participation level, the best junior development schemes, the best modification of rules to enable kids to enjoy their sport without necessarily being of international standard and the best level of international standing are the sports that get the most funding. The results have been amazing. I take netball as an example. Two years ago there were 400,000 registered netball players. There are now 700,000 and there are another 300,000 unregistered players in schools. That is the story through the whole regimen of sport in Australia because this Government has undertaken the task of making Australia a happy, healthy nation that is involved in some sort of physical activity. In its short life, this Sports Commission has printed a whole new and glorious chapter in the history of sport in Australia. It is removing all the indignities and overcoming all the omissions of the past. I have tried to outline our philosophy of sport in my second reading speech and briefly again in this speech. Sport is about the beauty of the human body and the flight of the human spirit- Mr Tim Fischer —Ha, ha! Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member may laugh but perhaps he does not understand what sport is about. Sport is about dignity, freedom, artistry and beauty and, most importantly, it is about fun. It is probably the most exalted of all human capacities. Mr Blunt —Why bureaucratise it? Mr John BROWN —If the honourable member will listen for a minute I will tell him. With the Sports Commission we have sought to fund sport at all levels-from kids at the very basic level in schools to the elites at the top of the pile. The Opposition fails to recognise just how important sport is to all Australians at all levels. Mr Peter Fisher —But this Bill is about a statutory authority. Mr JOHN BROWN —I will get around to that in a minute. I will explain to honourable members where they have gone wrong. The coalition parties have formed the government of this country for 31 of the past 36 years. When they got back into office in 1976 one of the first things they did was to take away from our Olympic team for Montreal $300,000 for pre-Games training that had been allotted to them by Frank Stewart. So our Olympic team went to Montreal underfunded and it did not perform very well. When the team came back the then Government immediately instituted an inquiry into its failure in Montreal. Having given it no support at all, it then had the gall to institute an inquiry into its failure. That was an insult to every member of that team which the then Government had failed to support. In subsequent Budgets in 1977, 1978 and 1979 it failed to increase the funding for sport at all. The greatest indignity came in 1980 when the Fraser Government sought to stop our Olympic team from going to Moscow. In fact, it did stop Ric Charlesworth's hockey team from going there. That team withdrew. The honourable member for Perth, the captain of the Australian hockey team in 1972, 1976 and 1984, had his career punctured in 1980 when his team could not go to Moscow because the then Prime Minister bludgeoned some sporting organisations into withdrawing. But an Australian Olympic team did go to Moscow and it came back with some gold medals, which must have galled honourable members opposite immeasurably. The then Government then insulted our gold medallists by ignoring them when it came to the allocation of Australian and Imperial honours. What it did do was give the OBE to the chairmen of the four sports that withdrew-hockey, yachting, equestrian events and I forget the other one. That was the previous Government's measure of insult to our young athletes who opposed it and went to Moscow. Those athletes were branded by the former Prime Minister as traitors, as perpetrators of treason. Now Opposition members have the hide to come here and lecture us about sport. Their record in sport is absolutely appalling. They did nothing whatever for sport until one lone man amongst them had enough courage. That was Bob Ellicott, the deposed Attorney-General who became the Minister for Sport. What a lucky accident for sport. Recognising the ignominy that the Government was facing from sporting bodies and the Australian public over the 1980 performance, Bob Ellicott established, to his great credit, the Australian Institute of Sport, which was one of Frank Stewart's dreams. Good luck to Bob Ellicott that he did so. As the Minister today, I have had the great pleasure of seeing that Institute get to the stage it is at now-the best institute of sport in the world. Mr Blunt —What has this got to do with the Bill? Mr JOHN BROWN —The shadow Minister asks me what this has to do with the Bill. This Bill is about enshrining in Australia the proper funding of sport. That is something that the Opposition did not do when it was in government. From Frank Stewart's time, the Opposition wound the funding of sport down to nothing. We have picked it up and, in government funding terms, we have raised sport to where it belongs. It is one of most important and understated social welfare areas in Australia. Sport has prospered enormously in two years. We propose to turn the Sports Commission, which takes the political patronage out of sports funding, into a statutory authority-to give it teeth, to enable it to do the sorts of things that we want it to do. We are asking the Opposition to support us in allowing sport to take a major step forward. The Opposition is asking us to take a major step backwards to where it was with an advisory body with no teeth. The Opposition appointed that body just as I have appointed the commissioners to this Commission. Those people are not there for political purposes; they are there with a global knowledge of sport. All I asked the Opposition to do was to come here and, on a bi-partisan basis, accept that sport requires public funding and that public funding requires proper auditing. This should be done on a bipartisan and honest level. The Opposition cannot do that because it does not understand what sport is all about. However, I am pleased to tell the House that in the Senate the Australian Demcocrats will support the Bill. It has been said quite openly in this debate that the Sports Commission will be a great overpowering body that stands over all other sporting bodies. I read a passage from the second reading speech: I believe the Commission's conduct, even in these first brief months of its existence, provides ample and compelling evidence of the co-operation and consultation that will be the cornerstones of its overall approach. The Commission has no power or charter, to intervene in or direct without the direction of the Minister, the affairs of any individual organisation. It has neither the power nor the competence to effect some sort of unilateral 'takeover' of sport. Its charter is clear and simple-to ensure that taxpayers' money is used wisely to achieve the most effective outcomes for sport and for the community. The Government has no intention of allowing any compromise of the proud tradition of independence and autonomy of sporting organisations that lies at the heart of Australia's sporting achievements. The Opposition has made great play of some correspondence from the Confederation of Australian Sport. Honourable members have quoted at length from some survey that the Confederation conducted in which 40 bodies wrote back suggesting that they had some worries about what we were doing. I have in my hand three telegrams that I have just received. The first says: The Australian Olympic Federation supports the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission as a Commonwealth statutory authority and looks forward to co-operating with the Commission . . . The second is from the Australian Rowing Council. It says: The Australian Rowing Council welcomes the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission as a Commonwealth statutory authority. We have been impressed by the co-operation that the Commission has already displayed and by its desire to consult with us on matters relating to our sport. The third says: Yesterday I forwarded to the honourable Andrew Peacock and Senator Don Chipp the following telegram. 'In my capacity as President of the Australian Soccer Federation I was one of the founders of the Confederation of Australian Sport. I am astonished to hear that representations have been made to you to suggest that sport generally is not in favour of the current legislation of the Government which will come before the assembly tomorrow. I hasten to inform you that this is not correct and in this regard I speak not only for soccer but also for many major sports including a large number of the Olympic sports with whom I discussed the matter.' I have spoken to a large number of major sports and the representations being made by the Confederation do not reflect their views. The telegram is signed by Sir Arthur George. (Extension of time granted) Finally, I have had this letter from the Confederation of Australian Sport. I will table it for honourable members but before I do that I will read two or three lines. It says: Many of the misunderstandings which have arisen in the past weeks were resolved as a result of our discussions and we thank you for that. Whilst the Confederation does have some reservations with respect to the legislation, we believe that our fundamental commitment to the development of sport in Australia is shared by the government. The Confederation understands and notes that the Australian Sports Commission will assist government in the implementation of its sport policy. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J.V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Saunderson, J.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Uren, T.Hurford, C. J. West, S. J.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Beale, J. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Jenkins, H. A. Fife, W. C.Mildren, J. B. Hodges, J. C.Hayden, W. G. Dobie, J. D. M.Dawkins, J. S. Cowan, D. B.Darling, E. E. Moore, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendments (by Mr John Brown)-by leave- agreed to: (1) Clause 3, page 3, lines 4 to 8, omit proposed definitions of ''securities'' and ''share''. (2) Clause 11, page 4, line 29, insert ''established under sub-section 19 (1)'' after ''committee''. (3) Clause 34, page 12, lines 29 and 30, omit '', or, if a higher amount is prescribed, that higher amount''. (4) Clause 40, page 14, line 28, omit paragraph (b), insert the follwoing paragraph: ''(b) the Minister's powers under paragraph 7 (1) (d), sub-section 9 (1), section 18 and paragraph 34 (a).''. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Before the debate is resumed on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.32) —Before the debate was interrupted, I was saying that my perception formed at this time last year that free tertiary education was not meeting its objective set in 1974 of inducing children of lower socio-economic families into the tertiary education system has not changed. My unease would be satisfied somewhat if the increased earnings that graduates receive meant that they paid more tax. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that it is these people who are in the best position to evade their taxes. In this regard I point to the activities of Christo Moll and medical specialists in Perth in recent times. I am disappointed that the participation and equity program has had its funds cut while free tertiary education is made available to many affluent members of society. I find it hard, as an Australian Labor Party politician, to reconcile cuts in a program aimed at giving young people, who are recognised as not having the academic ability to go to a tertiary institution, an alternative in a non-academic area while the Government contribution to an expensive education that in the main goes to the wealthy is not cut in any way. I do not advocate a cut in tertiary education funding because, like the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, I recognise that if we think education is expensive we should try ignorance. In effect, PEP, which is aimed at disadvantaged kids, is cut while an education that is in the main the province of the affluent receives full funding. In saying that, I appreciate the constraint placed on the Expenditure Review Committee with regard to the reintroduction of tertiary fees. I fully support the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that debate on tertiary fees should still form the basis for discussion. We must make sure that equality of opportunity, with regard to access to tertiary education, is available to all. I am not convinced that this aim is currently being achieved. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(6.35) —The big issue in the education debate is value for the educational dollar. Can this Parliament and this Government guarantee both the taxpayer and the consumer student that they are receiving value for money spent and services provided? I draw the attention of the House to the allocation of education funds in the Budget Papers. The university sector received $1,268m, colleges of advanced education received $820m, technical and further education institutions received $364m, schools received $1,663m, student assistance received $361m, special groups received $145m and other activities received $75m. That is a total of $4,544m, which constitutes 7.1 per cent of total budget outlays. In the area of tertiary education we have an interface between the university sector, the college of advanced education sector and the TAFE sector. In the last five to seven years there has been a considerable rationalisation of those three sectors-in the courses, programs and the institutions themselves. The institutions suffered a considerable amount of hostility from the administrators and students when some of this rationalisation took place. There is considerable co-operation between some of these institutions in relation to sharing facilities and administration. TAFE programs are being executed in CAE institutions and the sharing of facilities and staff results in a considerable reduction in costs. One such institute is the Victorian College of Agriculture and Horticulture, which was opened in 1983. This is a multi-campus college, having campuses both in the country and the city. It is also a multi-level college incorporating advanced education and TAFE activities. There is an exchange of programs and the college is very close to the end users. Young students participate in full time programs and mature age farmer students participate in the TAFE activities. The college retains a very close relationship to the farming community and particularly agriculture, which is one of its hallmarks in the educational programs that it provides. Funding to this college is unique in that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission provides advanced education funds and TAFE funds to one particular institution. Leading on from this we see the problem that governments and the Commission have in funding the various sectors of education-for example, the problem of allocating funds and the problem of the bureaucracy involved in servicing these institutions from the Federal level. In the early 1970s we saw a rapid expansion of universities and colleges of advanced education both in terms of capital and recurrent funding. There were considerable problems of allocation, because of the growth in student numbers and the fact that there was Federal funding to State areas of responsibility. In the last four or five years there has been a consolidation both in universities and colleges of advanced education. There has been a change of attitude in the last three or four years. Since 1982 there has been an increased demand for student places. More students are completing year 12. There has been a demographic change across the nation and, what is more, the students are looking for qualifications so they will have a better chance on the job market. A survey executed by chancellors and tabled in the Senate by the Opposition spokesman on education, Senator Peter Baume, indicated that, of 29,000 students, about 21 per cent were eligible for places in CAEs or universities but were unable to find places. Before turning to the TAFE sector I note that I have brought into the Parliament the Principal of the Gordon Technical College which provides TAFE for the Geelong and Corangamite areas. He has served this whole area very well in the provision of TAFE services. The TAFE sector throughout Australia provides services which are funded broadly by the State sector. There is a contribution by the Commonwealth with the States providing the main funding capacity, and being responsible for the administration of TAFE services. The TAFE colleges are close to industry. They have traditionally been close to the many industries they serve. Industry personnel assist in curriculum development and there is direct contact with students, apprentices and technicians, both during the programs and after the completion of the courses. The TAFE sector, for all its problems, has been market oriented and has been very close to what employers want and what they see in TAFE students coming through the system. I draw the attention of the House to one of the problems I see in the departments of employment and training, both Federal and State, which go by various different names. There has been a tendency for all governments to try to solve employment problems with training schemes, and the community employment program scheme put forward by the present Government is an example of this. The setting up of these departments uses up considerable resources and does not solve the unemployment problem. The conflicting departments have a tendency to interfere with curriculum development, which the TAFE colleges manage so ably. The employment problem is really a problem that the Government and the nation should face by removing the rigidity of the wage fixing structures, encouraging wage levels based on industry's capacity to pay and make profits and providing incentives for business to create jobs. Let us not confuse the two issues of training and employment problems. As I said, the cost of the education sector is 7.1 per cent of the Budget, and it ought to be responsive to the market place. The difficulty we face is that the allocation of funds is subject to lobbying of the various administrations in relation to student numbers and forward projections. I suggest that the market place should be the arbiter and a factor in ensuring that the allocation of funds is effective. The tertiary sector should be more responsive and cost conscious and less dependent on government funds. Finally, I quote from a newspaper article which refers to Dr Pirie of the Adam Smith Society, who has put forward a positive proposition in relation to the funding of the tertiary sector in the United Kingdom. The article states: The institute's blueprint for British universities and colleges calls for the University Grants Commission (UGC), the United Kingdom equivalent of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, to be replaced by 'consumer power'. 'Our research suggested State universities could be made more market responsive, by introducing something like a fee-certificate system,' Dr Pirie said. 'The students would use these certificates to pay fees at the university of their choice, which could then reclaim them from the Government for money. 'At present the government money is distributed by the UGC, which tends to play favourites. Vice-Chancellors are often involved in power plays among themselves to secure funding. 'Our submission says: ''Scrap the UGC and give the money to students.'' Instead of the commission deciding which universities will expand, the students will.' Perhaps this Parliament should be looking at new and alternative ways of funding education and providing the most cost effective, consumer responsive education system for future Australians. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.53) —Everyone is an expert on the matter of education because everyone has been to school and believes he has all the answers for himself and his children. I suspect there is more nonsense spoken about education in Australia than any other single subject. Half of the nonsense is because the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is thoroughly confused. I hope to make some sensible points to the Minister in the time given to me and not contribute to the arrant and arrogant nonsense sometimes spoken on this subject. The Australian education system, in my opinion, is working. Australia has a very high level of education, and that is one of the great strengths we have and will continue to have. If we look back some 20 or 30 years at the standards of education in our schools-certainly when I was at school-we must acknowledge the great advances that have been made in the schools system in this country. In those early days there was basically a bench, a slate and a few books, compared with schools now which have better equipment, better teaching aids, better educated teachers and better products coming out of them. We have also a reasonably high proportion of people going on to technical and higher education, but that proportion must be increased in the future. That does not mean that we are without our problems in the education system in this country. At some stage we have to sort out the Commonwealth and State responsibilities in these fields, particularly where funds are provided but no responsibility is accepted. We have to look at the retention rate in our schools, and I compliment the Government on the work it has done in this area. The problem is that it is no use retaining students at school if there are no places for them in the technical or tertiary education areas. Despite what the surveys say, we have to take a hard look at the numeracy and literacy skills of the products of our schools. If one wants to see the literacy problem, one has to look only at the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's National yesterday, which was quoted in Question Time in Parliament today. Let me say a few words about the schools. There are three million students in Australia and 75 per cent of them go to government schools. The Federal Government provides about 19 per cent of the school funds. One has to ask why in recent years the non-government sector has increased so dramatically at the expense of the government sector. The options for the Commonwealth in the field of education are to completely withdraw from the funding of schools and leave it to the States; to continue to try to maintain the present input; or to increase the Commonwealth participation. I would have thought, on balance, that the Commonwealth could withdraw and allow the States completely to take over the control and funding of the schools system, provided there is some guarantee by the Commonwealth that the non-government schools sector will be given the chance to survive. Under the present Government's policies, that guarantee certainly would not be in place. It is beyond my reckoning and the reckoning of many people how any policy based on a set of very vague guidelines can hope to provide an equitable system of grading for 2,500 schools for the amount of funding they should get. How on earth does one equate schools which have varying areas of land, assets and income; variations between old schools and new schools; schools in urban areas, rural areas and affluent areas? To try to make some sense of this mish-mash and equate them in some way, so that one comes up with a decision as to why one school deserves more than another. Why would one try to grade them. Is a school affluent because it is old and was built in an area before any town grew up? If it now owns much valuable land in an urban area, does that make it affluent? Of course it does not. The land cannot be sold because if it is the school ceases to be. Why should the pupils and the parents of that school be penalised by being compared with a school down the road which has completely different circumstances? The present policies have set school against school. Worse than that, those schools with strong staff and strong parent committees which get off their tails and raise money are immediaely penalised because when funding guidelines are developed they get less. If those schools get off their tails and make some money to try to make their schools progressive and to develop them, they will get nothing while those which do nothing are inclined to get more. The system is certainly socialist, and I suppose the Government can take some pride in that. I ask the Minister to say how such a system can be regarded as one of encouragement. It seems to me that it is one of complete discouragement. The Government is penalising one school and not penalising another and it is penalising schools that are showing some initiative and drive. The Government is also penalising the parents because most students at non-government schools are sent there by parents who work very hard. Usually both parents work. So the Government is penalising not only those schools but also the students who go to them. It seems to me that there is only one sensible option to get us out of the whole mess and that is to return to the system of per capita grants per student at each non-government school and to allow the schools to work out how they will best use that money. I turn to the technical and further education colleges in this country. We all recognise that there will never be enough money for all the requirements of the TAFE sector, let alone the other sectors. It seems to me that if we are to progress in this country in a technical sense, we have to provide more places at our technical colleges. One of the things that have disturbed me for some time is the fact that if, on leaving school, a young man or woman qualifies, he or she can gain entry to a university and be trained in a profession at virtually no cost. Young men and women seeking an apprenticeship cannot go to a TAFE college free of charge. They have to find an employer who will give them employment. Then they may attend a TAFE college and have some chance of learning a profession or trade. It seems unjust that someone can attend a university, if that person qualifies, but others have to find employment before they can get into many of the courses at our TAFE colleges. It would seem sensible to ensure that our TAFE colleges be increasingly structured to provide for the free education of tradesmen and women in this country. On the question of university fees and places, if we are to have any long term future in this country, we have to provide more places for those who wish to enter into higher education and training. I conclude my remarks by taking up the question of university fees. This is a contentious argument, and it is not confined to one side of the Parliament. If there were unlimited money, of course we would not have to have university fees; but the fact is that the abolition of fees in recent years, to my knowledge, has not indicated a better social mix at universities. From the reports that I have read, it does not seem to have given more opportunity to people from lower income groups. The social and economic mix seem to be the same. If that is not the case, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. If it is right, why should people who are getting an education for life not contribute towards it on a means tested basis? On balance, the reintroduction of fees in this country is a necessity, particularly for governments that are increasingly saying that there is not enough money to go around for education. In short, if we do not address some of the problems that I have raised, the great education debate will go on in increasing or perhaps decreasing circles. Unless we provide more places at universities and technical colleges, we face a very dismal future indeed. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(6.05) —Madam Acting Speaker-it always gives me pleasure to be able to say that-in speaking to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills, I will address my remarks mostly to those Bills that deal with funding for the participation and equity program. I have to say that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) does not seem to understand the basis of non-government school funding. His proposition seemed to be that the Government should give, with no responsibility in return from the schools. In fact the technical and further education colleges in my State provide for a very large number of non-apprenticeship courses which do not debar students because they do not have the appropriate employment. These Bills are a cost supplementation measure to reimburse for inflation. This is something which should have been done by the previous Government, but was not done. This legislation will ensure that grants will have the same value when the funds are actually there to be spent, rather than diminishing in value between the application for them and the spending of them. This has always been a very great problem in the past for those institutions which depended on this kind of grant for a large part of their funding. It ensures that sensible planning will be available, with the assurance that grants will actually pay for the items in an approved submission. That is particularly important in regard to the employment of people. It is important for PEP projects, because many of them deal with curriculum development and the introduction of new bridging and assisting courses. There is a necessity for teachers to be freed from their day to day, hour to hour teaching duties in order to provide for the work that goes into renewing the curriculum and introducing new and bridging courses, particularly in the process of setting up the necessary consultation between the community and the school and the parents and the school when these new courses are being introduced. Educationally speaking, the PEP courses also provide support for young people who did not find the school experience either satisfactory or rewarding. In reflecting on funding for education we need to understand that for generations we have been losing skills in our community and we have been losing abilities and talents because in our schools and post-secondary institutions we have been not been able to provide for those young people who, for development reasons or whatever, were not able to take the best advantage of the education that was offered them year by year. We do not want to lose those skills and talents any more; we want to keep them. It also provides the opportunity for teachers to extend their skills. Many people who know nothing about education, apart from the fact that they went to school, do not seem to understand the dynamic nature of the relationship between teaching and learning and the changes that teachers have to encounter and put up with and learn to deal with. Because of the dynamic and ever-changing environment in which teachers operate, they need to be able to extend their skills and resources. They need to be able to involve their students in more productive learning and to begin to provide for students at school and at the TAFE colleges in a way that previously did not occur. Previously, a very elitist and restrictive view of education was prevalent in this Parliament, all members of which are achievers. They had scant sympathy for those for whom failure is much better understood than success. The fact that, quite recently, through economic necessity funding for PEP has been spread over two years in no way diminishes the basic principle that our national need is for a better educated population. Our retention rates in schools are far below those of our successful trading partners. That is not accidental; it is the result of extremely short-sighted priorities that were set by the previous Government. My colleague the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, has remarked on occasions that in this country we have educational opportunity by postcode. I have to agree with him. The facts are overwhelmingly in favour of that analysis. That simply is not good enough. This Government realises-the PEP is a recognition of that realisation-that we need to have right across our nation a basis of education that is not dependent on where one's parents live. The previous Government, for all its rhetoric, seemed to have no concern for the national need for and the benefit of a properly educated nation. There are 714 schools that have been targeted for 1985 for funding, most of them in areas and districts which have socio-economic characteristics indicating disadvantage. The schools include both government and non-government schools, metropolitan and country schools. That is a measure of the extent of the need as well as a measure of the extent of the Government's concern. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), when speaking on these Bills, revealed a very competitive commercial view of schools-and of health-which is typical of that which has led to the neglect of the national need for levels of education to continue to improve. No amount of political rhetoric will disguise the previous Government's failure to address national needs in this area. It seemed to me that the honourable member was implying that education is a little like cars. Various qualities of education can be sold at various prices, and that is justified by saying that the schooling that has the highest price sets a standard by which all education is improved. It is a little like saying that the sale of Rolls-Royces improves the standards of Holdens and Fords. I suggest that that is not based on any kind of evidence. This sale of high-priced education also is seen as a kind of prelude or training for competition for places in totally publicly funded tertiary institutions. The proponents of private enterprise education seem to forget that the ultimate objective of their private enterprise is to get into the public system if they possibly can. That is really the private enterprise mentality extended to lunacy when one understands how much our future as a nation rests on the overall level of education and skill in our community. In fact, it might be instructive for honourable members to understand something about the nature of a particular PEP at the technical and further education college in my electorate. It is open to 15- to 24-year-olds, with emphasis on long term unemployed and specifically disadvantaged people. There is a broad range of opportunities tailored to the indivudual, to equip people for job and life opportunitites. The PEP is integrated into 18 existing departments at the college, using mainstream resources where necessary and appropriate. It is a very economical way of using public funding. The students are interviewed and selected. They then choose from three streams and components in the chosen stream. They embrace educational and work skills, living skills and craft skills. There are 120 students there, with groups of up to 20 benefiting from that program. There is an additional program for the mildly intellectually handicapped-a group of people who need to be in the mainstream of educational institutions, where self-help is very much used as a basic vehicle for basic numeracy, literacy, teaching and the development of self-confidence and self-reliance. The use of that PEP money has opened up opportunities for young people within the field of the TAFE college, which has been most beneficial for them and for the community at large. The PEP is a complex and diverse program, as the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has said, because young people and their education needs are complex and diverse. This cost supplementation provides a secure base on which to provide for that complexity and diversity of needs. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.14) -We are dealing cognately with three Bills, namely, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill. I shall comment particularly on the Bill relating to tertiary education assistance; but before doing so I wish to comment briefly on last Tuesday night's razor gang report and to suggest that the Government, whether it intended to do so or not, has really hurt those people whose children attend pre-schools. People whose children attend non-government pre-schools are facing rises in daily fees. Fees will rise from about $3.50 to $5 or $6. The Government also has cut the money available to government pre-schools. The imposition of increased charges in the private sector will cause many people to be unable to afford to continue in that area. This will create greater demands on the public sector. A Labor government of 10 years ago was telling the nation how important it was for children to be in the pre-school sector, but the present Government has done a complete about-face. If it intended to do that, I congratulate it on the extent of its about-face. If it did not intend that, I point to how dumb it is. But, overall, I castigate the Government for its lack of thinking in terms of what it has done, particularly 12 months after it started spending $85m on an extra 35 members of the Federal Parliament and degutting the new building up on the hill to accommodate those extra members who have since been elected. Secondly, I make quick reference to the fact that I am a member of the board of a non-government secondary school in Queensland. My experience as a member of that board is invaluable in that I have come to appreciate truly how the non-government sector in secondary education must fight every inch of the way and how parents must make many sacrifices to enable them to make their choice. There are elements in the Australian Labor Party, in this House and in the Senate, who seem to have a jealous preoccupation with what the non-government sector is given. That meets only a small percentage of its costs. I just ask people who are motivated by such jealousy and seemingly sometimes a class hatred-that seems to be the explanation of it-to sit back and understand what would happen if the non-government sector were to collapse. There are only a few minutes available to all of us in this debate because the Government wants to complete it by 6.30 p.m. However, I want to make special reference to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. My home State of Queensland is disadvantaged and discriminated against by this Government in terms of Federal Government funding for tertiary education places. The disparity in funding means that Queensland universities are at least $20m behind those of other States. Some estimated the shortfall to be as high as $53m. The purpose of this speech is to prove that this discrimination is occurring, to point out that the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, is fully aware of it, and to ask that the Federal Government take immediate steps to bring its funding of Queensland tertiary places into line with that for all other Australian States. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, in its April 1984 report on funding for the 1985-1987 triennium, showed that, whereas 46 people per 1,000 were enrolled in a Queensland university in 1983, the figure for New South Wales was 62, for Tasmania 60, for Victoria 58, for South Australia 53, and for Western Australia 48. The Commission commented on the low participation rate in Queensland at page 71 of its report. It said: The Commission believes that particular attention should be directed during the next few years to the low participation rate in Queensland . . . The Commonwealth Government's objective of balanced development requires that steps be taken to reduce as far as possible differences in participation rates as significant as those which exist between Queensland and the rest of Australia. It must be remembered that this report was given to the Minister 13 months ago, well prior to the announcement of the last Budget. The report went on to say that the problem of too few tertiary places was in part a consequence of State Government under-funding in the years before 1974, when the States had a share of the funding responsibility for tertiary education. In this respect, however, the analysis by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is inadequate. For the sake of peace, I shall not suggest motives or reasons. I refer to the fifth report of the Australian Universities Commission, published in May 1977. It shows that in 1971, when State governments had responsibility for funding, participation in universities in Queensland was the highest of any Australian State. In 1974, the year in which the Commonwealth took over responsibility for funding-that is the year when Gough Whitlam was in full flight-the Queensland participation rate was still the second highest in Australia. I suggest to the House that our present low participation rate is the result of curbs imposed unilaterally by the Commonwealth over the decade since 1974 when very substantial support was given to encourage higher levels of university participation in other States. An even more compelling case for additional Federal Government funding can be made more directly. In recent years the population of Queensland has risen rapidly and now represents 16 per cent of the Australian population. One Australian in six is a Queenslander. Contrary to what is believed in some quarters, Queensland has an even higher proportion of the younger age groups. For example, the figures for 1983 show that Queensland had 17.2 per cent of those in the age group from zero to four, 17.3 per cent of the five to nine age group and 17.2 per cent of the 10 to 14 age group, all of which are higher than Queensland's percentage of the total Australian population. In comparison with the population data, the recurrent Commonwealth grant to Queensland was only 14.3 per cent of the grants for universities in all States. This means that Queensland's recurrent grant of $146m for universities in 1984-85 is some $20m per annum below the level that could be regarded as equitable. From the figures that I have already given showing Queensland's higher proportion of younger people, it can be seen that this problem will not go away but will, if anything, compound in future years. As the educational history of the last decade shows a very considerable increase in the numbers seeking some form of tertiary education is very likely to occur. In Queensland, the number of candidates for the senior or matriculation examination has risen from 1,500 in the mid-1950s to 20,000 in 1984. In addition, the participation rate of students in years 10 to 12 has increased rapidly in the last two years as a result of the encouragement given to people, understandably, by governments to stay on at school and matriculate. I have more to say but I will honour the agreement regarding length of speeches and resume my seat to enable the Minister to reply. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(6.23) —The House has been debating the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Legislation Amendment Bill and two cognate Bills. I thank the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear), the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) for their contributions. It is a bit like the old poem of Casabianca about the boy standing on the burning deck in that the only ones present who have participated in the debate are the honourable member for Moreton and me! I will put some emphasis on the points that he raised with regard to Queensland. I noticed his interesting explanation that in 1971 Queensland had the highest participation rate in tertiary education and that by 1977, when the Commonwealth took over funding, this percentage had fallen. I would have thought that perhaps there was an alternative explanation. This coincided with the period in which Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen has been the Premier of Queensland. In that period, and perhaps it has been even worse since the Liberal Party of Australia was eliminated from what used to be the coalition government there, there have been really serious problems in the attitude of the Queensland Government towards education. Mr Donald Cameron —That is not right. It is the Commonwealth Government. Mr BARRY JONES —I point out to the honourable member that in fact the Commonwealth has gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the Queensland position, recognising the special problems of Queensland. In the triennium 1985-87, 4,564 additional places will be provided in Queensland. Queensland's enrolment growth in higher education in that triennium is estimated at 9 per cent compared with the national average of 6 per cent. The Commonwealth has provided an increase of $14.2m which is a 4.8 per cent increase in real terms over the 1984 funds. That is the highest increase of any State. It must be noted that the overall increase for the Commonwealth is 2.9 per cent in real terms. I should perhaps just comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Moncrieff. She complained about the failure to provide for additional places and staff in tertiary institutions. The current Bill supplements funds that the Government provided for 1985-87 to fund an additional 15,000 places as well as an additional 2,500 staff over that triennium in higher educational institutions. It is also expected that an extra 15,000 full time student places will be created in technical and further education institutions over that triennium. The Government has provided an extra $54.25m in 1985, an increase of 2.8 per cent on 1984 levels, for higher education. In technical and further education, an additional $10.9m or 3.8 per cent is being provided in 1985. Total tertiary funding for 1985 will be increased by over $65m or 2.9 per cent on 1984 levels-the largest single increase since the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was established in 1977. The Government will shortly be considering in the Budget context advice from CTEC in its supplementary report on the question of intakes for 1986 and 1987. Overall, these Bills do not represent a dramatic breakthrough in educational thinking or practice. Essentially they provide for cost supplementation and some minor and technical amendments to the principal Act. Other points that have been raised by honourable members who are not with us in the chamber at the moment will be referred to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) for consideration and no doubt they will be taken up in the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 14 May, on the following paper presented by Mr Keating: Government Expenditure Savings-Ministerial Statement, 14 May 1985 and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 50 minutes. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.00) —Madam Acting Speaker, the ministerial statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on proposed expenditure cuts introduced into this House on Tuesday is not merely an exercise in self-delusion, but the product of a fundamentally compromised government. We were led to believe by the hyperbole of both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that it was to represent some epic feat of good government and sound economic management. The Prime Minister told us about the blood and sweat that had been shed and the Treasurer, who has certainly been looking paler than usual, told us about the months of work involved. What did we get as a result of these bloodstained months of work and the weeks of aroused expectations? It was nothing more than the normal routine and quite unexceptional process of reducing the Forward Estimates. They did not want to tell us about the Forward Estimates so that we could make a judgment about whether their expenditure cuts had any real value. But what else could we expect from the two men who achieved the level of cynicism necessary to create the myth of the $9.6 billion deficit in 1983? Mr Hodgman —Shame on them. Mr PEACOCK —Yes. Then in 1985 they try to surpress their own Forward Estimates on the grounds that they are meaningless. Mr Howard —That is double standards, is it not? Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, it is. It is becoming a hallmark of this compromised Government. This evening I will be addressing the economic backdrop to the Treasurer's statement; the need in the present economic circumstances for decisive action, not only in the area of fiscal policy, but also wages policy and monetary policy; the failure of last Tuesday's statement to initiate such decisive action; the failure of the savings initiatives to deliver robust, believable expenditure reductions; and I shall briefly outline a series of initiatives and reforms which will provide the fundamental planks in restoring strength to the Australian economy. The Treasurer's statement is a watershed in that it proves beyond any doubt at all that the Government failed to realise that good economic luck is no substitute for good economic management. What exceptional economic fortune this Government had over two years. The drought broke and the rural economy recovered. The economy of the United States of America and those of most of Australia's main trading partners recovered. The Government inherited a wages pause which put a lid on costs and put profits on the road to recovery. With this kind of good fortune it is understandable that business and consumer confidence rose, production increased, employment rose and inflation abated. Sustained economic recovery, however, requires a commitment to responsibility and restraint. This was made clear in the 1984-85 Budget statements which warned of the dangers posed to economic recovery by continued high structural Budget deficits, overly expansive monetary policies and harbouring market inflexibilities. Mr Rocher —Very dicey assumptions. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member will see the consequences that I will spell out in a moment. Labor brought with it the prices and incomes accord, an accord which institutionalises the crippling prices-wages-prices spiral which had the potential to bring down economic recovery quickly. This Government, which was elected on promises of restoring sustained economic growth and employment and reducing inflation could not resist the temptation to exploit its good luck for its own advantage. In its first Budget it simply and irresponsibly decided to run a big deficit. In its 1984-85 Budget it failed to make significant inroads into the structural components of the Budget deficit and it mounted an election Budget, a Budget that it perceived to be in Labor's interests, but not those of Australians and the Australian economy. Pressure was put on financial markets; real interest rates headed towards record levels and monetary targets, to which the Government had luckily been able to adhere to broadly in its first year or so of office suddenly became unachievable and so were doomed to eventual abolition. Then followed indifferent growth in the September quarter of 1984; an ever-widening trade deficit; mounting concerns about the level of national and overseas indebtedness and our long term capacity to service it; resumption of growth in the consumer price index which was reflected in another round of indexed wage increases; and the MX missile fiasco. Little wonder that overseas investors lost confidence in our economy and the Government's capacity to nurture the recovery which had fallen into its lap. Little wonder there was a flight from the Australian dollar with a consequent dramatic devaluation. In the face of all this the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, apparently struck dumb, went into their bunkers for weeks at a time. The cost of the 1984 Budget, irresponsibly compounded by factionalism within the Labor Party and indecision across a range of policies, was therefore paid for through the loss of the dollar's value, dampened recovery and resumption of inflation. The recovery of employment faltered and the Government now admits its proudly touted employment objectives are totally under threat. Worse still, the threat now exists of a major devaluation-inflation-wage spiral which, if allowed to materialise, would kill recovery and return Australia to the days of unemployment and stagflation. I said last year that Australians had before them the opportunity to turn a fragile recovery into a decade of lasting prosperity. That was the opportunity before Australia and indeed the opportunity before this Government. I have just shown the House that in two years in two profligate Budgets there was a chance perhaps to arrest this trend dealt with last Tuesday night. Perhaps we expected too much. This Government, subject to union leaders who would not and will not shed one ounce of their privileges in the national interest, squandered the opportunities that it had before it. Today, compared with the other major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies, this Government has given Australia the highest real interest rates; the second highest current account deficit; the second highest annual wage growth; the highest money supply growth; and the largest trade-weighted currency depreciation in the last year. That is why confidence in the Government has faded so fast and that is why it is now forced to try to sell the Treasurer's statement as some sort of major achievement, something different from the normal budgetary processes. The Opposition has been telling the Government for months that there were four basic lines of action to regain credibility for Australia-not just for this Government, but for this nation. There were four basic lines of action that should have been taken through the Treasurer's statement. First, there had to be major expenditure cuts with a commitment to continued firm restraint. Second, the Government had to support the discounting of wage indexation for the effect of devaluation on the consumer price index. Third, the Government had to oppose any productivity wage increase in the foreseeable future. Fourth, the Government had to move to give monetary policy some direction by restoring monetary targeting as soon as feasible. Mr Rocher —What happened to the forecasts? Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member might well ask because, judged against those criteria, the Treasurer's statement is a total failure. In a statement of 49 pages, just a few sentences contain the essence of the Government's failure. These are sentences which tell us that there will be no discounting for the effects of devaluation on the CPI; there will only be a deferral of the phoney so-called productivity case; there will be no substantive guidance on monetary policy; and, despite the Government's so-called expenditure cuts, there will be a further increase in the real burden of government. Let me go through some of these elements. Let me deal with the discounting of wage indexation for devaluation. From last night we know that confusion post-September reigned supreme. This has all the hallmarks of the dog's breakfast that the tax raffle has become. The devaluation of the Australian dollar has given Australian industry an opportunity to regain its profitability amd competitiveness, but only if the benefits of the devaluation are left to business, commerce and industry. If the CPI effects of the devaluation are passed on in wage increases, even temporarily, the beneficial effects on profitability and competitiveness will obviously be eliminated and the potential to create thousands of new jobs will be forgone. Yet in the economic statement we find the clearest statement to date by the Government that it intends to support the Australian Council of Trade Unions argument for full CPI flow-on. Mr Hodgman —Shame! Mr PEACOCK —It is indeed a shame because we must be very clear about the impact of the Government's refusal to support discounting. It is now widely accepted that the present level of devaluation will add at least 3 per cent to the CPI. Mr Howard —The biggest for 30 years. Mr PEACOCK —Yes, it is the biggest for 30 years. Let us see what underlies and flows through from it. The convenor of the Centre Left, Senator Cook, said last week: A devaluation impact of 3 per cent will push the 1985 inflation rate up to at least 8 per cent and it will be even higher if the present increase in wage drift outside award rate increases continues. Contrast that minimum of 8 per cent with the current inflation rates of below 4 per cent in the United States, Canada, Japan and West Germany-most of our major trading partners. How does the Government intend to retain the competitive opportunities of devaluation? Presumably it can be only by further devaluation, leading to a built-in inflationary spiral. Discounting is the only way to break the link between devaluation, automatic wage indexation, and further devaluation. Honourable members will remember the notable assessment of the Prime Minister back in April when he told us that devaluation could create 100,000 jobs. Mr Rocher —What a sham. Mr PEACOCK —Sham or not, let us accept that on this occasion the Prime Minister was being responsible. The promise of 100,000 more jobs for Australians was traded in on Tuesday by the Treasurer as part of his deal with the ACTU. Mr Howard —That is like his promise on lower interest rates. Mr PEACOCK —Yes, just like his promise on lower interest rates. Had we listened to both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer during the election campaign we would have heard the Treasurer say that through 1985 interest rates would come down. We all know that the reverse has occurred, as we pointed out at the time. The Government's attitude to discounting and devaluation makes it clearer every day that this Government and its accomplices at the ACTU are concerned only about wages, wages, wages: That means at the cost of the Government's now fraudulent slogan of jobs, jobs, jobs. What of productivity wage increases? The Government's way of abdicating its responsibility here on the question of productivity and the claim by the unions is to claim that somehow, if the ACTU agrees to defer productivity case, then this is a reasonable pay-off for continued full wage indexation. Some pay-off! Simon says it is not on, so the Government has made absolutely no attempt to rebut the plain fact that there is no scope for a productivity wage increase. The Business Council of Australia has comprehensively destroyed the Government's argument in its April 1985 bulletin. I quote it: A large part of the productivity gains in Australia have already been distributed to labour through remuneration in the form of superannuation, hours, allowances, redundancy provisions, as well as wages drift which has occurred beyond indexation. If past productivity increases were now to be redistributed, even in part, it would cost jobs. It could not act therefore as an offset to the impact on labour costs of an unjustified wage increase. The Business Council then goes on to discuss what appears to be the Treasurer's private view that there is scope for a wage increase to take account of future productivity increases. The Business Council demolishes that argument, along with what the Government tries to pass off as its economic strategy, when it says: A strategy of automatic and full indexation of wages to the consumer price index plus a productivity wage increase, together with the devaluation, would quickly shift Australia into a double digit rate of inflation. The rate would be at least double that of our major trading partners. Before long Australia could find itself in a vicious inflation-wage-devaluation spiral that is detrimental to us all. As I said, and as is comprehended by honourable members on this side of the House, this is the deal that the Prime Minister and his Treasurer have negotiated for ordinary Australians. Mr Howard —Dolan's deal. Mr PEACOCK —That deal is to look after themselves, look after the officials of the ACTU. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, they do the deal with Dolan. All is well with the Government, but it is not so for Australians, particularly ordinary Australians. Let me turn to monetary policy. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have often said that if their wages policy fails to deliver the restraint necessary to restore the competitiveness of Australian industry, then very tight monetary and fiscal policy will be the only alternative option. But the Treasurer's statement makes clear that neither monetary nor fiscal policy will be tightened, despite the fact that their wages policy is now set to add to inflation in Australia. The Treasurer claims in his statement: It should be clear to anybody who has monitored monetary developments since that time- that is, since the M3 projections- that the Government and the authorities have not departed from the firm non-inflationary monetary policy stance which has characterised the Government's period in office. Apparently the Treasurer, despite his pride at having half-mastered the Treasury's jargon, does not even bother to read his own Department's publications because the Treasury's latest 'Round up of Statistics' shows that every relevant measure of monetary growth has been growing at inappropriately high rates. We believe that M3 may not be a particularly useful indicator as the effects of deregulation work their way through the system. But when a whole range of indicators, including those unaffected by deregulation, tell essentially the same story it is simply impossible to believe the Treasurer's claim that monetary policy is firm. But most important, the market needs to have some indication of the direction of monetary policy. It is time the Treasurer summoned the political courage to take a specific path instead of pleading that the market is being irrational. What of the so-called cuts? We have listened to the Treasurer for two days now saying that he has been misunderstood, that the Prime Minister has been misunderstood and that the Forward Estimates have been misunderstood. Let us forget all this slipping and sliding. Even if we take at face value his claim that outlays have been cut by $1.26 billion compared with the Forward Estimates, that still leaves outlays increasing by more than $3 billion next financial year. It still leaves the honourable member for Blaxland, the current Treasurer, as the highest taxing, biggest spending Treasurer in Australia's peacetime history. Worst of all, it still leaves Australians with the financial legacies of the Government's irresponsible budgetary spending sprees in 1983-84 and 1984-85. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and I covered in this House yesterday the reasons why it would be illusory to suggest that the statement represents a real attempt to regain control of spending. In the last two years the Government made cuts in outlays-we remember them-only to see their impact destroyed by new spending decisions which were more than double the cuts in outlays. The Treasurer has given this House no assurance that this will not be repeated. He has blatantly failed to give the information which would have allowed Australians to place the $1.26 billion in perspective. Where are the estimates of the cost of spending commitments made since the Forward Estimates were put together? Let us pose a few other questions. Where are the commitments to restrain new spending? Where are the estimates of increases in outlays due to devaluation? Where are the assessments of the effects of other parameter changes on outlays? Where are the estimates of the effects of current employment trends on welfare outlays? Where are the guarantees that there has been no blowout in spending on existing programs since December? Where is the broad target for the renegotiation of the Commonwealth-State tax sharing agreement? They are not there. Mr Rocher —They are in the too-hard drawer. Mr PEACOCK —They are in the too-hard drawer. I tend to think that in all these respects the Treasurer's statement is as empty as the records of the Enmore branch of the Australian Labor Party. The detail is just not there. If it is it has been fiddled and we cannot find it. It is not offered to this House or the nation. Let me give honourable members some clues as to why the Treasurer deliberately avoided these central issues. Let me give the facts about the alleged cut of $84m in defence expenditure. It now emerges that because of the effect of devaluation alone defence expenditure in 1985-86 will increase by $250m, not be cut by $84m. What about the much heralded and much leaked cuts in export market development grants? Mr McVeigh —A fiddle. Mr PEACOCK —It was a fiddle indeed. It now emerges that for tourism those cuts will be cancelled by a new scheme to achieve the same aim. It is just another label. Those two examples of slick and sleek political chicanery emerged yesterday, one day after the statement. One is fascinated by how much more will emerge in the next three months. Finally, on the cuts themselves, yesterday the Treasurer attempted to explain away his statement that he would be able to achieve a reduction in the Forward Estimates of grants to the States. The coalition does not have access to all the information in the Treasury's possession. The coalition, like all Australians, has to rely, at least initially, on what the Treasurer says. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite correctly in Question Time today questioned the following statement made by the Treasurer yesterday: . . . can guarantee the States that there will be savings off the Forward Estimates from our negotiation with the States. What could be clearer than that? The Treasurer will 'guarantee the States that there will be savings off the Forward Estimates from our negotiation with the States.' The Treasurer now tries to explain that away by saying that the Forward Estimates are not the Forward Estimates and that the figure that we should take is the Forward Estimates figure plus enough to maintain the 1984-85 allocation in real terms. Let us accept the Treasurer's new benchmark-no increase in real terms for the States, despite the 2 per cent real increase granted to local government. That is real Enmore branch Treasury-type logic; one accepts the Treasurer's new benchmark of no increase in real terms for the States, despite the 2 per cent real increase granted to local government. How will the Treasurer wriggle out of that one? One wishes him luck in dealing with Mr Wran, Mr Cain, Mr Burke and Mr Bannon. He will need more than luck in dealing with the others who will be negotiating with him. Let me conclude by setting out the coalition's approach to the basic needs for securing Australia's long range economic health. The Opposition is committed to a more disciplined approach to monetary policy. Such discipline is feasible only with good information about monetary aggregates and trends, and this is urgently needed. Monetary growth must be kept to the level indicated by the economy's money needs. Unduly fast growth will fuel new inflationary forces. The coalition believes it is necessary and possible to provide some indication of the Government's monetary policy stance. There are other measures, apart from M3. We see no reason why some of these other measures cannot be used to give the financial community an indication of the Government's monetary policy objective. What about public sector borrowing? The Opposition is firmly committed to wind back the public sector borrowing requirement to a level which allows real interest rates to return to a sensible level, to a level which gives the private sector every opportunity to exploit growth opportunities, invest and thereby provide new jobs. In wages policy there is an immediate need to discount indexed wage rises for the effects of devaluation. All of us on this side of the House are committed to this. We are committed, furthermore, to moving toward a system of genuine wage deregulation. If this country is to be competitive in the international market there is no alternative. If this country is to cure its employment problem there is no alternative. The inflexible centralised wage system, which has condemned tens of thousands of our young people to unemployment, must give way to a more flexible wage fixing mechanism which will allow them to become competitive in the labour force and which will allow firms, both large and small, to take them on. Dr Theophanous —Your Government had the highest unemployment in our history! Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member is nothing but a mouthpiece for the leftist unions. He has no interest in those who are out of work. He wants to help only those in work to feather their nests. The basis of the socialist policy that he propagates and propounds was out of date years before it was written into the Labor Party's platform in the early part of this century. Let us get on to the question of genuine expenditure restraint. The coalition declares unequivocally that it is committed to genuine expenditure restraint. Our credibility is underscored by our own record of restraint during the Fraser period which was, let me say, a record of restraint without parallel for any Australian peacetime government. During the seven years of the Fraser Government, government expenditure increased in real terms by just over 2 per cent. Contrast this with the Labor Party's first Budget in 1983-84 which provided for an increase of 7.7 per cent in real terms and included $2.5 billion in new spending decisions. If honourable members want a further contrast, contrast this with Labor's second Budget last year when Budget outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product were the highest ever and represented an increase of 6.1 per cent over and above the expected rate of inflation. There were $1.3 billion worth of discretionary new spending decisions in the Budget. All we can say to that is that this Government is the true inheritor of Whitlam economics. Whilst I see no spectre of the Governor-General intervening at all, none whatsoever, the Government has the same outlook as Whitlam had at about this period in his term of government. The Government is going one way, in the same direction. The coalition is committed to contain the growth of the Public Service. Again let us say it: Our record in this area contrasts sharply with that of the Labor Government. Under the previous Government total full time Public Service staff numbers declined by 1,561. Let me put that to the House again. Under the previous Government total full time Public Service staff declined by 1,561. Mr Barry Jones —What about part time? Mr PEACOCK —That is a fair question because under the Hawke Government the number has increased by 10,470, and that increase was between February 1983 and December 1984. God knows what it is today. On Tuesday night the Treasurer said that the Government had 'significantly reduced the growth rate in Public Service'. To put it mildly, that is laughable. It does not reflect the true situation and it underscores the difference between us in approach towards expenditure restraint and the role of government. We are also committed to making reductions in expenditure systematically, not in the ad hoc and now perceived to be ineffectual manner that has characterised this Government's approach; an approach that is manifest in the Treasurer's statement. The Government has now made its rag-bag of cuts and pseudo-cuts. It is an absolute rag-bag. One cannot blame those in the community who perceive that they have been unfairly singled out for attention. There is justice in those criticisms because the cuts reflect the application of an approach which lacks an overall coherent philosophy. In approaching our first Budget we will proceed with a fundamental appraisal of the functions-let me repeat, the functions-of government. Wherever appropriate, the commercial activities and the operations of government will be transferred to the private sector. We will have one yardstick: What is in the best interests of the taxpayer and the consumer. The benefits, and they will flow on, will be lower prices, better quality and wider variety of goods and services, improved innovation and a higher level of output. The discipline that the market imposes on economic activity is superior to government regulation. The market measures, and responds to, people's preferences far more accurately than non-accountable bureaucrats. Let me state it here: The coalition will open opportunities for freer competition in transportation, finance, communication, manufacturing and distribution and will reduce the public sector's share of the economy and public expenditure. There will be a systematic review of organisations such as Trans Australia Airlines, Australian National Line, Aussat Pty Ltd, the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and the Pipeline Authority. We will subject each to the application of the criterion that I have outlined-what is in the best interests of the taxpayers and the consumer. If the Government rejects that as a bench-mark it will reject the fundamental interest of the overwhelming majority of Australians. We have seen in the Treasurer's document a futile- Dr Theophanous —And two million unemployed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Calwell is not in his correct seat. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Deputy Speaker, you understand that the honourable member for Calwell is the most notable seat mover in the Parliament. We all recall the events of last year at pre-selection time. He is just scuttling to another, safer seat. But at the end of the day honourable members can see where he has to back to-further away from the central power of Government, to the furthest back bench position in the Parliament. We have seen in the Treasurer's document a futile attempt to repair the damaging consequences of two years of profligate government, government by deferral, government by compromise, government by procrastination, a government subservient to the officials of the trade union movement. We have seen the consequences of putting aside for another day vital decisions about discounting wage increases for devaluation and increased wage demands for allegedly increased productivity. Taken as a whole, the document and its purported policies come from a government which is unwilling or unable to make the hard decisions needed for real economic growth. It is a government which is unwilling or unable to make the hard decisions which would create real cuts in government expenditure and a government which is unwilling-there is no 'or' about this-and unable to throw off the shackles of trade union dominance. The contrast is that the coalition has the will and the ability to do what this Government is both unwilling and unable to do; that is, to restore for all Australians true prosperity, true freedom, the true spirit of individual enterprise and its rewards, and a truly just, fair and compassionate society. We have indicated the things we will do and they know the things we stand for. It is the kind of society Australia wants and the kind of society Australia needs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I call the honourable member for Bendigo. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr Brumby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I find that remark offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bendigo must advise the Chair as to who made the remark and what the remark was. I heard no remark. I am sure that whoever may be listening on the radio would understand that I could hear no remark, with the disorderly behaviour of the majority of members on my left. If the honourable member for Bendigo was offended by a remark, he would need to indicate more clearly to the Chair what that remark was and who made it. Mr Brumby —The remark came from a number of members of the National Party. As they are seated behind me, I am not able to identify them. The remark was offensive. Debate (on motion by Mr Brumby) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.44) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope you will forgive me, because on looking through the blue sheet I find no reference to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The honourable member for Warringah knows that the blue sheet is not the Notice Paper but a guide for debates that may take place this day. Mr MacKELLAR —I am indebted to the Deputy Speaker for his information, but I make the point again that the blue sheet contains no reference to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985. I am not surprised about this, because I was alerted yesterday-again when the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985 was due to be debated-that there was no mention on the blue sheet. I was told that it would come in at the end of the debate last night. Honourable members will be aware that we stayed in this chamber until 1.18 this morning. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on this because I listened carefully to your rebuke before and you incorrectly described the conduct-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to indicate the point of order that he is taking. Mr Peacock —I am coming to a ruling of yours. You passed a judgment that the majority of my members were disorderly. That was incorrect but I let that pass. There was no need for you in the chair, in what should be an unbiased approach, to cast aspersions on the majority of my members. Secondly, there was no need for that gratuitous remark and I wish you would withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition well knows that I tolerated for several minutes what was happening on the left side of the chair. I think it appropriate that any speaker who is addressing the House be given a certain level of silence and be given the courtesy of members who wish to remain in the House being in their seats, and that was not happening. That is what I called to the attention of honourable members on my left. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to invoke the Standing Orders to disagree with the ruling of the Chair, he is at liberty to do so. Mr MacKELLAR —I take the point again, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is no mention on the blue sheet of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985. There was no mention yesterday on the blue sheet of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1985. However, I was advised yesterday that this Bill was going to be brought in late at night when the broadcasting had stopped and somehow snuck through the Parliament. Again we find the situation today that there is no mention of the Bill on the blue. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: Why is the Government so sensitive about bringing in the Ministers of State Amendment Bill? Let me tell you why I think it may be. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill is for the purpose of appropriating money to increase the salaries of Ministers of State. We have no objection to a Bill of that nature, but why the subterfuge? Why the necessity to leave it off the blue sheet? Why bring it in immediately after a major statement of the Leader of the Opposition when the Government knows that the Press Gallery will be away reporting on the excellent speech of the Leader of Opposition? Why sneak it in at this time? Let me go to the substance and purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the limit on the annual sum appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in respect of the salaries of Ministers, consequent upon the automatic flow on to officers within the Remuneration Tribunal's jurisdiction of the 2.6 per cent increase which the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down in the national wage case on 3 April 1985. Ministerial salaries will be increased by $2,638 in 1984-85 and by $15,831 in a full year. Why the sensitivity? When we talk about an increase in ministerial salaries, perhaps the sensitivity is shown up by the sort of reporting we had in the Age on Wednesday, 15 May. Remember that this is a Bill to increase the salaries of Ministers. What does the Age say: 'Veterans lose out in health, loans and travel'; 'Toddler training takes a trim'; 'Prescriptions, up by $1, expected to save $40.3m'; 'Spending cuts hit ABC, America's Cup defence'; 'Broadcasters get a warning'; 'Sports told to kick in for $ game'; 'Left furious over cuts to local councils'; 'Defence cuts not spelt out'; 'Aviation spending cuts will save $82 million' and 'Export plan will be trimmed to save $48m'. What does this Bill do? It increases the salaries of the Ministers who made those decisions. Why do we have this sensitivity? Why has this Bill been rushed into the House? Why was it not included on the blue sheet? Why were the broadcasters and the media not aware that it would be debated tonight? Why has it been surreptitiously brought into this House? Why is the Government sensitive about increasing the salaries of Ministers of State? We do not object to the Bill being introduced. It is a constitutional requirement that a Bill of this nature be introduced. But why is the Government so scared and so sensitive about public scrutiny of an increase of a very small amount of money? Surely it is not because the Government is a little sensitive and a little ashamed of those figures that were released in the House earlier this week. Surely it is not sensitive about explaining to the community that the toddlers will have to take a belt, that the old people will have to take a belt, that the veterans will have to take a belt, and that defence and science will have to take a belt. Surely the Government is not sensitive about that while admitting at the same time that it is anxious to avail itself of a 2.6 per cent increase. I find it fascinating that pensioners are being belted by this Government, that the lame, the sick and the weak are the chief sufferers of the cuts brought in by this Government. Yet this Government says: 'We are a tough Government. We are a Government that is prepared to take the tough, hard decisions'. It was not prepared to take the tough, hard decision to include this Bill on the blue sheet so that everybody else would know that it would be debated. As I have said, we are not opposing the Bill. It is a quite proper Bill. It relates to the flow-on which was agreed to. Its introduction is required by the Constitution. But I draw the attention of this House and the Australian community to the craven, sneaky way in which Government has sought to infiltrate this Bill into the Parliament. It wanted to get it through without too much fuss and bother and did not want to alert the community that Ministers of State-that happy, joyous band of people who have so much fun and use so much energy in cutting salaries, cutting wages and cutting benefits right across the board-were going to accept the 2.6 per cent flow-on. I repeat that the Opposition realises, understands and appreciates that it is a proper constitutional requirement that a Bill of this nature be brought before the Parliament. We do not oppose the Bill; we oppose, very strenously, the sneaky, underhand way this Governemnt has sought to introduce it. I remind the House again that I was informed yesterday that the Bill would be introduced at the end of the day's business. Of course, we sat until 1.18 this morning and there was no time to introduce the Bill. So what happened? It was not introduced yesterday, it was brought in today, although it was not listed on the blue sheet. This is a cheap, underhand way of trying to sneak a Bill through. We do not object to the Government accepting this increase in salary. Mr Hunt —How much money is involved? Mr MacKELLAR —A very small amount of money is involved. It amounts to about $12,600 for the remainder of this financial year and a very small amount next financial year. Why did the Government not have the directness about which it boasts so much, the toughness about which we are regaled every day? Why did it not have the sheer courage and good faith to bring in openly a Bill of this kind to be passed through the Parliament. It is a cheap, underhand way of trying to conceal from a disillusioned public a Bill which, because of a constitutional requirement, has to be brought forward and which will enable Ministers of State to receive a 2.6 per cent increase in their salaries. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill; I draw attention to the sneaky, underhand way in which it was introduced. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(9.54) —I welcome the support of the Opposition for this cheap, sneaky, surreptitious, craven measure, which as the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said, was introduced in an extraordinarily underhand way. I find some difficulty in following the tortured logic of the honourable member for Warringah. He suggested that he understood that the Ministers of State Amendment Bill would be brought in at the dead of night when everyone was exhausted and absolutely knocked out and, even more sneakily, on a non-broadcast day. That is the surreptitious way. That is a measure of how underhand we are. We bring this matter in on a broadcast day. Mr MacKellar —I take a point of order. My point of order is that in fact I was informed yesterday that last night was when the Bill was going to be introduced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I am sure that the honourable member knows that that is a point of explanation. Mr BARRY JONES —I am sure that the honourable member had more notice of it than I did. I had notice only ten minutes before the honourable member spoke. The Government was so determined that this measure should get the maximum exposure that we brought it in at a time when we knew that everyone would be in the House, listening fascinated to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). We knew that people would be at their most alert and excited, ready to leap into the attack. We gave the honourable member for Warringah 30 minutes in which to attack this cheap, underhand, sneaky, surreptitious and craven measure. He used less than 10 minutes of that time. If that is an example of secrecy and deception in government, I do not know- Mr MacKellar —Would the Minister like me to speak on the third reading? Mr Young —Yes. Mr BARRY JONES —I will have to lend him my Roget's so that he can get an appropriate collection of adjectives to use: As the honourable member for Warringah, a former Minister, pointed out, this is an abosolutely normal and routine matter which happens every time there is a wage flow-on. Because it is normal and routine it does not represent any breach of normal procedure; it is not a fundamental breach of the Constitution. There is nothing secretive about this legislation at all. The honourable member's speech was broadcast. Thousands of people throughout Australia were listening on their crystal sets to his speech. It is probably the biggest audience that the honourable member has had either in the House or outside it. If that is to be regarded as something that is done in an underhand and surreptitious way, I think that is an extraordinary misuse of words. I am glad to hear that at least in principle both existing Ministers and people who regard themselves, rightly or wrongly, as potential Ministers, feel exhilarated by the prospect of the increase and are prepared to support it. I ask the House to give a ringing endorsement to this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.59) —I could not resist the invitation of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I just want to point out again that, as the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) said, this is quite a normal Bill. However, I suggest that it was most unusual not to include the Bill on the blue sheet on either of the days it was due to be debated. I think that that demonstrates a degree of sensitivity which- Mr Young —There was not room for it. Mr MacKELLAR —That sounds very much like the attitude that the Minister adopted to the filling in of Customs forms. There was room for it. I just say again that if the Government is straightfoward and fair dinkum about these sorts of things there is no reason why a Bill of this nature should not be included on the blue sheet as is the normal practice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(9.00) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985, a Bill which will amount to over $4,000m of expenditure over the next five years, will be something of an anticlimax after a Bill that will provide $260,000. This Bill replaces the Road Grants Act as the major source of Commonwealth finance for road construction and maintenance for the next five years. The legislation provides $810m for the first year, and this amount indexed to the consumer price index for each of the succeeding years. This, together with the $440m for 1985-86 from the Australian bicentennial road development program, will provide a total of $1,250m, of which $1,245m will be available for roads after allowing $5m for road and rail research. This total, which the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has loudly claimed and proclaimed is the highest ever, when combined with the security of the new trust fund for the receipt and distribution of this money, and the certainty that the indexation-consumption base-the 3.66c per litre and $810m first year combined base-provides, will provide the greatest road building program in our history. The Minister has a most annoying habit in his Press releases of comparing the amount of money that his Government is providing for roads with what the coalition Government provided before it lost office in March 1983. The 1981-82 year, or the 1982-83 year, is almost invariably used by the Minister as the comparison year with what is being provided now. His comparisons always ignore the impact of the bicentennial road development program, which dramatically increased the amount of money available for roads. It commenced with 1c per litre in 1982-83, and then 2c per litre in 1983-84. The first full year of the bicentennial program, 1983-84, was, by a happy coincidence for the Minister and the Government, the first full year of government for Labor, and therefore 1983-84 had to be a better year for roads than any previous year. But that is no credit to the Minister or to this Labor Government. It is, however, to the great credit of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who was the Minister for Transport at that time and whose foresight and determination to do something positive and permanent for Australia's road system resulted in the ABRD program. I congratulate the honourable member, who is here with us tonight. Mr Hunt —Thank you very much indeed. I am very much appreciative of that. Mr Peter Morris —Stand up and take a bow. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister should not be encouraging such disorder in the House. Mr LLOYD —To give credit to the Minister, I think that he was acknowledging the role of the honourable member for Gwydir as Minister for Transport in the introduction of the ABRD program. I suggested to the Minister that, from now on, he drop the practice of referring to outdated comparisons. I do so, partly because it is now over two years since his Party gained office and, therefore, any comparison should be on its own record, and particularly because everyone in the industry knows that when he compares a 1984-85 figure or a 1985-86 figure with a 1981-82 figure, et cetera, that is not only unfair, because of the ABRD program, but it also indicates to all that in real terms there is a decline in finance. That is the real reason why he will not use a more recent year. I hope that he will not bother to use that little ploy again. If, however, the Minister wants comparisons I am happy to provide them and I shall do so. The 1984-85 Budget Estimates, on the kindest interpretation, revealed that the amount allocated for this financial year, a total of $1,245m, for road grants and the ABRD is actually a reduction in real terms of about 3 per cent on the figure for 1983-84-Labor's first year, and the first full year of ABRD finance. The basis of that calculation is quite simple. The Budget document indicates a 3.4 per cent increase. If one then deducts from that the CPI increase of over 6 per cent, one arrives at the reduction or decline in real terms. For 1985-86 the reduction will be at least 6 per cent greater than the figure for this year 1984-85, and the reduction will probably be higher, depending on the inflation rate. So in two years of Labor Government there has been a reduction of over 9 per cent in real terms for road finance, construction and maintenance in this country. If the Bureau of Transport Economics road construction price index is used instead of the CPI, I believe the reduction will probably be greater because of the significant increase in petroleum prices that is now occurring and which is accelerating the cost of bitumen. Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill Australian Land Transport Bill In the succeeding years of the program the reduction will also be even greater because of the ability to use part of the national and rural arterial road grants for interstate main line upgrading and acquisition of railway rolling stock. There is also the possible exhaustion of the ABRD trust fund in three years time, which will add to that decline. Those are the amounts in trust which are surplus to what has been brought in each year. Furthermore, a possible static figure for, or even a reduction in fuel consumption with higher fuel prices adds to the gloom of the reduction in real terms over the next few years. The new legislation basically follows the earlier Roads Grants Act but also incorporates many of the features of the ABRD legislation. The Opposition basically supports the concept of the legislation. There are several significant similarities to the ABRD legislation which the honourable member for Gwydir, when he was Minister for Transport, introduced in 1982. The first is the establishment of a trust fund to administer the Commonwealth grant. The Opposition supports this concept which the Minister introduced. But I have doubts as to whether the Government is completely genuine about the trust fund concept. For a start, of course, the Government indexed the ABRD levy beyond 2c per litre, but has not paid that into the trust fund. Mr McGauran —It has been pocketed. Mr LLOYD —Over $500m in five years has been pocketed into Consolidated Revenue. But in regard to this legislation and this trust fund the Government requires a road or rail authority to repay recovered Commonwealth money to the Commonwealth if it is not used for its original purpose-that is, road or rail construction. That is commendable, but-I am open to suggestions from the Minister-it is not necessarily being paid back into the trust fund; it is being paid into Consolidated Revenue. Mr McGauran —Where does it go from there? Mr LLOYD —Into a whole range of expenditures, but it does not go into the trust fund to be used for roads, road construction and maintenance in this country. The Opposition is quite happy to assist the Government to overcome what I believe is a genuine drafting oversight and strengthen the status of the trust fund with amendment in the Committee stage. I would be happy to do so unless the Minister can convince me that it is not necessary. I believe it must go to the trust fund and not, as is stated in the Bill, to the Commonwealth, which means Consolidated Revenue. I am sure that the Minister, because of his belief in the trust fund, will agree to that amendment if it is considered that that should be the case. There is separate provision for rural and urban arterial roads, as is provided for in the ABRD Act, and the Opposition supports this proposal. Maintenance as well as construction is allowed. However, the Opposition is concerned that there has been a 5 per cent reduction in the total grant for arterial roads, which equals a 15 per cent to 18 per cent reduction for that category. The reduction is even greater when allowance is made for the optional use of rural arterial finance for railways. In the ABRD program, of course, up to 25 per cent is used for urban public transport from the urban arterial sector. Road research organisations, State Ministers and the road construction industry all agree that there should be a higher percentage allocated for urban arterial roads. I acknowledge the point made by the Federal Minister that State governments need to lift their road finance budgets and that, if they are genuine, they have the ability to improve the overall urban arterial allocation. However, there is still a problem in the arterial road area. This raises the matter of the review of road category percentages that has been mentioned by the Minister. The national road allocation percentage has been increased by almost 3 per cent in the total budget compared with the previous legislation. One of the matters that the Minister should address in the review is the linked problem of urban arterial roads and/or the declaration of capital city bypass roads as national roads. The other major similarity with the ABRD is the requirement that arterial road projects must have prior project approval rather than post-construction reporting. This, together with the statement by the Minister in his second reading speech that he wants fewer but larger arterial road projects, and his even directing the States in this matter, has created a fear that there will be increasing Canberra control and bureaucratic interference. The Minister has assured me that this will not be so but the Opposition will monitor the scheme to ensure that there is not a return to the 1975 situation. The Minister's discretionary power in several other areas creates the possibility of pork barrel policies. I have already noted several differences from the previous legislation but there are three others to which I will refer. The first is the railway option. I understand that State railways and urban transport authorities pay about $60m through the 2c per litre ABRD diesel excise. I acknowledge the argument that these forms of transport should be compensated. The Minister's answer is to allow, at the request of a State Minister, the transfer after the first year from the rural arterial road grant to interstate main line upgrading, which includes the acquisition of rolling-stock. The Minister has also given himself the discretion to transfer funds immediately from the national roads category to interstate main line upgrading. The Minister has stated that he will agree to it only when it can be shown that such expenditure will enhance the efficiency of the overall railway system, particularly Australian National and the inter-system operation. The Opposition is concerned that the efficiency criteria be strictly enforced, particularly as efficiency appears to be of no importance to some State railway systems. I note also the Minister's comment in his second reading speech that: Overall, funding for railways will not exceed the contribution that railways make through their diesel excise payments to the ALTP trust Fund. I acknowledge that this is the companion trade-off to the railways which the ABRD gives to urban public transport in relation to urban arterial roads. But these two options, together with the inclusion of road and rail research in the overall figure for roads, disguise the real and potentially considerably lower figure for actual road construction. One new requirement of no importance to the actual road construction program, though it may be to politicians, is the recognition of the Federal Government's contribution to roads, particularly national roads, at openings by the Federal Minister and the local Federal member. Once again, the Opposition does not oppose that. To a degree, there is a precedent for this with the unveiling of plaques at aged persons homes. There may also be other precedents. The Opposition believes that taxpayers should know how their taxes are being spent. But there should be a proviso that it is simply a case of Federal recognition, and not promotion for the Labor Government or the Minister or a Labor member of Parliament. It should be recognition that it is taxpayers' money, allocated by the Federal Government, that is at work. The Minister has indicated that, as with the Roads Grants Act, tendering will not be required for arterial roads, which is the opposite of the ABRD program which requires tendering. Generally speaking, the State Ministers and local governments are opposed to tendering because of the possible effect it could have on continuity of employment for their road gangs, particularly in regional areas. The States also say that this requirement would be unfair because they have to provide two-thirds of the arterial road money. The private road construction industry supports the tendering extension believing that this is the most efficient use of taxpayers' money. The on-site and geographic advantages of regionally based State or local authority gangs should provide enough edge to win any tender, particularly in conjunction with exemptions to the tender requirements. The Opposition has decided not to move an amendment to require tendering at this stage. However, we will monitor the progress of this and the ABRD legislation for possible reconsideration on return to government. To conclude, I wish to make three general but critical comments. The Minister has made much of extending the trust fund principle and indexing the first year forward, and the security this provides. That is commendable, but the Government has been quite hypocritical on this issue. While the ABRD levy has been indexed, the $500m plus gained from that indexation has not been paid into the trust fund and is not being used for road construction but is going into Consolidated Revenue. Mr Peter Fisher —That is shocking. Mr LLOYD —I think it is shameful, and it shows how hypocritical the Government is when it says how great it is that the trust fund is indexed for roads. This sum of $500m is being shamefully taken away from roads and from the former coalition Government's program and is going into Consolidated Revenue. If the Government used this money for roads, then the quiet but real decline in road finance that is occurring now would be reversed. The industry critics of the Government are agreed that this extra injection of about $100m per year would overcome the deteriorating road situation, and there is no doubt of this deterioration at the arterial and local level. When one drives around the electorates, particularly in country areas, one sees the deterioration in the state of the roads. My second comment concerns the phoney or illusory nature of the $60m road cuts for 1985-86 in the Treasurer's statement. The Minister, in his Press release and in his answer to my question today indicated that the $1,245m-that is the total road program figure for next year-first announced over five weeks ago will not be reduced. That is fine for the road programs, and no doubt is good tactics for the Minister, but the level of Government deceit or duplicity is breathtaking. A figure announced five weeks ago, taken alongside a great public statement two nights ago of hard Government decisions and an ambit $60m option discarded months ago, is not touted as a reduction in Government expenditure. English is a great language, but I do not think even that language can contain the proper words to convey the level of cynical Government duplicity on this matter. I come to my final point, and I would welcome the Minister's comments because this is a matter of concern to me. The Government's ability to slyly prop up its total road budget by dipping into the $60m credit in the ABRD Trust Fund appears to be ending. With $40m left in the Fund after 1985-86 and a need to use at least $20m per year from that Fund, on top of the collections for the year from the 2c per litre excise, I make the point that if the lower level of expenditure I have revealed is to be maintained the surplus in that Fund will soon be exhausted. In three years there could be a significant cut in both nominal and real terms. I believe that this will be one of the many problems a new coalition government will have to face at that time. The Opposition supports the legislation and in the Committee stage we shall pursue our amendment to clause 34. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(9.19) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill provides the most comprehensive approach that has yet been made to funding for land transport. Never before has Federal funding for roads, mainline railways, road safety and land transport research been put together in such a cohesive way. Having heard the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) trying to mount a form of argument against it, I look back to the record of the coalition Government. The honourable member had the gall to talk about a 9 per cent reduction in real terms from last year's Budget. Let us look at the record of the Fraser Government. It reduced funding to roads in real terms every year. Yet members of the Opposition talk about the Australian bicentennial road development program. We could probably argue that if they had not been in office there would not have been a need to introduce that program in the first place. Their performance on road funding can only lead one to believe that they are not serious in any way in assisting local government and the States to improve the national highways to anywhere near the level they ought to be. In the seven years of the Fraser Government roads were allowed to deteriorate at alarming rates. Between 1975-76 and 1980-81, under the Fraser Government, in terms of funding Victoria lost $112m or 21 per cent in real terms, New South Wales lost $92m or 15 per cent in real terms and South Australia and Western Australia lost 28 per cent in real terms. The Fraser Government cut road funding by millions of dollars. Our program allocates $1,245m compared with the Fraser Government's allocation in 1981-82 of $685m. And Opposition members stand up here and say we are not serious. Looking at their record they cannot suggest that our program and our funding levels, which are at an all-time record high, are not the best performance that has been achieved by any government in office. Of course they are. The program itself is in fact the best program that has ever been brought forward. The honourable member for Murray concentrated a fair bit on roads. He talked about the land transport program and commented on whether funds would be used on mainline railways. He has failed to realised that this is a land transport program, not just a road program. It encompasses all of the things that ought to be looked at in regard to road and rail transport. It also encompasses the very important aspects of road research and road safety. It is a total program, not just a partial program. There has been a reduction in funding from that of last year, but we have to bear in mind that it has been a difficult situation for the Government in looking at its budgetary program. Even with those considerations and even though we have set aside an option for an additional $60m, we are still providing some $1,245m. We have to keep that figure in mind. That is a record level. The honourable member for Murray tried to make the point that this is an illusory cut. It is pretty hard to follow his tack. In a Press statement that he put out today he said that the Government's road cuts are illusory but he stood up in this House not more than five minutes ago and said that the road cuts are real. What are they? Are they illusory or are they real; or is it just simply the fact that his argument is illusory because he has no other way of criticising what is in fact a very important program and certainly the best program ever brought forward by a government? Some questions have been raised in regard to the funding arrangements as to whether it was right for the Federal Government to have a say before programs are instituted. Hardly anybody in Australia would disagree with the fact that if the Federal Government is providing funds, it really ought to be in a position of being able to look at and approve the programs for State arterial roads before the money is spent. It is not much use being in a situation where, after the money is spent and the roads have been built, the Federal Minister is advised where it has been spent and he finds that it has not been in areas where it really ought to have been. I think it is quite right and justified, where Federal moneys are being spent, for us to be in a position to approve the programs before the money is actually spent. Not only is this year's money the most ever spent, but also this program is to last for five years. For the first time both State governments and local government can forecast exactly how much money they are going to have for road funding. At no time was the Fraser Government able to forecast that accurately or plan long term road construction and road management programs because it was never quite sure how much it was going to get. In each of the years of the Fraser Government the funds were cut. Now for the first time the States and local government will be in a position to know exactly what base they are working from and they will know that that money will be increased according to the increase in the consumer price index. For the first time they will be able to plan their programs not just for the next 12 months but for the next five years, knowing that they can start a project now and see it completed. That is a very important aspect of the program. Mention was made of the tendering arrangements. Whilst some argument has been put by the private road construction companies, as the honourable member for Murray has pointed out, it is very important to remember that every State Minister involved in this aspect has recommended that the tendering arrangement not be put into the Bill. That is because they have a genuine concern which has been seen to become reality in various areas. I know that in Queensland there was a problem of the staff employed by State authorities losing out on contracts and, therefore, on their jobs. State authorities provide significant amounts of money for the arterial programs and, of course, they have a need to maintain those workers in their jobs. It is a wonder that the National Party of Australia members who were sitting here earlier and hear-hearing are not applauding the fact that the tendering arrangements will not be in the Bill-I notice that one member of cockies' corner is still here-because the hardest hit State road construction authority areas would be the country areas. Well over 300 people employed just in the electorate of the National Party Whip, the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), could find their jobs at risk. We could go through all such areas. Nevertheless, thousands and thousands of workers employed in State construction authorities are based in country areas and their jobs could be put at risk if the tendering arrangements were put in the Bill. It is, therefore, very important that they have not been put in. I am glad that the honourable member for Murray indicated that the Opposition was not going to proceed with an amendment to that effect. Mind you, he did say that the Opposition was going to monitor the new tendering arrangements and would review them on its return to government. From our point of view, I suppose, that is not really much of a threat, seeing that it will be a long time before those opposite return to government. The reason that it will be a long time is that we have provided the innovation, not just in this sort of program but in many programs, which will maintain support in the community. People in the community can see that we are paving the way for a stable road program in Australia. We are providing the largest amount of funds ever. We have come forward with a comprehensive program. This is not just a single issue road funding program, forgetting the other important areas that have to be looked at in a land transport program. It is in fact a comprehensive program. I support the Bill and I know that it will be carried. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.30) —In addressing myself to the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill, I wish to comment on the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). On page 1 he draws our attention to the fact that one dollar in every seven spent in this country is spent on transport. He highlights very clearly the great need to maintain our transport system very well. Throughout the speech he is at pains to stress that that is what the legislation is all about. It is interesting to note that on page 2 he refers to the fact that the arrangements incorporate an automatic adjustment to match future inflationary movements as measured by the consumer price index. I wonder, if it is his intention to keep up with costs generally, why he has chosen what is basically the housewife's measure of an index. That is a rather inappropriate index, as the Minister would know if, on that one-time truck journey that he made, he bothered to get some information to equate the cost indexes of the road construction industry, for instance, with those of the ordinary housewife. They are quite different and one of the major differences is the proportion of fuel that is used and the level at which it is taxed, particularly by this Government. In recent times the price of fuel has gone up by government decision by almost 13c a litre. That is all rather peculiar, nevertheless, the Minister, with his basically urban tunnel vision, probably thinks that it is all right. He goes on: Together with the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program, Federal expenditure on roads will total $1,245m in 1985-86. He tells us that the Bill establishes a trust fund and I applaud him for that move although he might, in his remarks at the end of the debate, do a little better than he did this morning and tell us what the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) meant about cutting some $60m from the ABRD Trust Fund which, of course, is supposed to be inviolate. Such moneys as go there are to stay there for road construction purposes only or for related purposes. Yet suddenly we have the Treasurer telling us that by some means or other there will be some savings from that fund. The only way I can think of making savings is by leaving the money in the bank and that seems a highly inappropriate way to use taxpayers' money which has been specifically contributed for the purpose of getting better roads. The proposal is that the fund be supplied with a levy or part of the excise amounting to 3.66c per litre until June 1990-that is, for five years. The honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) said that local government authorities and others can be very confident about their future over five years, but of course the ABRD legislation will only survive for another three years and that represents something like 30 per cent of the funding. I am not sure what the Minister proposes to tell us about that, but there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty about a substantial amount of the funds. I applaud the fact that the Minister, not knowing exactly what the fuel consumption might be, would grant $810m in the first year irrespective of the exact amount gathered by the excise. There is nothing wrong with that; that is a matter of creating certainty. On page 4 of the second reading speech we find the Minister doing something that he does not seem to be able to avoid-something that is quite unnecessary. He is just trying to big-note himself. There may be a special reason for the Minister wanting to do this, but I wonder why he had to say: As I have noted earlier, together with the $440m to be provided under the ABRD program, the Federal Government's road building program in 1985-86 will total $1,245m an increase of 82 per cent on 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government. What a silly thing to say. What a silly trick to try to practise on intelligent people in this Parliament. For a start, the Fraser Government set the Budget in the following year-1982-83. Let us look at some of the other facts involved, including the discounting of the ABRD program, which was set in place by the Fraser Government and has not been altered in any way by this Government. We must look at what the Government has achieved by its own decision to spend $810m. We find that the amount of money that it proposes to spend is more like an increase of two per cent in money terms, not 82 per cent. In fact, it is 11 per cent more than in the last Fraser Budget. The Fraser Government set the program in place and told the Australian public about it, and this Government inherited it. As I have said here many times, the Government has a peculiar habit of claiming to have inherited things which it says were wrong but, of course, it is quite different when things are right. I do not understand why the Minister chose to backtrack a whole year and use words such as 'the last full year of the Fraser Government'. He is big-noting himself. He is claiming an 82 per cent increase when, in fact, the increase over the period since the last Fraser Budget is only 11 per cent. Over the last year there has been an increase of 2 per cent. That is substantially different. I think the Minister would be treating the public a lot better if he said so. Another matter on which I want to make some comment is the following statement from the Minister's second reading speech: Total Federal funding for arterial roads in 1985-86 will be 93 per cent more than the amount provided in 1981-82 . . . The Minister is at it again. He is trying to mislead us and tell us what a great and wonderful manager he is in this regard. Of course that is not so, and it should be corrected. He has, however, put aside $5m for road safety, and I congratulate him on that. He also talks about what he will allow to be spent on the rail system. Although I am well aware that the railways now pay exise on the fuel they consume and perhaps have some claims on this revenue, I am a little worried about what is behind the Minister's intentions. These days farmers also pay an exise of over 2.5c a litre. I do not know why, when he wrote this piece of legislation, he could not find some special arrangements for the farmers so that they could have some of their roads off the highways fixed up, if that is the way he wants to go. I am not suggesting that that is something I would do. I simply point out that the rail system can have its excise payments returned but the rural community has to take it in the form of road improvements decided by somebody else. The road transport industry is taxed on many items other than diesel fuel. Not long ago I said in the adjournment debate that an ordinary sub-contractor in the road transport industry loses well over 30 per cent of his gross operating revenues to taxes of one kind or another. It is often suggested in this place and in other places that the railways provide their own road and, therefore, they cannot compete with the trucking industry. The railways do not pay 30 per cent of their revenues in tax as the trucking industry does and it is silly to say that the trucking industry does not contribute properly to its roads. I am also concerned about where the Minister might be planning to lead us with his interstate trucking licences. I have a funny feeling that eventually some regulatory control will develop in this area to better advantage the beloved railways that this Government thinks are much better for Australians. I think that the trucking industry has always proved-as it will continue to prove with its owner-driver situation-to be much better. The existing relativities will be reviewed on 31 March 1987. I agree that review is necessary occasionally. I just hope that some of the pressures that have come up in the past, such as the demands for a more per capita oriented distribution formula, will be rejected by the Minister. Quite clearly, roads are not only about people. In the vast States, particularly Western Australia-my electorate is 600 miles long-road distances and roadmaking difficulties have to be taken into account. Many other factors should be considered. I hope that when the Minister writes the guidelines for that review he will ensure that the investigating authorities have the right instructions. The second reading speech also states: In order to provide some flexibility, sections 20 to 22 allow transfers between the various categories. The Minister might tell us a little more about that. The honourable member for Aston was at pains to talk about certainty. The extent to which State governments and others can start to fiddle the books, as they have in the past, worries me greatly. I recognise that I have almost run out of time, but I would like to make another couple of quick points. There is no requirement for arterial road construction projects to be subject to tender. That, in itself, need not be bad. We were terribly disappointed that the Minister tried to move away from that situation with the Australian bicentennial roads development funds some time ago. We stopped him, I am pleased to say. Arterial road construction has always had a high degree of day labour but I hope the authorities will recognise that another form of private contract is available to them-the sub-contractor. I have a great appreciation of the work sub-contractors have done in helping to construct the road system in Western Australia. They are to be recommended at any time. Their insertion into a work force will lift the productivity of the whole work force. Under the tendering provisions there was never any objection to the State road authorities being tenderers. They have some huge advantages such as not paying sales tax and they should be able to compete. If they cannot they must have some problem. I thank the House for the opportunity to make some comments tonight. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(9.41) —The Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985 is the beginning of a truly national land transport strategy for Australia which includes roads, railways, research and road safety. The 1985-86 Budget allocation of $1,240m is the greatest roads budget in Australia's transport history. It represents an increase of 82 per cent on the allocation in 1981-82 which, despite what the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has just said, was the last full year of the Fraser Government and which seems a perfectly legitimate statistic to call upon. It comprises $440m from the Australian bicentennial roads development program and $805m from the Australian land transport program. The funding arrangements outlined in the Bill will provide predictability and continuity of funding for roads for the next five years from 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1990 on the basis of a set share of the existing fuel excise, indexed in line with the consumer price index. The share of fuel excise proposed is 3.66c per litre. The use of the CPI figure was questioned by the honourable member for O'Connor. He called it a housewife's measure. He commented that fuel price rises were a more appropriate way to measure road transport costs. The honourable member for O'Connor and Opposition members would know all about fuel prices since they quadrupled in the span of seven years under the Fraser Government. The future level of expenditure under the Australian land transport program will depend on the rate of consumption of motor spirit and diesel, which is the best measure of road use, and the rate of movements in the consumer price index to maintain the ALTP excise component in real terms. Under this program the management of Federal funding for road and rail transport systems will be amalgamated into one package. Funds collected from fuel excise will be paid into a trust fund which will operate in a similar manner to the Australian bicentennial road development program trust fund. This Government has a real and sustained commitment to Australia's land transport system. One of its top priorities is the upgrading of the 160,000 kilometre national highway system by 1988. To achieve an all-weather, dust and flood free standard on these major road links between adjacent State capital cities, Darwin and Canberra as well as the Brisbane-Cairns and Hobart-Burnie highways, $560m will be provided in 1985-86. The Federal Government, as this House knows, meets the full cost of building and maintaining its national highway system with State authorities acting as design and construction agents. Arterial roads, on the other hand, are primarily a State government responsibility and the States have traditionally provided the major part of funding for their development. In recent years the Federal Government has provided a major boost in assistance for these roads with Federal expenditure on arterial roads increasing at a faster rate than national or local road funding since Labor came to office federally. Although, as has been admitted by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), there will be some small curtailment of Federal funding for these roads in 1985-86, the money allocated to arterial roads will still represent a 93 per cent increase on funding in 1981-82 when the Fraser Government was in office. For Western Australia funding for national roads in 1985-86 will be $59.2m, compared with $57.5m in 1984-85. That represents an increase of 3 per cent. Arterial roads will receive funding of $56.4m, compared with $59.6m in 1984-85-a decrease of 5.4 per cent. However, this reduction looks extremely good compared with the Fraser Government cuts of $111m to Western Australia road funding in 1980-81, which was a massive 28 per cent reduction in funding compared with the 1975-76 level. Funding for local roads will increase by 5.6 per cent in Western Australia, from $35.4m in 1984-85 to $37.4m in 1985-86. This Federal Government recognises the major responsibility of local government authorities for the development and upkeep of the local roads system. As a result, funding for the local roads category in 1985-86 also will be maintained in real terms at the 1984-85 level of the Roads Grants Act. Accordingly, local roads nationally will receive $257.7m in 1985-86. That is $13m or 5.3 per cent more than this year. This figure sustains the record increase in funding provided since the Government came to office. Federal funds for local roads in 1985-86 will amount to 60 per cent more than was provided in 1981-82, again the last full year of the Fraser Government. In brief, the chief advantages of this program are: Firstly, the clear identification of a set road investment share of fuel excise contributions; secondly, a provision to take account of cost increases through indexation for the first time; thirdly, road funding on a predictable and assured basis over a five-year period; fourthly, encouragement for State and local road authorities to plan over a long term; and fifthly, the opportunity to plan land transport facilities in a co-ordinated, cohesive manner. The Opposition's record on transport is abysmal. Between 1975-76 and 1981-82 Federal road spending declined in real terms every year, as mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson). The level of funding declined by 23 per cent in real terms in that period. It was only in 1982 that the Australian bicentennial road development program was established-by which time the need for a major endeavour to arrest the decline in the road system was obvious to everyone, even the Government at that time. As the honourable member for Aston mentioned, perhaps the ABRD program would not have been necessary if the Fraser Government had paid more attention to roads on a consistent basis during the earlier part of its term in office. Transport is an immensely important form of infrastructure in this country as it impacts on all economic and social activity. Approximately 77 per cent of domestic freight tonnage is consigned by road and motor cars are by far the most dominant form of personal transport. My electorate of Cowan is a prime example of that form of transport being used to excess. As was mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech, approximately $1 in every $7 spent in this country is spent on transport. Yet this is the very first time that a Federal government has adopted such a comprehensive approach to land transport funding. This initiative is long overdue. I congratulate the Minister and commend the Bill to the House. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(9.50) —The honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) spoke at some length in scathing terms of the record of the Fraser Government in relation to roads and road funding. I think the current Government has inherited the results of the good management of the Fraser Government in the transport area. It is because of many of the actions of the previous Government that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) was able to bring down this piece of legislation in this sitting. While there is a lot of talk about roads and highways, I wonder whether many people in Australia are going to be able to continue to use motor vehicles to drive on them. I well remember a sticker that I think the Australian Labor Party was responsible for in years gone by. It said: 'I own the motor car but I am buying the fuel on hire purchase'. Most good Labor supporters have long since scraped those stickers off their bumper bars and rear windows. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), who has apparently not yet converted to decimalisation and the metric system in his area, said either yesterday or today that fuel is costing #1 a gallon. At least we know it is costing a great deal of money. I do not think the Government could like that very much. I wonder what sorts of stickers we will see in the future coming from the other side of this chamber about the cost of fuel. The Minister speaks of his pride in introducing the Australia Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill and describes it as a significant transport initiative. He goes on to say that he cannot emphasise too strongly the importance that efficient transport systems have to the economic and, I would add, to the social well-being of all Australians. No one could take issue with the Minister on that, but beneath the surface what have this Minister and this Government done to assist the most isolated Australians, the people I represent? During the Federal election campaign in February 1983 the then Opposition made the following commitments to the Northern Territory: To build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, to build the Darwin international air terminal, to upgrade the Alice Springs Airport, to reduce petrol prices, and to remove sales tax from freight on the cost of goods. None of these commitments has been fulfilled, not one. The Government made those promises and it has not fulfilled one of them, not one solitary commitment. In 1983 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came to the Northern Territory and made a special television commercial in which he said: 'Territorians, you can trust me. The Australian Labor Party is the only party that will build the Alice Springs to Darwin railway.' We have got that TV commercial and we run it regularly in the Territory these days. When the Government came to power in March 1983 the following programs or services were in place in the Northern Territory: Construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, redevelopment of Darwin Airport, and the east coast shipping service from Darwin to Sydney. Two years later, in April 1985, the redevelopment of Darwin Airport was deferred to a date yet to be specified. Like the east coast shipping service and the Alice Springs to Darwin railway before it, plans for the Darwin Airport are now in tatters. The international and domestic terminal at Darwin Airport consists of an ex-Royal Australian Air Force hangar built in the 1930s, still with the Japanese machine gun bullet holes with patches over them, and that is the gateway to Australia from the north. Mr Hollis —Three flights a week. Mr EVERINGHAM —We would not let the honourable member through our gateway. In addition, the Commonwealth's subsequent committment to fund an accelerated program to upgrade the Stuart Highway has now lapsed. So in two short years Territory transport has suffered at the hands of the Commonwealth, with no transport mode unaffected and with key elements of our transport system severely constrained, including out most important road, our potentially important and only railway, our most important coastal shipping service, and our most important air terminal. Regardless of the reasons the Government may give for its regressive decisions, it is clear that the facts as set out speak for themsevles. The Hawke Government has no vision at all of Australian development but rather metropolitan development. Being a metropolitan government it is only half doing its job, ignoring infrastructure investment outside the major cities. I promised myself that when I got to this House I would tell honourable members of the sorry saga of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The Commonwealth has had a legislative commitment to construct the railway for almost 75 years. It is the only significant undertaking in the Northern Territory Acceptance Act which has not been implemented. The railway was committed by the former Federal Government for completion by 1988. This commitment was affirmed and re-affirmed by the present Government. That promise was first broken on the spurious ground of Commonwealth fiscal difficulties. If the Government could not find the money by 1988 it could have extended the completion date by four or five years but this suggestion was rejected out of hand. Subsequently, the Government thought that it would bury the idea altogether and took a decision not to proceed with the railway, having regard to the recommendations of the so-called Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, the Hill report, whose terms of reference were imposed on the Northern Territory. This report has now clearly been shown to be methodologically deficient and totally incorrect in its findings and recommendations. As I have said in the past, the Hill report simply cooked the books. Subsequent reports by the Australian National University Centre for Strategic and Defence Studies on the defence aspects of the line and Canadian Pacific Consulting Services on its economic viability have established beyond doubt that the railway is a viable and essential national project. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a number of documents relating to the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. Leave granted. Mr EVERINGHAM —The Canadian Pacific report confirms the economic and financial viability of the railway. The basis on which this Government took its decision to abandon the railway is without foundation. The Government accepted Hill's view that the railway would impose a substantial cost on Australia and would generate a cash outflow movement of more than $1 billion by the year 2000. Hill concluded that the railway cannot be justified and would constitute a major misallocation of the nation's resources. These conclusions are totally invalid. The facts are that the railway would not impose such costs nor would it incur losses. A methodologically proper and more rigorous assessment of the project by Canadian Pacific Consulting Services has shown that the railway is viable. A preliminary report by Canadian Pacific has demonstrated that Hill's findings are wrong and established the basic viability of the line. I think it must be acknowledged that Canadian Pacific is absolutely independent; it is not a political appointee like Mr Hill, who refused to discuss his report with Canadian Pacific. He is so proud of his working calculations that the Government will not make them public and certainly will not give them to the Northern Territory. I take this opportunity to call on the Minister to make all of Hill's working documents public. After all if they are any good, what is there to be frightened of? The Northern Territory Government has commissioned a further report by Canadian Pacific which will be available shortly. Preliminary indications are that the railway project would produce a positive economic rate of return which would make it an attractive investment project and which would secure major benefits for the national economy. This strong positive rate of return allows for the repayment of all capital costs, interest charges and so on, as well as meeting the full operating costs. The conclusion that the railway would be a viable project results from a proper approach to the methodology of assessment, particularly allowing for the full national benefits of the project to be assessed, not just the Northern Territory rail extension benefits; a more rigorous and comprehensive assessment of freight potential, and Hill made no separate assessment of the freight task; a more appropriate set of design standards, for instance, to remove the over-design in the Australian National Railways Commission approach-Canadian Pacific told me that its line over the Rockies was designed to a lesser standard than the Australian National's approach to the Alice Springs to Darwin line-more efficient operating parameters and procedures, and a shortened construction period to provide earlier cash flows. It is totally irresponsible for the Commonwealth to maintain the charade that the railway project should not be further considered. This attitude does not damage just the Northern Territory; it has significant disadvantages for South Australia in particular and for the rest of Australia in total. One wonders what South Australian members of the Australian Labor Party are doing to have let the Minister wipe his boots on that State's interests. If the Government really wants to get the economy going again-as late as last month the Prime Minister, in a spirit of reconciliation and consensus, rejected any further discussions between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments on this railway line-it should be spending some of its money on national assets, instead of make-work schemes, to provide real jobs, which this line would do. It would open up and tap a considerable number of national economic assets for thousands of Australians. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.00) —Representing an electorate of 848,561 square kilometres, which is nearly four times the size of Victoria, I am very conscious of the imperative need for a sound, all-weather road system. Depending as we do in this day and age so much on motor transport for the necessities of life, as well as recreation, we rely to a very great degree on well-planned and maintained road works to sustain what social theorists like to call the quality of life. In the rural areas about which I intend to speak, people are less inclined to theorise about the quality of life than to try to do something about it; but no matter how hard they try they inevitably find that the rate of progress they can bring about in the standard of living in their community depends to a very great extent on infrastructure-such things as transport and communications-about which they can do nothing as individuals. It is rural communities such as those throughout the South Australian Eyre Peninsula which are particularly dependent on their road networks for all manner of social and economic aspects of everyday life, far removed from capital city environments. This makes them all the more vulnerable to the kind of neglect that results from a government's tendency to concentrate its attention on the more closely settled areas. That is certainly not a tendency to which I subscribe. If there is one lesson, above all others, that one learns in representing an electorate which takes in huge tracts of the real Australian outback, it is that the prosperity of the coastal capitals of this country owes a lot to the fortitude of those who have developed the regions more remote from administrative attentions and their willingness to suffer deprivation. But times are changing. Even in the remoter parts of the outback the communications revolution now underway is having its effect. People who can watch live television programs from Adelaide will be less likely to be tolerant about, for example, a 75-kilometre horror stretch of bullock track road surface separating their township from the nearest point on a sealed road to Adelaide. I am not referring to the outback in that example. I am talking about Eyre Peninsula, an old established farming and pastoral region whose primary produce is vital to the economy of South Australia and whose coastline is rich, not only in fishing, but also in potential for tourism development. As the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) can bear witness, I have been a committed crusader for better roads for the peninsula ever since I was elected, but I was thoroughly familiar with the need for them long before that, as would be anyone who has driven on them. It was with that in mind that I invited the Minister in February this year to come and see for himself the roads in question. He did so, and was convinced, and I applaud him for that. I must say, he is an excellent Minister, a tremendous Minister. Even when Federal funds can be found, they still have to find their target. Our district council hosts who introduced us to some of the worst roads in Australia on that Eyre Peninsula odyssey have since discovered that fact of life. They have found that there is a queue at State level for the allocation of money supplied for roads and it can take a long time to get to the head of it. I hope they make it before long, and I am sure this legislation will have an appreciable effect in smoothing the path for them. In the meantime, when next I meet the members of that very competent body, the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association, with whom I have discussed the road situation on a number of occasions, I hope we will have a more positive basis on which to plan. The district councils of Kimba, Cleve, Franklin Harbour, Lincoln, Elliston and Le Hunte, on whose behalf I have made numerous representations to the Minister, are the authors of submissions for road upgrading which would be very much in tune with the spirit of this legislation. It has been calculated that about 40 per cent of grain produced in South Australia, or about 1.8m tonnes, worth up to $270m, is grown on Eyre Peninsula. Before it is exported, to the considerable benefit of the national economy, this grain has to be transported over roads that would be more suited to the wagons of the nineteeth century. The pastoral properties on the peninsula account for between 25 and 30 per cent of the State's wool clip of about 150,000 bales at a value of some $75m. The livestock sold for slaughtering amounts to about 20 per cent of the State's total, at about $50m. The people who produce this material wealth and who have to get it to market in good time and condition have to cope with the very real handicap of unmade roads which in places can be rendered impassable by heavy rain. Huge quantities of superphosphate have to be road freighted to farms. It is on record that between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes of fertiliser are carried over the rubble roadway from Cleve to Kimba each year. The same unsealed road carries more than 2.5 million litres of distillate and about 1.5 million litres of petrol to Kimba in a typical year. One carrying firm alone recorded 122 trips transporting grain and 278 trips with stock, super and fuel over this rubble road during one year. Naturally this kind of use of a rubble surfaced road is going to necessitate frequent maintenance and renewal. Stocks of road-making materials have long since become scarce within a range that makes constant road repairs a reasonable economic process. In other words, putting off the sealing of roads on the peninsula that are heavily used for primary producer cartage has become an exorbitantly expensive process. In a community sense, this is made even more so by the record of accidents. The rough and unstable road surface has been rated as medically hazardous by the Kimba St John Ambulance Brigade, and such is the hazardous rating that hospitals at Cowell, Cleve and Kimba have shelved a joint plan to engage para-medical practitioners to commute between the towns as need. On top of this, of course, comes all the normal usage to which a road linking two growing towns is subjected. At the present annual rate of sealing, which does a bit at either end each year, it will take another 18 years to cover the remaining 66 kilometres. The other three roads that have been the subject of considerable community discontent are all on the western side of the peninsula-the side away from Adelaide. The road that probably takes the most punishment from heavy transports is also the shortest. It links Cummins with Mount Hope. It is the westerly half of a road which a long time ago was sealed from the east coast to the centre of the peninsula and then left. The rubble surfaced section of road is extensively used by heavy transports because it passes the grain silos at Kapinnie. Wool cartage adds considerably to the freight load. Heavy commercial traffic across the southern end of the peninsula has helped give the road a traffic count of from 120 to 140. This compares with a count of 100, which is normally regarded as sufficient to justify sealing. This overstressed gravel road is also the only road linking Cummins and district with the regular air service to Adelaide, which operates from eight kilometres out of the town. Further north the sealing of another east-west road also stopped long ago in the centre of the peninsula, in this case at Lock. The western section of this road, which ends at Elliston on the coast, is about 77 kilometres of potholes, corrugations, protruding rocks, gutters and washouts. In a wet winter it is a series of floods linked by puddles. It is sometimes impassable for weeks. Elliston District Council, established just short of a century ago, believes it is the only local government body in South Australia without a direct sealed road link to the capital. The people of Elliston are self-reliant, independent types. To solve another of their communication problems-no television and very little radio-they are installing a self-help television scheme to link up with the Aussat satellite. However they can do nothing about their road problems, except keep on asking. District residents use the road regularly to meet for sporting and social activities. The road is also their only link with Whyalla Hospital for specialist and hospital services. It is also used daily by a school bus when it is negotiable. This grossly sub-standard road is in fact the artery of a rural community, which has remained comparatively isolated as a result. A section of the west coast with the potential to become a significant earner of the tourist dollar, just with its excellent fishing, is missing out badly. Also on the west coast, further north, is another link over which we travelled during the Minister's inspection tour. This section of road links Pygery on the Eyre Highway with Port Kenny on Venus Bay. The district councils of Le Hunte, Elliston and Streaky Bay are each upgrading sections to sub-base level, which gives unsealed surface suitable to speeds up to 100 kilometres an hour. But lack of funds has left the 100-kilometre stretch of road a mosaic of surfaces from those safe at a hundred kilometres per hour to others unsafe at any speed, especially in winter when they become impassable. Yet this road, which links the transcontinental Eyre Highway with the coastal Flinders Highway, is heavily used by grain transports serving a wide area. This use has increased in proportion to the rate of upgrading and would include a very significant level of tourist traffic to Venus Bay, given a reasonable standard of road. I am delighted that implementation of the Australian land transport program will give a total Federal expenditure on roads of up to $1,250m, and that about 75 per cent of this will be spent in country areas. It is clear that this Government fully appreciates the enormous social as well as economic effect that road communications have on the lives of country people. I am also very pleased with the progress that has been made on the upgrading of the Stuart Highway into a first class all weather north-south link. Economic benefits from the construction work have already made themselves felt in my electorate. With the real level of local road funding being maintained in 1985-86 there will be a 60 per cent increase in expenditure in money terms over that of 1981-82, the last year of the Fraser Government. The outlook for local councils is good. Arterial roads will be 92 per cent better off in money terms because they get nearly 46 per cent of Federal funding under the Australian bicentennial road development scheme. The greatest cause for optimism under this new five-year program is the fact that all road works will benefit from an earmarked share of fuel excise, plus the indexing of road funding to the consumer price index for the first time. This legislation cannot but make the outlook brighter for country dwellers, who for far too long have seen the cream skimmed off road funding before it reached them. It would be remiss of me not to commend the very competent Minister for Transport, who has pioneered this very positive legislation. I am sure that the people, particularly those in the country, will be far better off when this magnificent legislation is passed. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.12) —In commenting on the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985, I direct my remarks specifically to the disgraceful state of the Pacific Highway for much of its length between Sydney and Brisbane. I am firmly convinced that it is in the national interest that the Pacific Highway be upgraded as soon as possible to a four-lane highway, preferably a dual carriageway throughout its length. It is one of the most important roads in this nation and it is certainly the most important on the east coast of the Australian continent. Yet we find that, although a great deal of work certainly has been undertaken to improve some parts of it, in reality it is still basically a nineteenth century goat track. We are already within striking distance of the twenty-first century and it is totally unacceptable that the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane should, in so many places, be in such a condition that traffic is forced to move at a snail's pace over a great length of the highway because it is impossible to overtake in safety. In fact, something like 34 per cent of the length of the highway has unbroken yellow lines where it is impossible to overtake. Certainly caravans and semi-trailers have a right to use the road at a safe speed and not to be forced to tear along. Frequently, they are incapable of reasonable speeds up the hills, which constitute such a significant portion of the highway. But equally, the other road users have the right to be able to travel at the legal maximum speed, which is slow enough anyway. In addition, 15 per cent of this highway enjoys a 60 kilometre per hour speed restriction, which is totally inappropriate for a highway which is used to convey so many people and so much transport throughout its length. While servicing my electorate, I frequently drive up and down the highway between Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie. The Mayor of the Hastings Municipality, Alderman John Sterndale, is in the chamber listening to this debate tonight. I find that if I have a specific appointment in Port Macquarie I must allow 2 1/2 hours to drive 165 kilometres. Naturally, I can sometimes do it in less than that time, but I cannot safely reckon on driving from Coffs Harbour to Port Macquarie to keep an appointment without allowing 2 1/2 hours. That means an average speed of 66 kilometres per hour. This is patently ridiculous. We are living in the twentieth century, but sometimes I wonder about that. It is now 1985 and our automotive technology gives us motor cars that are capable of taking us from point A to point B very rapidly indeed. Unfortunately, the big stumbling block in our road transport system is the roads themselves, because they are totally inadequate to permit Australians in 1985 to use the technology that is there at our fingertips. The cost to the nation of this slowdown, this clogging of a major traffic artery, must be absolutely enormous and it is not an ephemeral cost. Every man, woman and child in this country is paying more because all of the goods that are transported on that road, and other out of date roads, have an increased cost factor because of the slowness. This must be reflected in higher prices on the supermarket shelves, increased costs for primary producers, a most adverse impact on our local tourism industry and an unwarranted waste of energy. According to the National Roads and Motorists Association of New South Wales, approximately 30 per cent of the total cost of most general goods and services are transport costs and anything that can be done to reduce the cost of road transport will axiomatically represent a significant saving to every consumer in this country. Regrettably, the removal of the country fuel freight subsidy, as outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Tuesday night, will increase fuel prices in country areas by up to 4c a litre and this in itself will have a further inflationary impact on the cost of road transport in this country. But, of course, when we are talking of costs, we are not just talking of the dollars and cents involved in running the trucks and the cars and the caravans up and down the highway. We are talking, too, about the costs of hospitals, the costs of medical treatment involved in looking after and healing the victims of bad roads, and the cost of repairing tens of thousands of damaged vehicles. It is not only driver fallibility which creates accidents; the road system itself is a major component in road accidents in this country. The most recent figure I have on the cost of road accidents in this country is $2,710m annually and, of course, that makes no allowance for the pain and the suffering and the grief. In calling for the upgrading of the Pacific Highway to at least a twentieth century standard, if not twenty-first, I know that I am talking about the expenditure of a vast amount of money, but I am not suggesting that it all has to be spent at one time. What I am suggesting is that we have to make a start and in doing so, we have to get our collective heads well and truly out of the sand and realise that a two-lane highway up the coast of New South Wales between Sydney and Brisbane not only is totally inadequate now, but also will be a recipe for transport disaster over the next 10 to 15 years. Its capacity must be increased by making it a four-lane highway. We have to make a start. We cannot let it just drift on indefinitely. Quite fortuitously, this morning's front page of the Macleay Argus, the newspaper serving Kempsey and the Macleay Valley, had an interview with Mr George James, Chief Executive of the NRMA. Mr James said: If people asked the value of road work, consider that a four lane divided highway is much safer. It has one fifth the accident rate of normal roads. While serious accidents on the Hume Highway have fallen 29 per cent in 1977-83, those on the Pacific Highway have risen 20 per cent, Mr James went on to say that both the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne and the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane were now averaging 8,000 vehicles a day. The Pacific Highway's usage has caught up with the Hume Highway and its development needs to catch up too. The Pacific Highway from north of Hexham is proclaimed as a rural arterial road and with the volume of traffic now equalling the Hume Highway, this is nonsensical. The Pacific Highway should be made a national highway and incorporated within the national highway system. Let us consider what constitutes a national highway. In defining a national highway the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985, in clause 4 (1) states in part: The Minister may declare a road in a State that . . . in the opinion of the Minister, is or will be the principal road linking- (a) 2 or more State capital cities; The Pacific Highway is already the principal road linking two State capital cities. The usage of the Pacific Highway far exceeds the usage of the New England Highway now, and it will continue to grow in the future. That is surely a good enough reason for the Pacific Highway to be declared a national highway and to be given priority for updating for its role in the future of this country. The Minister for Transport is a reasonable man. He frequently visits my electorate, and he is very welcome when he comes bearing cheques for millions of dollars. I hope that he comes to my electorate very often. He is aware of the condition of the Pacific Highway and he knows that everything that I have said is correct. In supporting this Bill I ask the Minister to seize the initiative and to form a special task force within his Department to start work now on this vital project-to transform the Pacific Highway from a mainly potholed, narrow, dangerous, third-class road into a modern motorway in which all Australians can take pride. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.22) —Representing, as I do, a large rural electorate, I know better than most the deplorable state of so many of our roads and how the Government's funding levels fail to address the very poor condition of our roads today. It is important that all members of this Parliament and all citizens of this country understand very clearly that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), representing the Government, has failed totally to provide properly for road funding. Let us lay to rest once and for all a few of the myths that have been outlined by Government speakers in this debate this evening. First, only an estimated $5m extra has been allocated for total road funding in the coming financial year over that of the previous financial year, which in real terms is a drop of between $50m and $60m. This means that the amount of road funding available in the financial year 1985-86 will be at least 8 per cent less than it was in the previous year. So when the Minister for Transport speaks about indexing the Australian land transport program to the consumer price index it must be realised that he is operating from a very small base. We must also look at just what relevance the CPI has in road construction. It is my view, and the view of my colleagues, that it is absurd to equate the CPI with the increased costs of road construction. It is clear that costs in this area are increasing at a much greater rate than those which the CPI measures. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) referred to it earlier as the housewife's measure of inflation. It is certainly not the measure of inflation for the construction industry. We must also bear in mind that the Australian land transport program allows for up to $25m to be diverted by the States to the main line railway upgrading program. That is another serious weakness in the road program which the Minister so grandly announced some weeks ago and which this legislation encompasses. Furthermore, we must have regard to the fact that although the Minister may be indexing the fuel excise which relates to the land transport program, he is certainly not indexing the Australian bicentennial road development program's 2c per litre. All honourable members are aware that in the 1983 Budget an excise on fuel which was to be automatically indexed to the CPI was applied. Sadly, the 2c per litre which goes into the ABRD Trust Fund has not been indexed to the CPI. So $100m a year is lost to road funding. That is a very serious breach of the concept of the ABRD program. Of course, the concept of funding the Australian land transport program by providing a set percentage of fuel excise is welcomed by all members on this side of the House. However, the indexing of the excise to the CPI applies only to the land transport program and certainly not to the bicentennial road development program. On 10 April 1985 the Minister, in announcing the new five-year Australian land transport program, stated: The program is unique. It not only means that all roadworks will be funded by an earmarked share of fuel excise, but also it is the first time that road funding will be indexed to the CPI. The Minister is giving the impression that all road funding will be indexed to the CPI. That is a completely misleading impression as we know that only the newly announced program is indexed to the CPI. That new program amounts to about two-thirds of the total allocation for road funding. So only two-thirds of all road funding will be indexed to the CPI in the future. I have already raised the question of whether indexing funding to the CPI really satisfies the huge increases in the construction industry. We must also consider that the total size of the cake is not nearly sufficient to meet the needs of particularly disadvantaged regions throughout Australia. I must again impress upon the Minister at the table that in Gippsland the problems are mostly demographic and topographical. It is not sufficient for the Minister in a sweeping way to announce that road funding has in some way been increased. It is false to say that the total size of the cake has been increased. It is a further falsity to imply that the distribution of the cake is in any way satisfactory. I make that point because local roads and arterial roads, in so many of our rural areas are in such an unsatisfactory condition-to put it mildly. We know that insufficient funding is given to rural municipalities to reconstruct roads or construct new roads. Indeed, it is no exageration to say that there are some municipalities within my electorate which spend all or most of their road funding allocation on maintenance and do not have enough for reconstruction or construction. Moreover, I am critical of the Government as it has not ensured that State governments will not siphon off Commonwealth funding for public transport systems. I can speak only in regard of Victoria, which comes within my specific knowledge. Many local engineers and local councillors are quite certain that the State Government is not passing on the complete Commonwealth funding allocation. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the accuracy of this constant allegation because of the complexities, and often the duplication of classifications of roads at a Commonwealth and State level. The Commonwealth has arterial roads and local roads and at the State level there are main roads-they can be either local or arterial roads-and there are also unclassified roads. That is a totally confusing picture. It is up to the Commonwealth to ensure that its allocations are distributed exactly where it intends. This is a matter that I and many others members have raised both with the Minister and his Department. We are told only that it is a matter for the municipal associations to work out with their State government. It seems to me that the Minister is washing his hands of the direction of Commonwealth funding. That is a highly unsatisfactory situation. Under this legislation the State Government in Victoria will for the first time have to submit a formula for distribution of Commonwealth funding-under previous legislation the State Government did not have to submit such a formula which will specify to some extent how Commonwealth funding is to be distributed. My concern is that this formula to be worked out between the State Government and municipal associations must incorpoate an acknowledgement of the special needs of certain areas. The formula should incorporate the realities of higher road construction costs, rainfall, topography and cost-benefit details, as well as the need for some regions to catch up with the standards of other regions. It is a difficult process and nobody underestimates its complexity. As long as we have a Minister who brazenly proclaims an increase in road funding when the truth is far removed from that claim, and as long as we have a Minister who surrenders responsibility for the distribution of Commonwealth funding, the situation of disadvantaged regions will not improve. In these circumstances the municipalities in Gippsland will continue experiencing great difficulty in providing the road networks which their ratepayers rightly expect so long as we have State and Federal governments which do not regard the needs of rural Australia as being equally important as those of urban dwellers. Whilst the conceptual framework and most of the provisions of the legislation meet with the agreement of the Opposition we remain concerned about the overall size of the cake; further, we are very concerned about the method of distributing the pieces of that cake. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.33) —in reply-I thank the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) for their contributions to what has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson) for his contribution and the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) for the very constructive proposal that she put forward. I thank that very hard working member, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), who represents one of the largest electorates of Australia. He mentioned in his speech the problems of the Eyre Peninsula, with which I am very much conversant. The problems of many of those areas have arisen from major cuts in Federal expenditure particularly in the seven years to 1981-82. As I have said, the honourable member is relentless in his representations to me in trying to improve the situation in those areas. Let me say at the outset that a rather confusing response comes across from the Opposition in some ways. The honourable member for Murray accused me of juggling the figures. I say to him and to other members of the Opposition that the figures stand for themselves. A simple comparison of Federal expenditure on roads in 1981-82 with that proposed for 1985-86 shows an increase in Federal expenditure of 85 per cent on national highways, 93.4 per cent on arterial roads and 59.5 per cent on local roads. This amounts to an 81.8 per cent increase in total Federal expenditure if we take the three categories together. That is the fact. Opposition members-particularly the honourable member for Gippsland-can eat their hearts out, because they are the facts. I am puzzled by the honourable member for Murray's comment that the Treasurer's statement contained no cutback in road expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said that those cuts are illusory, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) says that the whole thing is an illusion. A number of Opposition speakers are saying that the Government should be spending a lot more. In fact, one Opposition member is demanding a railway at a cost of $1,000m. I say to the honourable member for Northern Territory that the fairy godmother has flown away; she does not live here any more. The days of running to Canberra, putting out one's hand and saying, 'I do not want very much, only $1,000m' are gone. The Opposition needs to sort out its own attitude to what it expects of the legislation. One cannot have the schizoid approach of National Party members. In the morning they say that expenditure is too great and in the evenings they ask for more. They are political schizoids, and they cannot have it both ways. I wish to point to today's Press statement by the honourable member for Murray which he entitled 'Government road cuts illusory'. I recommend that statement to all Opposition members because if they think there has been any reduction in Federal expenditure on roads, they are wrong. I have the papers here to prove it. In fact, what the honourable member for Murray invites me to do is to reduce Federal expenditure by $60m in the coming year. His statement reads: As this total has been publicly touted for five weeks, any genuine cut in government road expenditure would have to mean a reduction of $60m from the earlier $1,245m announcement. If that is what he wants, I suggest he should put a motion to the House. I am sure that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) would be happy to hear him, but it contrasts with and contradicts what his colleagues are saying. The fact is that the Federal expenditure on roads was slashed by $570m in the period 1975-76 to 1980-81 during the period of office of the Fraser Administration. We cannot in the short period since pick up the backlog. There has been a massive increase in Federal expenditure since and this Bill, for the first time, brings all road and rail related activities together under one comprehensive program, a certain source of funding and a set share of excise. Motorists will be able to see that under this program 3.66c per litre and 2c per litre under the Australian bicentennial road development program-a total of 5.66c in fuel excise-are earmarked as the motorists' contribution to be used for road building and maintenance. The remainder goes into general revenue, as was stated by Treasurer Holt as far back as 1967 and as it was treated by the Fraser Government throughout its period of administration. It is nothing new. What is new is that this Government is setting up in this legislation a land transport fund with a set share of excise and that indexed. Another puzzling thing that came across in the confusion on the Opposition benches-the honourable member for O'Connor was very strong on this aspect-was that the index is inappropriate, and the honourable members for Gippsland agreed. I remind Opposition members that last year when we were putting through the amendments to the existing road legislation, the Road Grants Act and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, the Opposition moved amendments to the latter calling for indexation. The indexation as provided in this legislation is in exactly the form that they put forward last year and for which they all voted. I know politicians have short memories, but I thought that they were longer than that. I am at a loss to understand the Opposition's criticism about the indexation proposals. That was the form of indexation they wanted. It was requested by hundreds of local government authorities around Australia, which all responded to a letter written to them by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) and the then member for Hume. I am sorry if the Opposition members have changed their minds, but the Government sees this form of indexation as appropriate. We agreed with the Opposition's view and it has been incorporated in the legislation. The honourable member for O'Connor made reference to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund being inviolate and complained about there being an imbalance in the fund. I have to say to him that when the previous Government went out of office there was a balance in the fund because the money that had been collected in the first year, 1982-83, was not able to be spent; so it remained in the trust fund as a balance. It is essential during the life of the program to have a balance because money is advanced at the beginning of the year. It is money that is provided in case there is any movement in anticipated revenues for that year. It is a sensible and common sense way to management. It is simply continuing what had been begun by those who are now in Opposition. Again, I do not understand the confusion about that. The claims made by the honourable member for O'Connor that my figures are misleading are baseless. The figures for 1981-82, much as he may dislike them-he can eat his heart out for as long as he wants-represent the facts and they stand and speak for themselves. He referred to road transport costs as if road transport was the only industry that made a contribution to Federal revenue. The Fraser Government, of which he was a member, steadfastly ignored the problems of the road transport industry. It was not until we came to Government that we set about trying to redress that industry and to assist to put it on a stable basis. It is far more important for the well-being of the industry to have stability in the industry than for us to be looking at one element of expenditure within the industry. Nobody likes paying taxes; they are an expense for every business. But if the business and the industry are strong and healthy they will bear their share and that is far more important overall. In the establishment of the national road freight inquiry we set about for the first time looking at the problems of the industry. We are proud we did that. We are currently putting together the legislation for an interstate transport licence and operators licence, with the unanimous support of the States, the Territory Government and industry itself. It is an exercise in consultation and consensus and it is working. I will be presenting that legislation to the House in the Budget session. The proceeds of that interstate trucking licence will go back to the States for work on interstate related roads. That will do more for the trucking industry and the transport industry than simply criticising the level of tax. As I said, nobody likes paying tax. Reference has been made to the consumer price index and the method of indexation. The recommendations are those which were recommended by members of the Opposition and moved by them in this House on an earlier occasion. The honourable member for O'Connor also raised the question of the review of the States' shares. That will be done as quickly as possible. Naturally I will be talking to the States. I have consulted with them to an extent about the terms of reference. I should say to the House that there are four States at the moment which believe they are entitled to a larger share of available Federal road funds. No State has indicated a willingness to take a smaller share. As wise as we are, we are not Solomon. I have not resolved that problem yet. The only way to do that is to appoint an independent review. We will be doing that as quickly as possible. That is why provision has been made in the Bill for me to look at the shares for the last three years by March 1987. Let me come to the great charade of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. This honourable member is the most unbelievable of all. I noticed during his contribution he made virtually no mention at all of the Stuart Highway from Alice Springs to Darwin. When he was Chief Minister of the Northern Territory he was trumpeting around the Territory about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. Sure, we said we would build it, but we did not know when we gave that undertaking that we were going to walk smack bang into a $10 billion deficit. As honourable members opposite, who have been in government know, one can do only what one can afford to do. But the honourable member for the Northern Territory is a new boy here. Mr Peter Fisher —That is a poor excuse. Mr PETER MORRIS —Politics is not about building up expectations that somebody else has to pay for. Mr Peter Fisher —You can do better than this, Pete. Mr PETER MORRIS —I will just deal with the hard facts. If the honourable member wants money taken out of his electorate he should just nominate what program he wants cut. If he wants to provide the money, he should put his money where his mouth is. He was not able to do it in the 30 years of conservative government since World War II. We are doing the difficult immediately; the impossible takes a bit longer. But the coalition could not do it in 30 years. Its only contribution to railways in the Territory in 30 years of government was when it came back into government in 1975 and immediately, in early 1976, ripped up the one railway that was there, the North Australian Railway to Larrimah. That was its contribution. It is simply a matter of priorities. That railway cannot be justified. There was an independent economic inquiry. I want the economic rationalists to get into this debate, those who want to see money spent where it is justified. It is the argument I love. If the proposal is in any way as rewarding or justified as those who support it claim-and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has never supported it; he has too much sense-and if it is as good as suggested, surely the private sector will build it. Those opposite will rush to put their money into it. There is all that money out there in the private sector-it will do it. But it is not so foolish. In the case of that railway there has been an independent economic inquiry. To proceed with it would be a major misallocation of resources. It is no good those opposite trotting overseas and getting some foreign consultant to write a very brief report, which is a rehash of some of the information provided initially, to suit the argument they want to put. That is all that has been put forward; that does not do anything. The charade is this: Whilst the honourable member for the Northern Territory was coming down here as Chief Minister saying that the railway was needed, he was also saying: 'The Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin is quite adequate, Mr Prime Minister'. We said: 'No, it needs upgrading. It is too narrow. There are many crossings and numbers of bridges to be built'. But he said: 'Prime Minister, the highway is adequate'. But he did not tell the people in the Territory that, and he did not mention it tonight. The railway will not go ahead. It cannot be justified. But the road will be upgraded and we will adhere to the timetable. He did not raise that question. I wanted him to raise it so that I could answer it. Let me remind the House of what the honourable member for the Northern Territory said. I have in front of me his joint Press release with the Premier of Queensland. It has the dateline Darwin, 14 July 1983 and states: The Northern Territory and Queensland governments have reached agreement to fund a joint feasibility study on a railway line to link Mt Isa with Darwin and Alice Springs. The launch of a detailed study on the proposed standard gauge railway system was announced simultaneously by the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, in Darwin and Queensland Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Mr Everingham told a news conference in Darwin his first priority had always been the proposed $540m north-south railway line linking Adelaide with Darwin, which has been in limbo since the Federal Government's recent mini-Budget proposal that the Territory Government pay 40 per cent or $220m of the cost. Mr Everingham said the Queensland Government had indicated it would pay for the 1,600 kilometre Mt Isa line. The people of the Northern Territory have to ask: Why did he not proceed with it? Let us have an end to this charade. Here he had an offer from the Queensland Government to share the feasibility study and to build the line. Premier Joh was asked: 'Where will the money come from, Premier?'. The Premier said: 'We are going to haul coal from the Bowen Basin across to the power station and the freight revenues will service the investment'. Bully-would he not go for it straight away? Here we are on 16 May 1985, two years later, and the former Chief Minister in the rest of his period did not take up that offer; he did not proceed with it. I do not want him to come into this chamber with that charade, whingeing, crying and moaning about a railway to Darwin when he had a gold-plated proposal in writing from the Premier of Queensland, a joint proposal to go ahead-and he did not want the Labor Government in it. He did not proceed with it. Why did he not proceed with it? Why does he not want the road upgraded? In his statement he said: I have made it clear to the Queensland Premier that the Territory cannot contribute financially to the venture . . . It will have to be at Queensland expense. The Press release went on: He suggested that the supply of Queensland coal to the planned Channel Island power station in Darwin could help meet the Queensland Government costs in funding the construction of the railway line. So it went on. There is the evidence. It has been a con job on the people of the Territory all the through. He said at one stage that he was king of the kids. All I have to say with regret to the people of the Territory is that he treats them like kids. If he really wanted to have that railway built, he and the Queensland Government would have proceeded. When it came to carrying out the joint feasibility study with the Queensland Government, he said that the Northern Territory Government did not have any money. he proceeded instead to hire a foreign firm to do a very cursory study. He is now touting around that jaundiced study which was tabled here tonight. The honourable member for the Northern Territory can eat his heart out like the rest, but the people of this country cannot be called upon to put their money into pie-in-the-sky projects like that. The private sector saw no merit in it; the expert advice of an independent inquiry showed that there was no merit in it and that it would be a major misallocation of resources; and the Northern Territory and Queensland Governments, having committed themselves to it, then saw fit not to proceed with it. Therefore, the honourable member should not bring it to our doorstep and complain about it. One of the last matters that I wish to raise is the local road set of principles raised by the honourable member for Gippsland. I think that he misunderstands the intention of the legislation here, so I will be kind to him. The arrangements for distribution between local government bodies within a State is based on a set of principles which has been developed State by State between the local government associations and the State concerned. That has been the wish of the local government associations. There has been considerable consultation with the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, various council groupings and various State associations. They see this as the appropriate way to pursue that end. I agree with them. I think it is far better that the State and the local government associations concerned should develop an arrangement that meets their respective needs betweeen themselves and then put it to us for approval, rather than me, here in Canberrra, trying to impose on them what I think might be more appropriate. That is what the previous Government did and that is what I have done since I became Minister. That is why I am putting it forward in this legislation. There is no ulterior motive, no sinister reason. We think that that is the appropriate way to do it, the fairest way for all concerned. As the proposals for each State come forward we will deal with them. I thank all the honourable members who have participated in the debate for the contributions that they have made and for the manner in which the Bill has been received. This is landmark legislation for transport in this country and I commend it to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.54) —I move: Clause 34, page 23, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Moneys repaid to Commonwealth ''34 (1) Any moneys repaid to the Commonwealth by a State, approved railway authority or approved organisation under this Act shall be paid into the Fund. (2) Any moneys paid to the Commonwealth pursuant to paragraph 32 (1) (m) shall be deemed to be moneys repaid to the Commonwealth for the purposes of sub-section (1).''. The circulated amendment that stands in my name is to clause 34 of the Bill. I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The reason for the amendment is to confirm completely that any moneys repaid to the Commonwealth or liable to be repaid to the Commonwealth, will be returned to the trust fund. For example, this could be money that was granted to the States, not just under this legislation, but under previous Acts, for the purpose of expenditure on roads and which was not used for roads. It might have been intended for the purchase of land for road reserves, but when the land was not used for roads it may have then been sold for other purposes. The States have then pocketed the money. I commend the Minister for including this clause in the Bill. I think it is most appropriate that this should be so. He has, in clause 34, indicated that any money that comes back from this legislation must be paid into the fund. The purpose of this amendment is really to tighten that up further and ensure that that money to be repaid is paid into the fund. One could say that a State that is faced with the choice of either spending the money on roads or paying it back to the Commonwealth and into the fund will spend it, and that is acknowledged. There is nothing wrong with that because that was the original purpose of the money. In discussions with the Minister I got the impression that he feels that the amendment is acceptable, as it simply strengthens the purpose of the legislation. Therefore I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.55) —As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) said, what his amendment does is to put beyond doubt the fact that any moneys from earlier Acts paid to a State for a road related purpose and then not proceeded with would have to be repaid to the Commonwealth if the State did not use the money for a road related purpose or other purpose as indicated in the legislation before the Committee. The amendment puts that issue beyond doubt. It is a reasonable amendment and the Government is prepared to accept it. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.57) —The purpose of the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill is to provide $70,541,000 additional capital for the Australian National Line by converting a $50.5m Treasury loan to a grant and to allow repayment of a $20m Treasury loan which is due at the end of this month. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) stated in his second reading speech that by this grant the ANL hopes to overcome a projected cash flow deficiency in 1985-86 and 1986-87, to firmly establish a commercial basis of operation, and to finance the purchase of replacement ships. In 1983 the Government legislated to require ANL to operate on a commercial basis. I think it is correct to say that this implemented the policy commenced by the previous Minister for Transport, Ralph Hunt, and the previous coalition Government towards the end of its period in office. This Government granted $90m of capital in 1983. The Minister has stated, I think, that no more capital will be provided to ANL. In addition, the Government has also provided a $25m grant to the Tasmanian Government to cover the purchase of the Abel Tasman and thus overcome the potential cost of an ANL replacement ship for the Empress of Australia, which is now at the end of its life, or very close to it, depending on when the Abel Tasman commences operation. There is a dispute between ANL and the Department of Finance as to $55m of superannuation liability incurred before ANL was allowed to introduce its own scheme. I understand that ANL is making an annual payment to cover its liability. I want to make the point that this is not a criticism of ANL. The previous superannuation scheme, I understand, was forced on ANL by a previous government. Last year the Australian Shipping Commission had an overall loss of $67.75m, of which $3,288,00 was an operating loss. In the previous year the operating loss was $18,844,000 and the overall loss was $26,193,000. One is told that the difference is due to a change in accounting and depreciation procedures. The new ANL management of Mr Max Moore-Wilton as the Chief Executive and Mr W. Bolitho as the Chairman has made commendable progress in stopping uneconomic services, reducing manning levels and more correctly presenting the financial position of the Commission. I commend that new management for the progress that is being made with ANL. I suppose there were two alternative ways of considering the Bill and what the Bill means to ANL. The first proposal, or alternative, is that if this is the final cash injection necessary to establish a firm commercial base, provide more adequate or acceptable gearing, and guarantee a positive cash flow and ability to borrow commercially, it would make ANL ready to compete and, hopefully, obtain more suitable ships for more properly researched routes in the future, and therefore the Bill should be supported. The second or alternative view to that, the opposing view, is that the conversion of these loans to a grant, that is, the forgiving of the repayment, is unnecessary, that the Treasury loans should be rolled over, as has been done before, that the good cash position ANL has at present and the capital available from the more rigorous depreciation schedules provides an adequate commercial base for ANL; and that the extra discipline of maintaining the loans, together with the message that the Government has provided enough new capital already, is the preferred way of forcing ANL to help itself. The Opposition supports the second proposal and therefore will be opposing the legislation. My more learned and expert colleagues who will be speaking after me will provide more detailed arguments on why the Opposition will be voting against the Bill, and they will give more detail on the position of ANL. I now refer to a great and growing threat to our international trade and our international trading reputation caused, indirectly perhaps, by the commendable progress of ANL management in reducing manning levels on ANL ships to a more acceptable level. The first of two problems concerns the Seamen's Union of Australia. In response to a certain extent to the loss of its membership as ANL removes ships from services and its manning comes down at least half-way to international standard, the Seamen's Union is endeavouring by industrial blackmail to coerce foreign-owned ships into using Australian crews. I understand that in one case at least a German shipping company has agreed to have an Australian crew on one of its ships, with the proviso that that crew operates according to German principles, that is, in the same way as the crews on all its other ships. But that is not good enough for the union because of the feather-bedding inefficiencies that exist in the manning of ships around the Australian coast. That is why a number of disputes have held up the waterfront in Australia over the past weeks. The second dispute which, together with the first one, ensures that Australia's record of having the world's worst reputation on the waterfront will be maintained without any fear of any other nation competing or coming close to us, is the campaign by the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to force unnecessary repairs to ships, particularly those in Sydney. It is some coincidence that the two repair yards to which these ships are forced to go with their unnecessary repairs happen to have Ship Painters and Dockers Union employees. Time after time, ships that have passed necessary inspection are required by this union group to have $40,000 or $50,000 worth of repairs. I have with me a document which goes into the detail of the repairs to one such ship last month. It lists, among others, such things as: repair panelling to partitioning, repair cracked hand basin, check plumbing main line, and so the list goes on. It lists one and a half pages of completely unnecessary repairs. At the bottom of the second page is the following interesting statement: All work to be done to the satisfaction of Maritime Unions representing ACTU Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Committee before ship is allowed to sail. How about that for industrial blackmail and collusion by the whole union movement? Mr Peter Fisher —It sounds like Norm Gallagher. Mr LLOYD —I think it is in that class. I repeat that these repairs are being ordered on ships that have already passed inspection. This union committee is forcing unnecessary repairs for the benefit of its own members who happen to be employed in two particular shipyards. Diplomatic protests have been lodged against that action. It is creating a terrible reputation for Australia with all the additional insurance charges, and even in some cases an inability to get insurance. Foreign countries are so concerned that diplomatic protests have been made. I believe that the Government has a case to answer for its silence on this matter. Why has it been so silent on this collusion of these unions in regard to these particular practices which add to our already bad reputation? It is no answer for the Government to call meetings of all the parties. Surely we have here practices which are not supportable and therefore the only action is for the Government to condemn the practices and allow the exporters, the shippers and shipowners to get on with the business of exporting and importing goods. I ask the Minister to take a stand on this matter and tell the unions that what they are doing is unacceptable and to allow this country to get on with its trading. With those comments I remind the House that the Opposition will be opposing the Bill. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(11.06) —As has been stated, the purpose of the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill is to provide the Australian Shipping Commission with additional capital of $70,541,000. I was listening to the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) when he commented about bans put on shipping. As I interjected at the time I invite him, regardless of what the ship is, the next time a ban is placed on a ship at Port Kembla to come with me to inspect the ship. I have inspected many ships with bans on them. Such ships are absolute death traps. I do not care what the ship is or where it comes from, the next time there is a ban on if the honourable member for Murray comes with me to inspect that ship, I guarantee he will never stand in this House and go on with that nonsense again. It really is not surprising that the honourable member for Murray left it to his colleagues to oppose the legislation because he knows in his heart of hearts that he agrees with it. If honourable members want evidence of that I refer them to his Press release of 7 May in which he indicated that the Opposition supported the legislation. But of course, some of the so-called economic geniuses on that side of the chamber have been at him. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), who is interjecting, is following me in this debate, so he should shut his mouth until it is his turn to speak. The honourable member for Murray would not stand up and oppose the legislation because he agrees with it but those economic geniuses opposite will get up and oppose this legislation. When the Hawke Labor Government came to power the Australian Shipping Commission was, to put it bluntly, in a mess. As in so many other fields this Governemnt inherited a legacy of inactivity from the previous conservative Government. The capital I mentioned earlier is required to provide the Commission with an appropriate capital structure. That amount was arrived at after a very detailed examination of the long term financial liability of the Australian National Line. It is a necessary final step to correct the result of many years of mismanagement under the former conservative Government which neglected to provide ANL with sufficient capital funds for commercial operation. Over the eight-year period from June 1975 to June 1983 ANL's accumulated loss increased from $12m to $41m-an increase of $29m. Over this period not one cent of additional capital funds was provided by the former Government. Any funds made available were provided as loans. I think that is what the Opposition is going to propose tonight. This led to a heavy interest burden and a increasingly uncommercial operation. However, this is only part of the whole sorry story. The accounting practices adopted by ANL management masked the Line's true performance. Vessels were significatly overvalued in the books and lease liabilities were not recorded in the accounts. Effectively the books were cooked at the behest of the Fraser Government. These were largely corrected in the 1983-84 accounts by abornormal adjustments. These accounts give a far more accurate representation of ANL's financial situation than has been shown for many years. As of 30 June 1984 the accounts show an accumulated loss of $129.5m. Because accumulated losses exceeded capital by $3.7m, the Line was technically bankrupt. This Government chooses to give ANL further capital because it believes it should complete the financial restructuring necessary to put ANL on a sound commercial basis so that it can operate efficiently and generate from internal sources the funds needed for expansion. Public enterprise can operate effectively and commercially if given strong political leadership-it never got that from the former Government-an adequate capital base, effective management, and co-operation from employees and unions. Efficient Australian owned and crewed ships should be more involved in moving Australian cargoes internationally. Our national flag carrier has a role to play here. Whether public or private, the pre-conditions for a successful enterprise must be a sound capital base so that it can operate efficiently and have the long term financial liability and the discipline to generate internal funds for expansion. The Opposition, in opposing the Bill, continues its division in regard to Australian shipping. For seven years it presided over the decline, indeed the decimation, of Australian shipping. We have only to look at the statements made over the last two years by the present Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) and the opposing view taken by the former member for Hume. They were always at loggerheads on shipping. They used to come in here night after night and give different points of view. The honourable member for Murray has one view and I bet the honourable member for Deakin will come in here tonight with yet another view. Every member of the Opposition has a different view. They have not got a unified view and they do not know where they are going with Australian shipping or what view to put up. Since coming to office in March 1983 the Hawke Labor Government has taken a number of important steps to revitalise the ANL and Australian shipping generally. This is part of the Government's comprehensive and co-ordinated approach towards this vital part of Australia's transport industry. In May 1983 the Government decided to provide ANL with an additional $90m in capital to overcome its then immediate cash crisis. This comprised a $30m cash injection and a $60m conversion of an outstanding Treasury loan. The Government also decided at the same time to roll over remaining domestic Treasury loans as they fell due. They totalled just over $50m. Immediately after taking office the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) convened a meeting with ANL and the seagoing unions to discuss a whole range of problems with a view to improving the industrial climate. These discussions resulted in agreement on a number of important matters; for example, a union agreement to a reduction in the number of seagoing positions across the ANL fleet. They set the scene for the implementation of rationalisation measures by ANL with a minimum of industrial disputation. The results of this positive approach to industrial relations are clear for all to see. In 1983-84 ANL lost a total of 92 ship operating sea days due to crew industrial disputes, compared to 501 in 1981-82 and 113 in 1982-83. This Government has not only taken important steps aimed specifically at revitalising ANL, but also taken a number of other significant actions to assist Australian shipping in general. Immediately on coming to office in March 1983 the Government made it clear to ANL that it was expected to take whatever steps it could to improve its efficiency and profitability. In other words ANL was required to operate, as far as possible, on a fully commercial basis. It has responded well to this general directive, especially since its extensive top management restructuring. Appointments to top management positions, many of which have been made from outside ANL, brought a fresh commercial approach. The new ANL management has critically reviewed its shipping and shore based operations and profitability. Some of these decisions have been tough, but this Government has never resiled from taking tough decisions. The ANL has withdrawn its Darwin service, which was losing about $2.5m a year. I wish the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) was in here because the grant that the Government gave to the ANL run to the Northern Territory, according to my information, mainly went to assist with cargo and 95 to 98 per cent of the cargo was beer. I tell honourable members quite frankly that the taxpayers of Throsby were not going to subsidise the Northern Territory beer drinkers to the tune of a couple of million bucks a year, nor should any other Australian taxpayer be expected to pick up that tab. The Opposition will put its arguments against this Bill. As I have said before, how quickly it changes its mind. On 7 May the Opposition spokesman on Transport, the honourable member for Murray, issued a Press release in which he stated: The Opposition parties accept the need for the $70m capital injection into ANL to make it a more commercially acceptable organisation. The Opposition supported the legislation on 7 May, but it opposes the legislation on 16 May. The Government rejects any accusation that it has acted irresponsibly on this matter. I ask honourable members to look at the facts. We inherited an ANL that was bankrupt. It was run into the ground by an administration that did not care about the national shipping line. The Government has tackled ANL's problem in a systematically considered way. We have restored order to its financial chaos; we have given it a modern organisational structure; we have installed a commercially experienced top management team and we have improved industrial relations. We are now seeing the benefits of our efforts with the line again earning operating profits in 1983-84. This additional capital injection is the last step in the process. It is necessary to finish the job which was started in early 1983. The decision was taken in light of the most thorough review of ANL's financial viability, a review that revealed serious imbalances in its financial structure. Now, when ANL is turning the corner, we get the same tired, discredited arguments from the conservatives. It is the same penny-pinching approach which pushed ANL into bankruptcy and which stands in the way of efficiency, rationalisation and revitalisation. It is obvious that the Opposition does not want ANL to be a commercial success. This would expose the Opposition's mismanagement and incompetence, the gap between its rhetoric and its deeds. It is easier to play the role of the economic vandal than to be constructive and put in the hard effort necessary to ensure that taxpayers' funds are used efficiently and effectively. I say this to members of the Opposition: Stop this nonsense. Get your act together and support this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.18) —In my maiden speech in February this year, I expressed my concern that the Labor Government was obsessed with wealth redistribution in the interests of special interest groups and was ignoring the urgent need today to take steps to generate greater prosperity. The Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill is just another example of the Government's same philosophy being expounded. In this case, it is taking some $70m, not of the Government's money but of taxpayers' money, and throwing it at special interest groups. In this instance, those special interest groups include the maritime unions which are the ultimate winners of this largesse of the Government on behalf of the taxpayers. It is very ironical that this extremely extravagant Bill should be put before the House tonight, just two days after the Government announced perhaps not very significant, but some, expenditure cuts which harmed certain people in the community. The Government, having taken it away from primary producers and other groups, is handing the taxpayers' money out in this instance to the maritime unions. The Australian National Line-this is the hard thing for the Government to understand-is by all commercial standards a company which is broke. At June 1984 its accumulated loss was $129.5m. Its accumulated loss exceeds its capital and reserves by $3.7m and it still has outstanding loans of $114m. We all recall that in 1982-83-other honourable members have mentioned this fact-ANL suffered losses of some $26m and the very next year, 1983-84, its losses rose to $68m. Of course, that substantial loss increase was, I concede, partly caused by a change in the depreciation provisions. We have to add to these figures that unfunded liability to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund of some $55m. The question is: Why is the Australian National Line making such substantial losses? In the first place, one must concede that there has been a slump in international shipping, and there is no doubt that that has hurt every shipping line around the world. In the second place, as last year's annual report of the Australian National Line pointed out, a number of its ships are obsolete. It is using engines, for example, which are no longer competitive with the most efficient and modern engines which are being used in the ships of shipping lines of other nations. It is also worth noting that the Australian National Line, above all, has very high operating costs due in particular to union regulations. One only has to look at last year's annual report of the ANL to read that fact. It states: In overseas trading where ANL is in direct competition with equivalent and . . . technically superior vessels manned by . . . smaller, more flexible crews, these factors have been and remain a significant cost disadvantage for ANL. There is nothing very unusual about that. Inefficient companies which make inefficient use of their capital tend to go broke and that is what happened with ANL. I suppose one would have to say that one of the most significant problems is union regulations but, more to the point, the restrictive practices that those unions have imposed on ANL. That particular company has to deal with six unions and, naturally, that involvement leads to a considerable number of demarcation disputes. One only has to browse through the files reporting on those disputes to see what a great problem the proliferation of unions in that company has been. I give a few examples of the restrictive practices of unions. The crews of the Australian National Line take five months leave every year, which far exceeds the periods taken by the employees of the competitor shipping lines, particularly those from other countries. As a result of that, the Australian National Line virtually has to employ two crews, while its competitors do not. Another example is that the stewards on Australian National Line ships apparently do not do the laundry. That is done in the ports at a cost of $150,000 a year, while on Japanese ships the laundry is done on the ships themselves. It might seem a small matter, but union restrictions and regulations are leading to gross inefficiency. Ultimately, the problem results from union demands and substantial overmanning, and that is mentioned by the Australian National Line in almost every public statement and report it produces. I might point out that the average level of manning has been reduced in the last year or two, but the average crews on the Australian National Line are from 25 to 26 people. The world average is between 21 and 24 people and some of the more modern ships can now get by with crews of around 17, so that obviously gives the Australian National Line a very substantial cost disadvantage. In other words, its overall cost structure has moved into the ambit of the absurd. As the Australian Mining Industry Council pointed out recently, in 1981 the average operating cost of a 100,000 to 130,000-tonne vessel of the Australian National Line was $3.8m. On open registry ships the average operating costs were $1.8m and for British flag carriers-and they have enough of their own restrictive practices-the average operating cost was $2.4m. Mr Donald Cameron —What was ours again? Mr DOWNER —Ours was $3.8m. We have a very substantial problem with costs with Australian National Line, and the result is substantial losses. Some of us can remember back to the 1970s and pre-1970s, a period when Australian National Line did relatively well, although it did so with very great commercial advantage, being owned by the Government. When the Whitlam Government came in-too few people remember the Whitlam Government nowadays-it instructed the Australian National Line to buy uneconomic bulk carriers. That decision alone was one of the most disastrous commercial instructions by political masters for the Australian National Line. As Mr Bolitho, the Chairman of ANL, has pointed out in a recent report: The glacier started moving around 1972. It started moving, of course, for Australia as a whole, just as it did for the Australian National Line. The Fraser Government was none too enthusiastic about this uncommercial operation and it certainly did not waste much of the taxpayers' money on it. However, in came the Hawke Government and it decided soon after it inspected the books that the only solution was to retain this uneconomic enterprise and inject $90m, which it did last year. Let us look at the words of the Chairman of the Australian National Line after it received that handout from the taxpayers. Mr Bolitho said at that time: You beauty, big brother has bailed us out. I believe there is an underlying mentality in the Line that we will always be bailed out in the end. Some of their ships are old enough to need bailing out, I would have thought, but that certainly was a stunning statement from the Chairman of the Line. Mr Bolitho's greatest statement, I thought, having received the $90m of the taxpayer's money, was this: Well, I won't be asking next time, I can assure you. We are all led to believe by the Chairman of the Australian National Line, by the Minister and by everybody else on the Government side that that would be the end of the taxpayers' contribution, but now the Parliament is being asked to approve a further $70m. I find that quite incredible. Of that money $50m will be used to convert loans into capital. If a company cannot pay its loan interest, the Government can hardly expect a return on its equity capital. One normally expects a higher return from equity because of the risk factors than one does from fixed interest loans, so this is clearly in commercial terms a grossly irresponsible use of the taxpayer's money. In other words, the Australian National Line is in every commercial sense a shipping line which is completely broke. There are some people who think that there is a case to maintain public enterprise, and they put forward four different arguments for it. They say that it may improve economic efficiency. For the last nine minutes I have explained how inefficient the Australian National Line is. Some people argue that we need public enterprise to provide Government revenue. The taxpayers would laugh at that, when in the last two years they have been asked to fork out $160m to this uneconomic enterprise. Some people say we need public enterprise to provide a service that the market will not provide. Only 4 per cent of Australia's trade is carried by the Australian National Line, so that hardly makes any sense. That trade is carried at cartel organised conference rates, which are far higher than ordinary commercial rates. Finally, some people say that public enterprises are needed to promote the redistribution of income. That is where we get to the nub of the problem. That is what the Labour Party is all about-redistributing income. It has taken $160m away from the taxpayers and put it into a commercial enterprise that does not work. The National Farmers Federation and the Australian Mining Industry Council have both said that this particular enterprise is hindering, not helping, their exports. This Government is not concerned because it is redistributing the taxpayers' money, and who is getting it-the maritime unions with their inefficient and incompetent practices. I do not really see why the Opposition could be expected to support a Bill which is so grossly irresponsible, so blatantly sectional and so fundamentally contrary to the national interest. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(11.29) —We have just heard a dissertation from the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). We heard from him what we would expect as typical from the millionaires of the Liberal Party of Australia. We have yet to hear from the other millionaire in the ranks of the Liberal Opposition, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). I feel rather sorry for the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who has been placed in an embarassing position. This was touched on by my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) in his remarks to the House. It is undeniable that when the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) made the announcement that funds were to be made available to the Australian National Line, the honourable member for Murray was quick to release a Press statement in which he said: The Opposition parties accept the need for the $70m capital injection into ANL to make it a more commercially acceptable organisation. There was no mention in any way, shape or form of loans, or of disapproval of the decision that had been made by the Government until the millionaires in the Liberal Party stated that they wanted to dispose of any profitable government enterprise. We would expect that from them. The understatement of the evening was made by the honourable member for Mayo, who said: 'During the days of the Fraser Government we did not put much of the taxpayers' money into the ANL'. Of course that Government did not do that. Not one cent was injected by the Fraser Government in the seven years it was in office. I remind the honourable member that not one cent was allocated to Australia's national line. It was up to this Government to save the ANL from the bankrupt situation into which it had been allowed to deteriorate when the honourable member's party was in office. Let us look at the facts. We inherited ANL. It was bankrupt. It had been run into the ground by an administration that did not care about Australia's national shipping line. The Hawke Government has tackled ANL's problems in a sympathetic and systematic way. It has restored order to its financial chaos. It has given it a modern organisational structure. It has installed a commercially experienced top management team and it has improved its industrial relations. We were given an example this evening of how industrial relations would be handled if the coalition parties again had the responsibility for running ANL. What has happened in the two years since funds were injected in March 1983? The ANL has turned into a profitable organisation. The need for the additional capital injection that is proposed in the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill this evening has been quite clearly explained by the Minister as a last step in the process undertaken some two years ago. It is necessary to finish the job that was begun in 1983. The decision has been taken in the light of a most thorough review of ANL's financial viability. That review revealed that there were serious imbalances in its financial structure-again a legacy from the Government of honourable members opposite. Now that ANL has turned the corner we hear the same tired, discredited arguments from our conservative friends on your left, Madam Acting Speaker. We note the same pinch-penny approach that would push ANL again into bankruptcy and stand in the way of efficiency, rationalisation and the revitalisation that has been accomplished in the last couple of years. Tonight honourable members opposite are making a last desperate attempt to sabotage the successful performance of ANL which is now clearly apparent. Criticism has been made about this Government having political control of ANL. If honourable members opposite want to know anything about political control and political manipulation, I will quote from the autobiography of Captain Sir John Williams, who was Chairman of the Australian Shipping Commission from 1956 to 1971. On page 212, he said: To our surprise, not long after his appointment, Sinclair-- I guess he would be refering to a gentleman whom we know in this House now as the Leader of the National Party of Australia- informed us that we should now regard the Commission as what he termed a 'Political Instrument' subject to control by his departmental officers, overlooking the fact that it had been set up by Sir Robert Menzies to operate free of interference on a private enterprise basis. We have saved ANL from the extermination it faced when it was under the control of the coalition parties. The ANL still has a period of hard decisions ahead. It still has to complete its rationalisation program. It must improve its productivity and efficiency in several key areas and it has to develop new commercial opportunities. The legislation before the House will give ANL an opportunity to do this by overcoming its financial structure problem. As has been said by the Minister for Transport, there should be no need for any further capital funds from the Government. The $70.5m injection is not a handout. The ANL management is expected to produce results. With the co-operation of employees and the unions, there is no doubt that this can and will be achieved under this Minister and this Government. There can be no doubt about the dramatic improvement in ANL's operating results. Since the Labor Party came to office its operations contributed a profit of $3,288,000 for 1983-84 as opposed to a loss of $18.84m the preceding year. This improvement is fundamentally due to vigorous corrective actions taken by the Government and the Australian Shipping Commission. The new funding will provide a base on which ANL can continue to build, provided this Government remains in office. A constituent of mine wrote to me the last time legislation of the type we are discussing went through the House. This man, who is a senior engineer on an ANL ship, summed up the situation quite magnificently when he said: 'The ANL survived after help from the Labor Government. It would have ceased to exist if the other people had been returned.' There is no doubt that that is the feeling. If the honourable members opposite had been in government they would have sabotaged, destroyed and scuttled Australia's national line. That is the sort of pride they have in Australian nationalism. It is true that the people on the other side of the House, who are destined to stay there for many a long day, showed absolutely no commitment to the Australian national flag carrier during their eight years of office. They allowed ANL to get into a position where we were required to take steps very soon after coming to office to correct their mistakes. The record of Government action indicates that we recognise the importance of the maritime transport industry to this nation. This Government has consistently and systematically looked at all aspects of the industry and has applied imaginative and positive policies aimed at promoting improvements in the industry. It has sought to create a constructive climate. That is far different from the attitude that honourable members opposite took and are clearly indicating that they will continue to take. The Government has sought to create a constructive climate in which all participants in the industry can work together to produce a better, more efficient and productive industry. We want to ensure that ANL, something of which we are proud, will survive, continue and prosper. The Minister is to be congratulated for his action in this legislation, which will carry that into effect. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.40) —The Opposition is opposed to the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill. Its passage would have the effect of enabling an entry to take place in the books of the Australian National Line which would reduce the organisation's indebtedness by $70.5m, increase the Line's capital by the same amount and, as a result, forgive interest payments of about $10m a year. The coalition's policy on shipping is clear. We believe that the ANL, which in all aspects operates in a private enterprise environment, should not be owned by the government. Not only does the Line not meet any of the criteria appropriate for government ownership, but, over the years, it has cost Australian taxpayers well over $125m and, if all its liabilities were brought to account, it would appear that the taxpayer may eventually have to pay over the same amount again. The ANL should be transferred to the private sector. The trend toward privatisation of government statutory bodies is now clearly emerging. If those on the Government benches want any evidence of how strong that trend is, they should read the remarks of their own Treasurer (Mr Keating), who, in his statement on 14 May, said: The Government has decided that the private sector should take over the administration of the defence service homes loans scheme. Almost incredibly, such a move would eliminate a 10-month waiting list and loan amount restrictions, and would save the taxpayer $120m in a full year. As the House now knows, the Opposition is fully committed to privatising in one form or another the Australian Industry Development Corporation, Medibank Private, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-- Mr Hollis —Tell them that in Cooma. Mr BEALE —It is nice to see the 'Kill Cooma' man in the House-the Pipeline Authority, Trans Australia Airlines, Telecom Australia, Australia Post, Aussat, the Commonwealth Bank, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, and, of course, the Australian National Line. It is truly incredible that within only two days of the Treasurer's statement indicating moves toward privatisation, the Government should be taking such retrograde steps in relation to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Australian National Line. The relevant Ministers, apparently, are not listening to their own Treasurer. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), in his second reading speech, said: This additional capital is required to provide the Commission with a capital structure appropriate for a commercial enterprise. The only reason that could be advanced for a simple book entry envisaged by this legislation is to put the Australian National Line balance sheet in some more appropriate condition for the sale of the Line. However, that is not present government policy. Furthermore, it is extremely doubtful whether a potential purchaser would wish to buy ANL's capital. Various contingent liabilities in terms of both capital equipment and labour obligations appear so onerous as to suggest that a purchaser would be interested only in buying the assets of ANL. Furthermore, this Bill would have the reverse effect, as an increase in capital and a decrease in the debt of the authority would lead to pricing policies which would require revenues higher than at present. This is because expected return on capital, the highest risk investment in the Commission, is necessarily higher than interest payable on the debt, a lower risk financing investment. All of that, however, is again irrelevant as prices are not established by setting desired returns on capital, but by the harsh and cruel realities of the competitive market-place. We should note the progress that management has made in rationalising the activities of the ANL. Why is the House being asked to approve this Bill if the proposed change in capital structure is not required for the sale of the authority and is contrary to appropriate commercial behaviour? Why are we being asked to forgo $10m a year in interest by agreeing to recapitalisation of the ANL? Two reasons suggest themselves for the creation of this illusory profit. The first is that additional capital investment could be justified and the second is so that the ANL could take a softer line with its militant trade unions. It would be difficult for the Minister, his Department and this Parliament to agree to subsequent injections of cash into the ANL or, alternatively, the passing up of opportunities for the Line to pay dividends on its capital if the Commission were running at a loss or a small profit; hence the need to create this illusory profit. The Minister, in his second reading speech, stated: This cash injection will help ANL get over a projected cash deficiency in 1985-86 and 1986-87. A close reading of the 1984 accounts of ANL would suggest that no such cash deficiency will exist. On the contrary, the Commission currently has $43m cash on hand. When this is added to the net cash generated from operating profits, interest forgone, depreciation and amortisation, net amounts charged to provisions adjusted only by foreign exchange losses and forward committed capital expenditures, it would appear to indicate net cash generation of a further $50m. This total of around $100m of cash surplus clearly will be spent on new vessels and equipment, if the Minister's statement that there will be a cash deficit over the next two years is accurate. If the Minister had been more forthcoming in his second reading speech he could have helped the House understand about the cash deficit. But presumably his tardiness in setting the record straight is an indication of his wish to obscure the fact that even though the ANL is operating at break-even point, he has authorised huge additional capital spending to take place over the next two years. It is quite inappropriate for the taxpayer to invest up to a further $100m in purchasing vessels and equipment for the ANL when there is not the slightest evidence that an appropriate commercial return will be made on that investment. This legislation is simply setting the stage with a single book entry for another massive rip-off of the Australian taxpayer. The second reason that suggests itself as a rationale for this legislation is to allow the ANL to be more generous with the unions. Illegitimate use of trade union power has created a pocket of privilege in our society that should no longer be tolerated. The job protection cartel now positively discriminates against those workers in our society who are less able to look after themselves, contrary to its original intention of protecting them. The Treasurer, in his economic statement of 14 May, indicated that the Government had no intention of seeking to discount the consumer price index, hence wages, to take into account the cost increases resulting from the disastrous depreciation of the Australian dollar. Accordingly, while there may have been some opportunity as a result of this devaluation for the ANL to bring its costs into line with competitive conditions, and hence start to make even a modest return on taxpayers funds, that opportunity has now been thrown away by the Treasurer succumbing to trade union pressures, and this legislation, creating illusory profits, will result in yet another transfer of resources from capital to labour. It is instructive to compare certain wage rates and manning levels for the ANL and certain of its overseas competitors. The March 1985 edition of Australian Transport referred to manning levels and stated: Australia is clearly ten years behind the times when it comes to reducing manning conditions and unless we want a fleet for purely political reasons, and are prepared to pay for it, the present reductions are clearly insufficient to ensure survival against other high cost shipping nations . . . As reported in Australian Transport in November 1984, the direct labour cost of Australian flag vessels are 140 per cent higher then competitive comparable costs, which is a significant difference by any standards. As noted earlier, this irresponsible Government has now discarded its opportunity to reduce this competitive disadvantage by not seeking to discount wages to take into account the inevitable cost increases arising from depreciation. In this Bill, far from providing a capital structure appropriate for a commercial enterprise, we will produce the opposite result and, by forgoing $10m per annum in interest payments, we will create a situation in which the ANL will have significant surplus cash which presumably it will use to purchase new ships in an area in which private enterprise and not government should be involved and will provide management with more flexibility than is justified in granting unjustified wage and wage on-costs to its militant union members. We should oppose this further drain on the taxpayers' pockets and reject this Bill in its entirety. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.52) —Tonight we have witnessed the ultimate exercise in hypocrisy. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has just told us how we ought to wipe out a business that has enormous potential. That is not suprising because the same honourable member said in this maiden speech that the pockets of privilege in Australia should be eliminated. In an article which referred to his maiden speech, reference was made to his having a personal fortune of $10m. He talked of eliminating those pockets of privilege in our society. I consider his contribution an ultimate exercise in hypocrisy because on 7 May the Opposition spokesman on transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), said: The Opposition parties accept the need for the $70m capital injection into ANL to make it a more commercially acceptable organisation . . . On 25 January 1985 the Opposition spokesman on finance, Senator Peter Rae, said, inter alia: The case for reform and restructuring of the ANL is overwhelmingly made out. . . . . The reality is that the ANL must be given the proper capital base from which to operate- Mr Hollis —Then the millionaires got at them. Mr WRIGHT —Then the millionaires got at them in the Caucus and they were over-ruled. They sold out their principles so that they could bow to the whims of the multinationals. It is no wonder the people will see this as an exercise in hypocrisy. The April bulletin of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers published figures showing that in 1983-84 Australia earned $2,273m from shipping but in turn paid out $3,849m, leaving the nation with a transportation deficit of $1,576m. On current trends the 1984-85 transportation deficit will be over $2 billion-a slide of some 25 per cent in 12 months. Because of this, the Institute has pepped up its campaign for Australian exporters and importers to use Australian ships because it believes that that is the only way to eliminate the escalating transportation deficit. That view is very strongly held and advocated by the Seamen's Union of Australia, which has been waging a fearful and very forceful campaign on this issue for a very long time. I welcome the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill because it is central to the Hawke Labor Government's objective of providing a sound base for the development of an efficient and competitive Australian shipping industry. That is what the honourable member for Deakin does not want. He does not want competition for the multinationals. This Bill will provide the Australian Shipping Commission with additional capital of $70.5m. It will enable the revitalisation of Australia's shipping industry, not only the Australian National Line. It will also help in other ways. Labor's approach is in sharp contrast to that of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. We saw the years of mismanagement under that Government. Labor inherited an Australian National Line which was bankrupt. Why? That happened because of political interference by the National Party in particular. The Liberals and Nationals neglected to provide the ANL with sufficient capital funds for commercial operations. Over the eight-year period from June 1975 to June 1983 ANL's accumulated losses increased from $12m to $41m-an increase of $29m in losses; and Opposition members now talk about good management. Between 1975 and 1983 not one cent of additional capital funds was provided by the Liberal-National Party Government. Instead it funded only by way of loans, which led to a heavy interest burden and increasingly made it an uncommercial operation. That is exactly what the honourable member for Deakin wants. The previous Liberal-National Party Government condoned accounting practices by ANL management that masked the Line's true performance. The vessels were significantly overvalued in the books; the lease liabilities were not recorded in the accounts. Effectively, the books were cooked at the behest of the Fraser-Anthony Government. The Liberal-National Government did not want ANL to be a commercial success, just as the honourable member for Deakin does not want it to be a commercial success. I wonder whose bag he has been carrying here tonight. It is evident from the comments made by the honourable member for Deakin and the honourable member for Murray that they still want ANL to fail. It is a pity that the honourable member for Murray has been forced to change his position because he took an honourable position in the first instance, certainly on 7 May this year. The Hawke Government, in contrast, has acted to do something about the accounting practices. It was the first time that the true financial position of ANL was known. It showed that at June 1984 an accumulated loss of $129.5m had arisen and that accumulated losses exceeded capital by $3.7m. In other words, ANL was technically bankrupt. Why? Because of the mal-administration and ineptitude of the Liberal-National Party Government. It is an indictment of the management ability of that Government. It is proof that Liberal-National Party members will go to any length to serve their multinational masters and their private financial interests. It is also evident that those Opposition members are willing to rort the records to cover up their own incompetence. The Hawke Labor Government has acted to revitalise ANL and Australian shipping generally, and special credit must go to Labor's Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). In May 1983 the Hawke Government provided ANL with additional capital of $90m to overcome its then immediate cash crisis. It put in an injection of $30m in hard cash and $60m conversion of outstanding Treasury loans. It also decided to roll over the remaining domestic Treasury loans as they fell due. But the Hawke Government did not just leave the matter there. It also acted to improve the industrial climate. It set the scene for the implementation of rationalisation measures by ANL with minimum industrial disputation. The evidence again is there. In 1983-84 ANL lost only 92 ship-operating days due to crew industrial disputes. Compare and contrast that with 1981-82 under the Liberal-National Party Government when 501 days were lost. The Hawke Government has acted to strengthen ANL's top management structure and, importantly, to give ANL greater commercial freedom, thereby enabling it to react more positively to market situations-something Liberal-National Party members do not want it to be able to do. The Hawke Government appointed a new ANL Chairman and Managing Director. Our Government-a Labor government-undertook an examination of the long term financial viability of ANL. It was the most comprehensive review of ANL's finances ever undertaken, and something the Liberal and National parties shied away from because they wanted a cover-up. It was not undertaken for political or ideological reasons. Following that study it was decided to give the $70.5m capital injection which this Bill seeks to authorise. The Government also acted to assist Australian shipping generally. As has been mentioned by other speakers tonight, it introduced the special taxation concessions. The effect and evidence are there. This resulted in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd ordering three large bulk carriers for the coal export trade. In September 1984 the Hawke Labor Government introduced a policy requiring government department liner cargoes to be first offered to Australian shipowners. It gave assistance to the Tasmanian Government-another issue that was raised tonight and at least given credit for by the honourable member for Murray-with a non-repayable grant of $26m. It set up an industry task force to undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's overseas liner shipping arrangements. A very broad study of liner shipping services into and out of Australia is also being carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics. Ever since Labor took over, the objective has been to make Australian shipping, in particular the ANL, more efficient, more competitive and more profitable. The Labor Government has put an end to the days of government transport business undertakings being treated as an inefficiently run milch cow. The Labor Government has ended the worn out pork barrelling approach of the Opposition, especially the National Party. I note that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh), who spoke tonight, mentioned the role played by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). The previous Chairman of the Australian Shipping Commission who served between 1956 and 1971 said: Sinclair informed us that we should now regard the Commission as what he termed a 'political instrument'. . . . That political instrument approach cost Australian taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in operating losses. It cost jobs, exports and scuttled what should have been an efficient transport industry. It is the real reason why today the transport deficit associated with shipping is heading for the $2 billion mark. The Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and his cronies stand condemned for the role they played in sabotaging and, I suggest, vandalising ANL. But a new era has begun to emerge for ANL and Australian shipping. The Opposition has not bothered to consider the need for Australia. It is playing private enterprise politics. But the Government realises that it is a difficult task because only 4 to 5 per cent of Australian trade is carried by Australian ships. It has had to make some tough decisions, but it has been a government of courage and determination. It has meant cutting out unprofitable services and undertaking extensive rationalisation programs. But unlike the previous Liberal-National Party Government the Hawke Government has a strategy to improve efficiency and profitability and develop new commercial opportunities. This financial injection of $70.5m will overcome ANL's financial structure problems and will enable the Line effectively to pursue these objectives. It is no easy task. We cannot force international or, for that matter, Australian traders to use Australian ships or cannot make Australian exporters use ANL. Unfortunately the 40:40:20 ratio applies only to the United Nations liner code, which is mainly for container cargo, whereas 96 per cent of Australian trade is bulk goods such as coal and iron ore, to which the ratio does not apply. I can understand the seamen's attitude in wanting that 40:40:20 ratio, but it simply will not work. Australia is also a signatory to international conventions and it has international obligations which require that overseas countries are given free access to our ports. But the challenge, therefore, is to become more competitive and more efficient, reducing the crewing and fuel costs by the use of modern shipping and also increasing the tonnes carried and the voyages undertaken. I can personally understand the attitude of Australian seamen when they witness vessels from all over the world carrying Australian goods. But it is a fact of life in the shipping industry that Australia has to be able to compete on a straight cost basis. To do this the Australian national flag carrier and Australian shipping generally have to be modernised. We must be able to seek out and effectively compete for new markets. The Australian industry exporters and importers have a responsibility, given similar costs, to give preference to Australian ships. It is important to the shipping industry and also to the Australian economy. It means jobs and improved export performance, it will have a positive impact on current account figures and, in some way, it will alleviate the balance of payments situation. But the point is that the strategy is working. Regardless of what the honourable member for Deakin has said, ANL's loss situation has been turned around. There is a profit of approximately $18m. That $18m is evidence of the strategy of the Hawke Labor Government. The Hawke Government has given political leadership. ANL's new management is now taking the initiatives. It is now up to Australian industry exporters and importers to adopt an Australia first policy and use Australian ships. Friday, 17 May 1985 Mr COBB(Parkes)(12.04 a.m.) —The purpose of the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill is to provide the Australian Shipping Commission with additional capital of $70,541,000 to help get the Australian National Line out of trouble or, as the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) so quaintly put it, 'to improve the capital structure of ANL consistent with the commercial enterprise and so help revitalise Australia's shipping industry'. The people who are forced by law to use the monopoly we call ANL and the taxpayers of this country who are being asked to kick in another $70m plus would be laughing at the use of the words 'commercial enterprise' were it not so serious. The ANL enjoys a total monopoly from overseas competition on the coastal routes around Australia. It is also a member of several shipping conferences. For those who do not know what the word 'conference' means, it is a nautical euphemism for non-competitive price fixing cartels, which means in English that they can inflate prices on overseas trade routes. The ANL has rarely made a profit locally and almost never made a profit overseas. The history of ANL is interesting. It was formed in the mid-1950s and now carries 3 to 4 per cent of our overseas trade, which in exports totals about $20 billion, about 90 per cent of which is carried in bulk form. It made a small profit of the order of $2m to $3m per year back in the days of the Menzies Government until the late 1960s and then it ran into some small losses. These grew to the order of $9m to $10m losses in the mid-1970s. From then on the writing was on the wall. There was the odd small profit in 1981 and 1982. However, in 1983 it lost $26m and in 1984 it lost $67.75m. The number of employees has usually been between 2,000 and 4,000 in total. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing those figures. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL SHIPPING LINE 1958 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Profit (loss) After tax $,000 2,510 2,681 2,071 1,567 3,000 3,110 3,220 1,029 (1,438) (2,524) (1,892) 2,613 No. of Employees 1,911 1,710 1,807 2,076 2,056 2,083 2,216 2,250 2.269 2,426 2,061 2,271 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Profit (Loss) After tax $,000 1,693 (9,953) (9,440) 3,889 5,692 (4,708) (7,989) 7,078 2,536 (26,193) (67,753) No. of Employees 2,460 2,782 2,906 2,844 3,405 3,426 3,578 3,664 3,941 3,802 3,657 Source: ANL Annual Reports Mr COBB —I thank the House. The ANL has cost Australia dearly in many ways. Firstly, since 1970 ANL has cost the taxpayer, through losses, over $100m in total. Secondly, in 1983 it got a grant of $90m from the taxpayers of this country and tonight we are debating whether it should get another $70m. That will total, from the taxpayer alone, $160m, which amounts incidentally to a subsidy of $44,000 to each worker. On top of that there are far more serious costs. Thirdly, the cost to Australian citizens who use ANL is far higher. For example, it costs the farming community, our biggest export income earners, $750m to ship their exports overseas. It is interesting that Mr R. Boyer, an Industries Assistance Commission commissioner, estimated that if a competitive market existed for our shipping the bill for Australian agricultural exports would be 15 per cent less than that prevailing. In other words, Australian farmers are suffering simply because of ANL's existence to the tune of $112.5m a year every year. That is $665 per farmer per year, or $12.80 per week. Looked at in another way, that means that each ANL seaman is subsidised by farmers, over and above all the other subsidies, in excess of $30,000 a year every year. Let us look at some examples-firstly at the 900,000 tonnes of phosphate that the last ANL annual report showed was shipped from Christmas Island and Nauru to Australia. Because of ANL's monopoly the cost per tonne was $17 higher than if it had been carted at the world market rate. The superphosphate bounty that our friends opposite are always lambasting us about costs only $12 a tonne. We could abolish that and abolish the ANL monopoly at the same time and the farmers in this country would be $5 a tonne better off. It is absolutely crazy. If the Government abolished the monopoly on this route it would save $50m from the superphosphate bounty and still leave the farmers $5 a tonne better off. Let us look at another example. In the last drought, farmers in Victoria looked at moving grain from Western Australia to Victoria. The freight cost was $45 a tonne. They priced it from Canada at $25 a tonne. A fourth area in which ANL rips off Australia is in industrial relations. It has a very sad history, perhaps the saddest of all industries, because the losses have totalled tens of millions of dollars over the years. Even this year's annual report says that 'an improved climate of industrial relations' exists. It shows how desperate the situation must have been before because in that same report it says later that 287 ship-operating days were lost in 1983-84 at a cost of $7.08m-- Mr Nehl —How much? Mr COBB —The cost was $7.08m. That came from roster disputes, demarcation disputes and go slow campaigns. That $7.08m was twice the operating profit of $3.25m. The most marvellous example of a stupid strike was that of the River Boyne, a coal-fired ship of 75,000 tonnes, built in Nagasaki and commissioned in 1982. It was destined to cart bauxite from Weipa to Gladstone, or so we thought. No sooner was it ready to start work than there was a dispute between the Seamen's Union of Australia and the Merchant Service Guild over who should man the anchor and mooring line winch. Previous ships on this run had two winches but this ship, being more modern, had only one. Previously one man from each union had manned a winch. The men refused to accept the arbitration ruling and struck for weeks. I might point out that not one job on the ship was threatened and there was little loss for ANL. However, Comalco and Queensland Alumina Limited lost $4.5m from that. They lost contracts as well and the jobs of all those workers at Weipa were threatened. At one stage the only solution seemed to be to build a plastic replica winch, put it on the ship and let one of those fellows stand beside it. If we had these manning levels on overseas ships it would cost at least $1m per ship extra to fund the extra manning levels. Despite recent reductions, our manning levels are still up to 50 per cent higher than those of other countries. We have overmanned ships on ANL, we have overstaffed terminals and overstaffed offices. In fact, the whole operation is a litany of disaster and waste. Until recently, we had 33 ships with an average age of 9.4 years and some were very fuel hungry by world standards. We are selling some off and rationalising many others. However, that effort will not be enough. Even the last annual report of the Commission said that the implementation of improved work practices had been disappointing. However, the cost problems do not stop there. A fifth area is the unfunded liability to the Commonwealth superannuation fund of $55m alone and the list goes on and on. We all know in our heart of hearts that ANL can never be viable unless it is sold off to private enterprise. Now we are being asked to vote to give it another $70m. It can never work. Let me give two more examples in the hope that I may finally convince the House. I quote an example from the Australian Financial Review of 3 February 1984. The Chairman of the Commission, Mr Bolitho, said when it got its last $90m grant from the taxpayers in 1983: The attitude was 'You beauty, Big Brother has bailed us out'. 'I believe there is an underlying mentality in the Line that we will always be bailed out in the end.' He went further, as I said earlier, in the most classic quote of all and said: Well, I won't be asking next time, I can assure you. Here we are, 18 months down the track and the ANL wants another $70m, please. I also quote from the Commission's last annual report. It says: The Australian coastal trades which, at the end of World War II, handled the bulk of all interstate transport, have continued to decline to the extent that generally the trade available to coastal shipping is only that which cannot reasonably be carried by road or rail. That was in the Commission's last annual report-even it admits it. Let us face it, political interference, waste, mismanagement and massive union problems have created a bottomless pit that hurts the taxpayers and exporters to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year. I urge the Minister for Transport to read the tragic history of ANL and ask himself honestly whether it can be allowed to go on. I suggest that it cannot. The time to draw the Line is now. Let us abolish the monopolies, let us sell the line to private enterprise and let us get the Government out of shipping before ANL brings this once great country of ours further to its knees. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.15 a.m.) —The activities of the Australian National Line are covered by the provisions of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, as amended. The Line was set up to absorb the assets of the old Australian Shipping Board, which was itself an organisation hastily assembled to give Australia some shipping capacity during World War II. Menzies hawked the Australian Shipping Board around the various private shipping interests, but no one wanted to buy it so he was forced to establish the Australian Shipping Commission. The Australian Shipping Commission, trading as the Australian National Line, is one of several Commonwealth statutory authorities which operate in the market-place. Historically such authorities have not acted as purely commercial enterprises. Some statutory authorities have enjoyed certain advantages over comparable private undertakings, for example, government guaranteed borrowings and government patronage. However, statutory authorities have been restricted in their operations by governmental policy directives and government-imposed financial and employment constraints. The Australian National Line suffered grievously during the years of economic horror under the Fraser Government. The Australian National Line was short of capital and bore the brunt of heavy interest charges. Bureaucratic red tape contributed to poor management. Lack of leadership by the Fraser Government and its failure to provide clear guidelines deprived ANL's management and organisation of the impetus to develop a line that was a profit-oriented commercial enterprise. The Line's industrial record was poor and staff morale had sagged. The Line was virtually bankrupt. An incompetent Liberal-National Party Government, difficult market conditions and poor management had all combined to reduce Australia's national sea carrier to mendicant status. Not long after the Australian people threw the Fraser Government out of office the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) introduced into this House a Bill containing a five-point plan designed to place the Australian National Line on a basis that would produce efficiency and competency, a basis that would provide opportunities for growth and security. An amount of $90m in capital was injected into ANL to place it on a proper financial footing. This injection of money consisted of $30m in cash and $60m in the conversion of outstanding treasury bonds. ANL management was streamlined and modernised. Provision was made for greater involvement by and conciliation with the relevant unions. Since that time there has been a dramatic improvement in the Line's industrial relations climate. Most importantly, ANL was given greater control over its day to day operations to allow it to operate more commercially, on a more market-oriented basis and freer from bureaucratic restraints than it had ever been. The Hawke Government laid the framework for ANL and its employees to grasp the chance for success. Together, management and unions accepted the challenge. In 1983-84 ANL recorded a $3m operating profit-a $22m turnaround on the results of the previous year. This was a magnificent accomplishment. Difficult decisions were taken. All operations were examined to ensure that they were efficient and able to pay their way. Clearly, the survival of ANL was in question. If Australia were to continue to have a national flag carrier, hard decisions had to be taken. One casualty was the ANL services from north Queensland. In 1983-84 the north Queensland service lost more than $6m. It had lost more than $40m over the previous seven years under the Fraser Government. All of these losses have been a cost to the Australian taxpayers. ANL ships were sailing north from Brisbane two-thirds empty. They were carrying less than 5 per cent of domestic cargo to and from north Queensland. The north Queensland community resented the decision by ANL to withdraw services from that area. Attempts to rescind the decision met with failure. The fact is that since World War II road transport productivity has risen substantially while that of coastal shipping has remained static or has declined. Rail and road transport benefit from government subsidies. Commercial organisations in north Queensland realise that unless coastal ships and the terminals servicing them increase their productivity relative to road and rail there is little likelihood of coastal shipping regaining a significant share of the transport business to north Queensland. If there is a commercial demand for coastal shipping services to north Queensland I am confident that ANL will compete to secure the north Queensland general cargo trade. Last year the Hawke Government decided that a comprehensive review of the Line's long term viability and, in particular, its capital structure should be undertaken. Representatives from the departments of Transport, Finance and Treasury and the ANL undertook the review. They produced the most comprehensive report ever undertaken on the Line's finances. It was evident from the report that ANL operates in a ferociously competitive environment both internationally and domestically. Also, ANL had very high debt servicing charges. Again this was a legacy of the Fraser Government's policies. Had not the initial capital injection been made, it would have resulted not only in ANL facing severe liquidity problems, but also by the end of the financial year ended June 1983, it would have had an equity to operating ratio of 1:155. In response to the report, the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, decided to take firm and decisive action. An amount of $70.541m will be provided by the Hawke Government to the Australian Shipping Commission. This money will be used to convert existing domestic Treasury loans of $50.541m to capital. It also enables the Australian Shipping Commission to repay an overseas loan of $20m that falls due in June 1985. ANL will, therefore, be better placed to take advantage of such opportunities for expansion as may occur. Shipboard and shore based productivity must continue to be taken. ANL must be in a position where it has the flexibility, the drive and the incentive to pursue a first class commercial performance. It must continue to explore opportunities for viable expansion. It must develop and exploit new technology. It must continue to obtain support and co-operation from the unions if it is to survive in one of the most fiercely competitive industries. The Hawke Government has made clear to ANL that it has done all that can be asked of it to put the Line back on its financial feet. ANL's future is now up to its management, its employees and the unions. Together they must work to improve the Line's performance and to generate profits to pay for investment in new ships and to pay dividends. I note in a news release issued by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), on 7 May 1985, that the Opposition parties accept the need for the $70m capital injection into ANL to make it a more commercially acceptable organisation. I welcome that statement. The National Line not only has a part to play as a commercially viable shipping line that will benefit all ANL customers and the Australian economy; it also has a part to play in the defence and support of the country. Just as Australia needs physical defence by its Army, Navy and Air Force from physical attack, so Australia needs instrumentalities such as the National Line to protect it from economic attack. The Hawke Government is committed to a more competitive and efficient Australian National Line capable of growth and greater job opportunities. This is the pledge of the Hawke Government. The measures contained in this Bill are further written evidence of the Hawke Government's covenant with the Australian people to provide national reconciliation, national recovery and national reconstruction. Dr WATSON(Forde)(12.24 a.m.) —I will speak very briefly to the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill simply because of some quite erroneous statements made earlier by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who spoke previously. The purpose of the Bill, supposedly, is to provide additional capital of $70.541m which is to be used to convert existing domestic Treasury loans to capital of $50.541m and enable the Australian Shipping Commission to repay an overseas loan of $20m which falls due in June. I simply point out, as some of my colleagues have, that this is what people would call a book entry. I realise that honourable members on the opposite side of the House, who are not used to free enterprise economies, will not know how to read a balance sheet. There are two sides to a balance sheet-an assets side and an equity side. The equity side is broken down into two parts-equity contributed by owners, normally referred to as owner's equity, but in this case referred to as capital, and equity which is contributed by lenders, usually referred to as current and long term liabilities. This Bill simply moves an amount of $70.541m from that part of the balance sheet called current liabilities to another part of the balance sheet called owner's equity. Whether the method of doing this involves some cash transfer to the Australian National Line and the paying off of loans is irrelevant. The fact is that this Bill provides for absolutely no extra contribution to the ASC. It is a similar situation to that of an individual going to a bank and saying: 'I have two $5,000 loans and because I would like to make only one payment I wish to convert them into a $10,000 loan'. It does not really matter whether the bank gives him the $10,000 to pay off the two $5,000 loans or simply does a book entry to convert the $5,000 loan into a $10,000 loan; he is no better off. He has no more cash with which to buy anything, no more cash with which to live. In a similar fashion, the ASC will have absolutely no more cash to conduct its affairs. Mr Hand —It looks better, though. Dr WATSON —The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has already indicated that there are particular reasons for-- Mr Beale —The Government is doing it for cosmetic reasons, isn't it? The honourable member for Melbourne said it looks better. Dr WATSON —That is right. The Government has admitted it; it is being done for cosmetic reasons. I agree with the honourable member for Deakin. That is exactly why the Government is doing it. In any case, the important thing about this transfer is that the value of the ANL depends upon its assets, and those assets will not change at all. The ANL has $403m in assets at present and it will have $403m in assets after the transfer. This will not make this shipping line any more competitive, it will not make the assets any better and it will not make the line in any way more profitable. It will only make it look more profitable simply because in the expenses part of the profit and loss statement an interest on debt will be taken off revenue, indicating an operating profit. If we rearranged the profit and loss statement in another way we could make sure that the transfer did not have any impact whatsoever. Mr Hollis —Do you really understand what you are saying? No one else does. Dr WATSON —I understand a hell of a lot better than does the honourable member. I return to the assertion by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) that this Bill is meant to provide the Commission with capital structure appropriate to a commercial enterprise. There is no doubt that more capital is needed in this enterprise. Certainly, a private enterprise could not exist with a negative owner's equity of something like $3,500m as does this enterprise. Certainly, a private enterprise could not go to a capital market and raise funds with a negative owner's equity of $3,500m. The trouble is that the mere book entry, the mere transfer of a current liability of $70m into capital, does not convert this enterprise into a commercial enterprise. This Minister does not tell us why the ANL is to become a competitive enterprise. He has not provided us with any way of evaluating this enterprise. We do not know what is an appropriate return on investment; we do not know whether it exists prime facie only because of the monopoly and cartel situation, to which the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) has already referred; we do not know whether the management is efficient and we do not know whether the unions are obtaining more. There is only one way to find out whether these things are profitable and that is to allow Australians to invest directly in the enterprise, not through the Government and not through a Minister who does not know anything about running a private enterprise organisation. The way to do it is to allow equity directly by Australians in their own shipping line. Then if it survives international competition we can say it really is an efficient organisation. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(12.30 a.m.) —in reply-It has been a remarkable, confused, ill-informed and ignorant debate from the Opposition on the Australian Shipping Commission (Additional Capital) Bill. I do not think I can recall contributions to a debate in recent years that were based more on prejudice and ideology and less upon fact and understanding than the contributions I have heard tonight from the new team from the Opposition. I say to members of the new team that they should go back to the fellows who sold them those lines earlier, listen to wiser heads and first come to understand their subject before they open their mouths. I really felt a revulsion tonight about being lectured by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). Here we had a millionaire 10 times over lecturing to Australian maritime and transport workers about privilege. I say to the honourable member for Deakin that he should exercise his moral concern by persuading his colleagues to remove that pocket of privileged people who are being protected from the bottom of the harbour tax legislation, that group of tax thieves that honourable members opposite created, succoured and now protect. I ask honourable members opposite not to come into this chamber and deliver a moralising contribution on the basis of pockets of privilege, the honourable member for Deakin least of all. Any transport worker in this country, any decent Australian, would have to feel revulsed tonight on listening to what the honourable member had to say. Let me say in respect of the legislation that this Government has no intention of accepting responsibility for what previous conservative governments did to the Australian National Line. ANL is a creature, a creation, of the Menzies Government. It was doing very well until the National Party of Australia got its hands on it. Mr Hollis —Who was the Minister? Mr PETER MORRIS —George Sinclair. When the Minister for Shipping and Transport of the day took over in 1969 he told the Chairman of ANL that it was a political instrument and would carry out the orders of his departmental officers. So away it went. To that date it had been a successful public enterprise which had earned net profits in every year of its operation. In its first year under the control of Minister Sinclair it went into the red and then it went further and further into the red. In 1975-76 we saw the rigging of the ANL books by the Fraser Government. A great exercise was carried out to reduce the deficit. What did it do? It re-financed its P class vessels off-shore, used the money to cover an exchange loss, capitalised it and then forced ANL to charter the same ships back-ships it already owned. This is the kind of stunt which the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson), the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), the honourable member for Deakin and the economic rationalist from Mayo, Mr Downer, talked about tonight. This is what that Government did: It sold something it owned. It put the money from the sale into the Treasury, which reduced the deficit because the revenue was up. It then chartered the same ships from the people from whom it got the money on long term charters in hard currency. There is no wisdom about this and no financial expertise about this. That enterprise was then locked into a situation in which the best performance it could give in regard to those three vessels was a loss of $6m. Honourable members opposite are the managers, the financial hot shots. I ask honourable members on the Government side to look at them. They are the original book riggers. Nothing is new for the conservatives. The shipping service to north Queensland lost almost half the capital injection we were required to put into ANL in 1983. In real terms that was about $42m. Earlier this evening we heard the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) asking why the service to Darwin had been stopped. He wants it to continue. We heard from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). He wants the service to north Queensland to continue. I cannot be the umpire for all the differing views of the Opposition, but I would ask members of the Opposition, for heaven's sake, to get their act together. I have no sympathy for the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). He is a little wiser and, with a better perspective, he reacted in the right way when the Government's decision was made. He welcomed the capital injection. He knew it was the right thing to do. He knew that previous conservative governments had made a shambles of ANL. He knew that something had to be done to put it on a sound financial basis. A government enterprise cannot be run like a private sector enterprise is run, with $2 companies. It is all right for the private sector, as $2 companies are a good stunt; $5m liabilities can be run up and then do the zip. I tell the honourable member for Deakin that that cannot be done with public sector enterprise. Government enterprises have to account for their moneys. Mr Everingham —Tell that to Clyde Holding. Mr PETER MORRIS —Oh, the little man from the Northern Territory. This is the man who wants the ships to sail, the trains to run and the aeroplanes to fly but he does not want any roads; he does not like roads. When we came to government the ANL was virtually bankrupt. If there had not been a cash injection of $30m in May 1983 ANL would not have been paying wages in May. That was the state that the former Government left that organisation in. That was all its own handiwork, its own creation. For heaven's sake do not bring your troubles to me. I had the job of cleaning out the stables. The Opposition is now saying: 'After Labor has cleaned out the stables and put the house in order, we can sell it. We could not sell it when we were running it. Because we bankrupted it no one would touch it.' The Opposition is now saying that, as we have resurrected it and put it on a proper basis where it is trading in the black and running ahead of budget, now is a good time to sell it. This country, in terms of tonnage and distance carried, ranges between being the third, fourth and fifth largest shipping market in the world. I ask honourable members to look at what 30 years of conservative government has done to that industry. What opportunities would have been there if we had developed an efficient Australian shipping industry in those 30 years of conservative government since World War II? We do not have to go far to look for opportunities. Because of the Opposition's ideology it milked the sectional interests of the enterprise which it started in 1956. When it could not milk ANL any more it rigged the books. Now, because ANL has been ressurected and re-organised the Opposition is complaining as it would rather see it go bankrupt again. Mr Everingham —What about the seamen's union? Mr PETER MORRIS —I will fix my friend up in a moment. I am coming to him. He has got more coming. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is the only man in this country to have confiscated private sector assets. He nationalised casinos. Nobody else could do that. Here he is, this is the fellow. I will come back to him later. Here is the other conflict: The honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Parkes are good examples that a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. The honourable member for Mayo and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) are both hectoring me because the Australian National Railways Commission is having to run like a business. They are saying to me that the Australian National Railways system should continue to run all its services regardless of the fact that it is losing money and that it could never pay its way. They say it should carry on. They are the same economic rationalists that honourable members heard tonight talking about the ANL. There is a little bit of schizoid behaviour but that is the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia of old; they have not changed their spots. They still have to work it out. I rebut the assertion of the honourable member for Deakin that ANL is getting more capital to protect the militant maritime minority. That is the most ludicrous contribution I have ever heard from anybody. I would have thought that, for a man who is said to be successful, he would have had a better analysis of the situation and the balance sheet than that. I will come to that later. This is important. We have an industry in desperate need of restructuring. It needs to be put on a sound businesslike basis and the Opposition cannot cop that. We have this puerile comment from the Opposition about old pockets of privilege. That may be how the honourable member sees public enterprise operating, but that is not what is involved here. The honourable member for Parkes made an equally ludicrous observation that ANL has the monopoly on the coast. That is a sheer falsity. There is no monopoly on the coast. Several companies operate there. If the honourable member has a ship and wants to get into the trade he can hop in: ANL has no monopoly. I want to tell the honourable member for Parkes what the Chairman of ANL said, which I thought the National Party might have mentioned tonight. It is very pertinent. The Chairman of ANL, when comparing the protection given to the primary sector with the so-called protection available to ANL, stated: Each of you is protected against competition and the dumping of goods and produce on your domestic Australian markets. Many of you are also helped in international markets. The examples of price distortion in agricultural trade are almost endless. However, ANL is not protected against the dumping of ships and cheap labour in trades to and from Australia. If the theory of comparative advantage applied against ANL were applied to industry and agriculture generally many of you would not be in business. This sums it all up, particularly for the honourable member for Parkes: He would today be spreading Polish jam with Japanese knives on bread baked from Canadian flour spread with Danish butter. After this following your imported meal (say New Zealand lamb) you would sweeten your Brazilian coffee with some dumped EEC sugar while wearing Taiwanese shirts and your Singapore skirts in the comfort of chairs made in Hong Kong. I thought honourable members might like to hear those comments from the Chairman. That puts the matter in its proper perspective. No protection is available to ANL that is not available to any other Australian flag operator on the coast. The other matter referred to tonight is phosphate. Again that is the creation of the Opposition. The contracts into which ANL is locked on the ships it has chartered, and the rates that are involved, are the contracts which were arranged under the Fraser Government. The Opposition did that. It had a National Party Minister for Transport. He was responsible for that, not me. The charter rates are such that ANL cannot get out of those contracts. There is no way that it can be released from the contracts. The rates set were deemed appropriate by the Government of the day. What has happened since? Phosphate prices collapsed and freight rates collapsed. What did the then Government do? It put a subsidy on imported phosphate. When one puts a subsidy on phosphate, what does one do? One pays a subsidy to foreign seamen. Tonight what has been said is: 'You should not support Australian seamen. There is no place for them in the conservative picture'. However, the Opposition is 100 per cent behind the subsidy being paid to foreign seamen. That is the problem and again it is of the Opposition's own making. The honourable member for Parkes referred to political interference, waste and mismanagement. This problem is all the creation of his colleagues who preceded us in government. The Opposition should not bring it to our door; we are cleaning out the stables. This organisation needs a capital injection; it needs to get back on a more efficient and competitive basis and it is doing that. The honourable member for Deakin and, I think, the honourable member for Mayo referred to the balance sheet. These are the financial hot-shots. Earlier they gave us a lecture about reading a balance sheet. The honourable member for Parkes was in it too. I say to them: 'I am sorry, honourable gentlemen. You had better come to my school, which is not in the private sector, and I will teach you to read a balance sheet'. It was claimed that there was $43m in cash as at 30 June 1984. That overlooked the fact that there was a $9m overdraft at the end of 1984. If the overdraft were taken into account, it would reduce the cash to $34m. The honourable members also overlooked the fact that the $34m would meet only half of the loan liabilities falling due for ANL during 1984-85. If those are the kinds of hot-shot figures which honourable members opposite come up with, no wonder they are protecting the bottom of the harbour thieves and rogues. The capital is essential to the restructuring of the Commission and its operations and the improvement of its efficiency and competitiveness in the Australian shipping market. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. 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.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Hodges, J. C.Jenkins, H. A. Fife, W. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill concurrently. Is there any objection to that course? There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.53 a.m.) —The Opposition opposes this legislation. We oppose it because we believe Ayers Rock, Uluru and the Olgas are national monuments and belong to all Australians. We believe that Ayers Rock is a part of Australia's heritage. It is part of our nationhood and it is a symbol to all Australians. We recognise and believe that the rock is part of the mythology of certain Central Australian Aboriginal tribes. We recognise the importance of some of 27 sacred sites of significance at Ayers Rock. That is not in issue. They are inviolate; they are not in issue. I quote from an article written in the Inland Review in 1969 by Mr Strehlow, who became Professor Strehlow. Speaking of Ayers Rock, he said: Because of its mythological significance, Ayers Rock (Uluru) was therefore one of the totemic localities in the Jankuntjatjara area; but the Jankuntjatjara possessed several other totemic centres besides Uluru the site with the longest ceremonial cycle-as far as is known-being the native-cat centre of Wapirka, located some miles from Victory Downs Station. Strehlow went on to say: It cannot be stressed too much or repeated too often that the religious importance of a major totemic site in Central Australia was not determined by any spectacular aspects of the landscape-- that is important- but purely by the sacred myths, songs and acts that had been attached to it by an age-old tradition. I have quoted Professor Strehlow to point out that, as a matter of landscape, a monument and a monolith like Ayers Rock is more important to non-Aboriginal people, as the mythology is important to Aboriginal people. The rock is part of the emotions of most Australians. It is part of our psyche, because Australians feel deeply about it and love it. Mr Hand —Rubbish! Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member says 'rubbish'. It is true. I believe that the honourable member's Government has misread Australia on this point. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is in the bunker on land rights. He is in deep trouble. He has been guilty of unreasonably raising the expectations of the Aboriginal community in Australia. The Minister is in deep trouble. His preferred option was preferred by nobody but the Minister himself. It has not been to the Caucus; it has not been to the Caucus sub-committee. It has been approved by no one in the Australian Labor Party. Because the Minister is in this bunker, because he is under attack from the Aboriginal community whose expectations he has raised and on which he could not deliver, what does he do? He says: 'I will give away Ayers Rock as a second prize,' and makes much ado about that. According to this morning's Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial, yesterday at the sit-in demonstration at his Department, he said: 'If you won't leave for me, leave for the Aboriginal people of Uluru because I made a promise that I would do my best to get this legislation through the Parliament. . . That is the second prize the Minister is offering the Aboriginal people. He stands guilty of raising the expectations of Aboriginal people and then just dumping them in the drain. Let us look at what is happening in relation to the handover ceremony that the Minister is organising at Ayers Rock. Apparently there will be a celebration and a ceremony for the handover. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is organising it. Apparently there will be a grant of $10,000. An Australian Associated Press report stated: Mr Toyne said the Pitjantjatjara had estimated the cost of the ceremony at $250,000. Mr Cobb —How much? Mr SHIPTON —It will be $250,000. Mr Holding —Who gave you that? Mr SHIPTON —Those figures are in an AAP Press release. I say to the Minister that he risks causing division, tension and misunderstanding in Australian society through actions such as these. He took no notice of the suggestion of a prominent Aboriginal, Mr Ray Robinson, to give Ayers Rock back to the whole Australian community. He just dismissed that suggestion. Having failed to deliver his promises he puts this handover in place. What has this action, in combination with his land rights policy, done to Australian society? It has caused tension. It has caused resentment. It has caused division. I say to the Minister: 'Cool it down, Clyde'. Mr Hollis —That is not true. You are a hypocrite. Mr SHIPTON —I say to the honourable member that all on the Government benches must share the guilt. Tensions and passions have been inflamed in Canberra this week because of the failure of government policy and the Minister. That is why members of the Aboriginal community are in Canberra this week. It has happened because of the failure of the Minister who is sitting at the table. We are living in very fragile times. Honourable members opposite may well laugh, but they are delicate times. The fabric of Australian society is important to this side of the House. I would have hoped that it was important to this side of the House. I would have hoped that it was important to the Government as well. Order in Australian society and harmonious relations between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals are important to us in the Opposition. Because the Government has unreasonably raised the expectations of the Aboriginal community and has not delivered it has created the greatest schism that I can remember. The Government should remember that the fabric is fragile. Australians are worried about the gate fee of approximately $100,000 that is being paid to the community at Ayers Rock. I express concern about a simple thing, namely the community at the rock not allowing a life saving alarm system to be installed at the top of the rock. I appeal to the Minister to use his influence with the community so that a life saving alarm system can be installed at the top of the rock. Also, a ban has been placed on photography. I ask the Minister to withdraw that ban. The Minister has given the rock to the wrong community, the wrong traditional owners. He has made a fool of himself. He has handed the rock to those who may have no claim to it. There are real doubts as to who are the traditional owners. I say to the Minister: Clear up these doubts by having a proper anthropological study carried out. The Government did not even give serious consideration to the suggestions on this subject of prominent Aboriginal leader, Mr Bob Liddle. The Minister has given the rock to the Mutitjulu community, and that really is a joke when one looks at what one of the Minister's departmental officers said before Senate Estimates Committee D on 23 April. That officer said that the Mutitjulu community as a body corporate which represents the people of Uluru on non-traditional Aboriginal business in the area. That is what the Minister's own Department says about the group to which he has given the rock. The Government has introduced a Bill the purpose of which is to give away a national monument to a group of people who may not be able to claim traditional ownership of it. The legislation provides that the Land Council is to enter an agreement with the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service on the terms and conditions of the lease. There is no agreement annexed or attached to the Bill. There is no draft lease. I believe it is insulting to the Parliament and to the people of Australia that the terms and conditions of the hand-over of this symbol to all Australians-the national monument, Ayers Rock-and the lease itself are not annexed to the Bill before the House. I want the Minister to tell us why this has not been done. I want him to produce for us this evening a copy of the agreement and the lease. The Opposition believes that the ownership of Uluru should be vested in the Northern Territory. We believe that there should be effective Aboriginal involvement in the management of the park. We believe that an adequate and appropriate area of freehold land should be available to be used as a living area for the Aboriginal community. The rock is a monolith. Government members interjecting- Mr SHIPTON —Honourable members opposite should listen; they might learn something. The rock is a monolith. That means that it is a rock that comes out of the ground. There are 27 sacred sites that I have said are not in issue. There is no question that they are inviolate, and that is not in issue. So, the sacred sites are protected. The rock is there. There is the surrounding parkland. We say that an appropriate freehold, and freehold for the Aboriginal communities living near the base of the rock-they currently live away from the base of the rock-can be given to those communities. They will own that land. Again, that is not in issue. Government members should not say that it is, because it is not. Because we believe these things, we shall move an amendment in principle at the second reading stage. This debate is a cognate debate, and my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) will be introducing an amendment to the second reading motion which needs to be read with the amendment to the second reading motion that I am introducing in relation to the land rights Bill to show what our intentions are. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that (1) ownership of the Uluru National Park is vested in the Northern Territory, subject to an adequate and appropriate area of freehold land being available for living areas for the Aboriginal community, and (2) the Agreement to be entered into between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Land Council shall not come into effect until approved by the Parliament'. As I have said, the last section of that amendment is to give the Minister the opportunity to produce the lease, the agreement and the terms and conditions upon which he is giving away this national monument, Ayers Rock, to one group of Australians. It is a case of the classic compromise-I believe that it is a case for classic compromise-so that the views of the vast majority of Australians can be met. The needs of the Aboriginal communities at or near the rock and the tribes with claims to the rock can be met by the solution that we have proposed. The sites are protected. The rock belongs to all Australians. The Aboriginal community has an effective role in the management of the park, and portions of the park are to be vested in freehold title to Aborigines. The clash of the cultures can be managed in this sensible, proper and appropriate way. That is the way in which the heat can be taken out of the debate and the argument. This legislation fails the interests of those who the Government claims it is to benefit. It will create further tensions and divisions in Australian society. It is against the long term interests of all Aboriginal people in Australia, and I believe that it fails the interests of all Australians. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Connolly —I second the amendment. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.09 a.m.) —Unfortunately, despite the contribution to this debate by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), no one in tonight's proceedings has indicated what on earth the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill are about. The purpose of the Bills is to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, to enable implementation of the Government's decision to grant land at Uluru National Park to an Aboriginal land trust and the implementation of the agreement with the Aboriginal traditional owners to lease the area back to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to be managed as a national park. I think it is appropriate, before discussing the substance of the transfer and the lease back, that something is said of the history of the relationship between Aboriginal people and Uluru National Park. Opposition members interjecting- Mr TICKNER —I notice that there are already a number of interjections from members of the National Party of Australia, which is disproportionately represented in this chamber tonight. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. The fact is that there is evidence of an Aboriginal presence in the area as far back as 10,000 years ago. The Petermann Aboriginal Reserve was established in 1920 for the protection of Aboriginals inhabiting the area and those living in the general vicinity of Ayers Rock. In 1958 the area now forming the Uluru National Park was excised from the Petermann Reserve. That area was excised, taken from Aboriginal people, without compensation and contrary to the philosophy, I would have thought, of the Australian Labor Party and the expressed philosophy of the Liberal and National parties, and certainly the clear terms of the Constitution which, I believe, ought to have been applied to that excision in 1958. The question of the Aboriginal relationship with Uluru is clearly established, not by anything that I may say, but by a very substantial inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Toohey which reported in very clear terms that so many witnesses-not merely those belonging to the Ayers Rock estate-spoke about the great significance of Uluru. The attachment of all Aboriginal witnesses to both places was, according to Mr Justice Toohey, obvious. It falls to me to say something tonight about what ought to be a bipartisan approach to such an innocuous piece of legislation as that which is before the House tonight. There was a time when legislation of this nature would not have been challenged in the Parliament by any member of the Liberal Party or the National Party. In fact, the legislation which is being amended tonight was introduced in this Parliament, not by the current Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), not by any member of the Australian Labor Party, but by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Viner, a member of the Fraser Government, in 1976. It is Fraser Government legislation that we are amending tonight. Mr Viner, when he spoke in the Parliament on 17 November 1976, stated: . . . I believe that the passage of legislation to grant land rights to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory will be a most significant and progressive step in the social and political history of this country. That is what Ian Viner said about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act in 1976. Mr Kevin Cairns, a Liberal member from Queensland, said: 'A spirit of simple justice animates the Government's purpose in introducing the legislation'. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) also spoke in 1976 in glowing terms in support of the Northern Territory land rights Act. How things have changed because Mr Calder, a former National Party member for the Northern Territory, said that he supported the introduction of land rights for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. What a tragedy it is to find that Mr Calder's high-minded principle has long disappeared from the other side of the House and has been replaced with the Tammany Hall attitudes of the present honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). Senator Peter Baume, a Liberal senator for New South Wales, in a most emotional and glowing speech, stated: I believe that in most parliaments there are very few moments which are as important as this one. He went on to refer to the Bible. We hear a great deal about Christian principles in the Parliament from many members of the Liberal and National parties. But how do their Christian principles stand with them tonight? I suggest that they have no backing. Back in 1976, Senator Peter Baume quoted from the Bible. He referred to the Book of Joel and said: I will restore to you the years that the locust has eaten. Those are the words of Senator Baume; they are not my words. He went on: Those words are not altogether inappropriate for what we are trying to do in Australia now. Of course, he was not the only one to speak out. Senator Chaney is also a prominent member of the Liberal Party in another place. Mr Hand —He is on the outer over there, though. He is on the outer with that lot. Mr TICKNER —Indeed, as are a number of Opposition members to whom I will refer. Senator Chaney said in his contribution-I quote him precisely: This is probably the most significant item I have seen the Senate deal with. Those are not my words; they are the words of Senator Chaney. I ask honourable members to listen to what Senator Chaney went on to say because he said something very important that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs would do well to listen to in the context of the current debate. He said: . . . it is an unfortunate by-product of Party politics in Australia that the debate tends to obscure the fact that in measures such as this there is a large degree of bipartisan support which reflects the bipartisan support that exists in the community itself for certain sorts of social progress. That bipartisan satisfaction is not something of which we should be ashamed. I call on the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister to reconsider sincerely the opportunistic stand that they are taking. The high-minded principle that they are espousing is in fact nothing more than a cover for racist principles. It is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to inflame division and racial hatred in this country. In politics there are many occasions when we on this side of the chamber can take heart from what people on the other side say because there can be bipartisan support. I refer specifically to the issue of Uluru and what Senator Chaney had to say. In 1979 he met with representatives of the Central Land Council and the traditional owners. They issued a joint statement following that meeting. Things have not changed since 1979 in our view, but they have certainly changed in the view of the Liberal and National parties. That joint statement, referring to the people from Uluru, said: They have stressed that there was no desire to stop tourism. It was accepted by them that Ayers Rock in particular was seen as being important to all Australians. That is what Senator Chaney said. That is what a member of the coalition party said. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) continually interjects. He should wait until I get to him. The joint statement went on: Senator Chaney said he would be keeping in close touch with the Central Land Council and bringing the matter before the Government. Senator Chaney brought this matter before the Australian Government. It is not a Labor Party proposal. The proposal was brought to the Australian Government originally by the Liberal and National parties. But now they are seeking to disown it. We have had calls during this debate to name those in this parliament who have turned, who have betrayed their statements that are less than three years old. In June of 1982 the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) said in a Press release: . . . that the Government would introduce legislation which would give effect to a package of proposals which had been the subject of negotiation between the Northern Territory Government, the Commonwealth Government and the Aboriginal Land Councils . . . He said in this Press release that, among other things, the proposals would provide for the recognition of prior ownership by Aboriginals of the Uluru National Park by way of 'a grant of title' to Aboriginal trustees and that that area would be declared and managed as a national park. The sentence ended with the words 'for the benefit of all Australians'. In politics we have what is known as a king hit-and here it comes. One of the most vocal opponents of this proposal who sought to use every trick to exploit divisions and inflame passions is the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). What has he said on this issue? We have a glossy document headed 'A Question of Balance'. It is an address by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory as he then was, to the National Press Club. The address was given on 28 July 1982. I will read from this document and I stress that it is not my statement. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said on page 7 of that address: The Territory Government will give title to Uluru National Park, including Ayers Rock and Mt Olga and make an arrangement whereby it will continue as a national park, administered jointly by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and traditional Aboriginal owners. I could not possibly say any more to establish the moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the Opposition on this Bill. Let us have a bit of honesty and integrity in this Parliament and, most of all, let us get back to the bipartisan position on Aboriginal affairs which was spoken of in such glowing terms by Senator Chaney in 1976. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(1.27 a.m.) — The legislation before the House tonight consists of two Bills, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill. This is very significant legislation and demonstrates the stark contrast between the centralist policies of the Labour Government and the Opposition, which believes that the States and the Northern Territory should be encouraged to administer and to accept responsibility for national parks. We have just heard an extraordinary statement from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who has hardly been in this Parliament for more then a few months. He now stands up in this place and seeks to lecture us on public and private morality. For seven years under the coalition Government we had in this place a bipartisan policy on Aboriginal affairs. That bipartisanship was achieved because successive Ministers-they were all noted by the honourable member-went to their opponents on the other side and negotiated step by step down a road we all knew was fraught with difficulty unless we could achieve a degree of bipartisan support across this nation for the concept of Aboriginal land rights. We achieved that, and at least the honourable member for Hughes was fair in pointing out that the legislation that passed through Parliament, and unanimously so as I recall, was drafted by the then Fraser Government. I put it to the House at this very early hour of the morning that we are wasting our time and are showing no respect for the Aboriginal community of Australia in debating their affairs at this time of the morning. We do not control the time and the activities of this Parliament. We have no choice but to go along with the Government of the day and its legislative program. But it is an appalling affront to the people of Australia, Aboriginal and every other nationality in this nation, that we should be here at this hour arguing about such an issue, when it should have been done in the middle of the day when there was plenty of time and opportunity to do so. The important thing is that since there has been a change of government it is clear that the bipartisanship which the honourable member for Hughes told us we should have no longer exists. I remind the honourable member that bipartisanship requires two sides. He has just demonstrated his bipartisanship by leaving the chamber. So much for him. I remind the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) who is at the table that in two and a half years of the Hawke Government controlling the welfare of this nation he has had the responsibility for the welfare of the Aboriginal community. If there is one person who carries the responsibility for failing time after time even to attempt to get one skerrick of a bipartisan approach on this key issue, it is the Minister. Mr Holding —Oh! My heart is breaking. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister can fool around and put on stupid faces because that is not difficult. But one thing is clear: The other members on this side of the House who had the responsibility of developing policy on this issue have said in this chamber on many occasions that they are willing and able to meet the Minister halfway, that they want to have a bipartisan approach, but the Minister has never had the courage to cross this floor and to open up a dialogue on what must be a bipartisan issue. Mr Holding —That is not true. Mr CONNOLLY —If it is not true, the Minister will have the opportunity in the final summing up on this debate to tell the House of his record. I am just telling the Minister what his record is from our point of view. Let that be quite clear. It is only a question of time before the Northern Territory achieves statehood. This legislation creates an opportunity which the Hawke Government will not take to proceed with the devolution of responsibilities from the Commonwealth to the Northern Territory Government. The Opposition's approach to this legislation demonstrates that we believe the Federal Government has a primary responsibility to govern for all Australians. We have a duty to respect the symbols of our nationhood and clearly, as was said by the leader for the Opposition in this debate, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), Ayers Rock is certainly one. The Opposition believes that the Government, by handing over this national monument to one section of our community, has in fact reduced the rights of others. It should be noted that earlier Aboriginal claims to Uluru National Park and to Lake Amadeus and Luritja were rejected by Mr Justice Toohey. But while the rejection was of a technical nature-I emphasise that point-nevertheless it was determined that the Uluru National Park was not unalienated crown land and thus not available to be claimed under section 50 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Nevertheless, we appreciate that for many centuries the area encompassing the Uluru National Park has been the home of desert Aboriginal linguistic groups such as the Pitjantjatjara and the Yankin Ytjatjara. The Opposition appreciates that the Aboriginals have a spiritual relationship with the land based on a complex amalgam of spiritual, economic and physical bonds. It is of great importance to the Opposition that opportunities be created for Aboriginals to live in their country or to visit it, to carry out ancestral rituals and to be involved in park management which will not only preserve Aboriginal culture but also encourage a greater recognition of the value of the area as a national park for all people. The Fraser Government accepted the significance of Ayers Rock and the Uluru area to the Aboriginal community which resides there. It was for that reason that on 24 May 1977, Uluru National Park was proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. This provided a means of safeguarding access to the wider Australian community while at the same time ensuring that the sacred sites and the significance of the area as a whole would continue to be protected. It is worth noting the characteristics of national parks. They preserve a representative proportion of a landscape for future generations; they provide an opportunity for people to appreciate the beauty and grandeur of landscapes and of native flora and fauna in their natural environment; they serve as storehouses of biological evolution both at the species and community levels and they preserve examples of the history, art, culture and archeology of the human race as part of the national heritage. There is no typical national park. Every geographical area is set in a different environmental and cultural context. But Uluru National Park is unique. Ayers Rock is one of the largest monoliths in the world and probably represents the greatest contrast to its surroundings. Some 30 kilometres to the west of Ayers Rock are the Olgas, meaning many heads. The Olgas are a group of 36 rock domes, of which the largest is Mount Olga rising 540 metres above the ground, making it taller than Ayers Rock. Uluru is also the focus of Aboriginal creation beliefs and dreamtime stories incorporating Aboriginal lore and inherited knowledge. The park brings together the age old traditions of the Aboriginal people and the modern perceptions of a young Australia-an Australia with people of many races and creeds. While Ayers Rock brings a perception of timelessness and continuity together with stability and pride in our nation, surely Ayers Rock is truly our country's symbol of solidity and strength and, as such, it must belong and be seen to belong to all Australians. For this reason, the Opposition opposes this legislation because it gives title to the Uluru National Park to the Aboriginal community and thus negates the belief held by many millions of Australians that the rock belongs to the nation, to us all. The Bill proposes that the Commonwealth will lease back the park from the Aboriginal community. The park would be managed by a board on which the Aboriginal community would have a majority membership. But it is a matter of regret that, because of the Government's failure to provide information, we are debating this Bill in a vacuum. The Government has not told us the terms of the transfer of ownership. It has not given us details about any changes in the management plan which the Aboriginal community may wish to have included. We have in fact been presented with little more than a blank cheque as to the terms of the agreement. Yet we know that the lease back will cost the Australian taxpayer $75,000 a year plus 20 per sent of the park's takings, which would currently be about $20,000. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) commented a few moments ago, the deal has not yet been worked out. I find it extraordinary that he should admit to such a situation and yet bring legislation into this House and expect this Parliament to negotiate these issues because he has not been able to do so up until now. Mr Cohen —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Shadow Minister has just misquoted me. I did not say that at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Mr CONNOLLY —Those members of the Government such as the honourable member for Hughes who gain some pleasure from trying to brand the Opposition as being anti-Aboriginal land rights would do well to check their hyperbole against reality. It was a coalition government which introduced land rights legislation. It was the Hawke Labor Government and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, that destroyed the National Aboriginal Congress. Uluru National Park embraces an area of 1,325 square kilometres. All the neighbouring land, except for the Yulara township and some road reserve, is Aboriginal land. The area west and south of the park was formerly the Petermann Aboriginal reserve and this area and the area north and east of the park were granted to the Katiti Trust on 30 September, 1980. Let nobody suggest that the Aboriginal community of central Australia in the general area of this park does not have a substantial degree of control over the environment and the land on which it belongs. In accordance with the land rights legislation developed by the previous coalition Government, the coalition parties, unlike the present Government, have met their commitments to the Aboriginal people. The issue in this case is whether the Hawke Labor Government is prepared to meet its commitments, both to the Aboriginal community and to members of the wider Australian community, all of whom have a right to regard Ayers Rock as part of their national heritage. In addition to Ayers Rock and the Olgas, the park provides a wealth of flora and fauna. There are 350 known species of plants, 150 types of birds and numerous reptiles and invertebrates. As proof of the park's scientific significance, in 1977 the Bureau of the International Co-ordinating Council of the Program on Man and the Biosphere recognised it as part of an international network of biosphere reserves protecting samples of the world's major ecosystem types. Is it any wonder that the park's unique geological and ecological features have proven such a popular drawcard for tourism? When the park was proclaimed in 1958, 2,300 people came to see Ayers Rock. By 1978 this number had increased to 65,000, and in 1988 it is expected that the number will reach 250,000. Because of the park's unique geology, ecology and cultural significance, Uluru will always remain a major attraction for both foreign and Australian tourists in the Northern Territory. If this legislation is passed by the Parliament it will empower the Government, through the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, to grant title over Uluru to the local Aboriginal community, despite the fact that there are many people, including Aborigines, who contest that the community contains insufficient traditional Aboriginal owners in accordance with the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. I noted earlier that this legislation provides for the establishment of a management board on which the local Aboriginal community will have a majority membership. It is interesting to note that under most circumstances a majority gives a board the ultimate power to make decisions. In this particular situation, it is quite clear that the Government does not trust the local Aboriginal community because it has written into the Bill the clear understanding that ultimate authority rests with the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, regardless of the majority decision on this board; and that disagreements between the Director and the board will ultimately be decided by the Commonwealth Minister. What an extraordinary sleight of hand by this Government, which claims that it is giving the Aboriginal community domestic autonomy through ownership. The Opposition believes that the time has come for the Federal Government to live with the reality that in the next few years the Northern Territory will assume statehood. That is why it must be in a position to have territorial control. Why should the Northern Territory be the only State or Territory in Australia which contains national parks over which the Commonwealth will continue to have de facto administration? The logic of not handing over Uluru National Park at this time to the Northern Territory Administration has not been adequately answered by the Government, except on purely doctrinal grounds. It does not trust the Territorians and it denies the legitimate rights of the Northern Territory, which must in time build up its own financial base. If it fails to do that, it will be the people of Australia who have to continue to finance the Northern Territory's development when, in areas such as tourism, autonomy can and must lead to financial independence. There have been many allegations over recent years about difficulties in maintaining an effective or dual responsibility between the Commonwealth Parks and Wildlife Service and the authorities in the Northern Territory. The Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service has been accused of not delegating responsibility as had been agreed under the Act. It has been alleged that, because of the Director's failure to delegate, the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, which is responsible for the daily management of the Park, has until recently had to carry out its duties on a de facto basis. I have been informed that early this year, following years of lobbying and submissions, the Director finally issued warrant cards to Conservation Commission officers employed as rangers at Uluru. It is clear that the problems associated with the management responsibilities of the park have not improved since the House of Representatives Environment and Conservation Committee tabled its report on the management of Ayers Rock back in 1977. Since then there has been a host of reports in this Parliament, both from that Committee and also from the Select Committee on Tourism, which emphasised clearly that there is a major problem of breakdown in administration between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory administrators. It is clear that the only way this can be solved is for decisions relating to the park to be made in the Northern Territory by Northern Territorians, working with the local Aboriginal community. There is a strong tendency in the Labor Party, demonstrated by the policies of the Hawke Government towards the Northern Territory, that the Territory should wither on the vine. This is an absurd approach for a Commonwealth Government to take towards a Territory which will in due course become a State of this nation. The Opposition's decision to support the handover of Uluru National Park to the Northern Territory Government is not new. In 1981 the decision was taken by the Review of Commonwealth Functions. In September of the same year the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, a bipartisan Committee, recommended that the same thing take place. In 1981 the Northern Territory Government asked for this power to be given to it, and it was not at that time. We are saying today that the opportunity is now before the Parliament to take the decisions that should be made-to hand over freehold title to the Northern Territory. As recently as today we have been told by the Chief Minister, Mr Ian Tuxworth, in a Press release that he has undertaken to provide Aboriginal freehold title to living areas within the park, a principle which he noted had already been applied in the establishment of the Kings Canyon National Park. He also undertook to ensure effective Aboriginal involvement in the park's management and the right of entry of all persons, subject to the protection of sacred sites and the park itself. The Opposition is firmly of the view that it is in the interests of the Australian people, including the Aborigines, that Uluru should be the focal point for racial harmony within this country. It should be a national park where people from all over the world can come and not only see the grandeur of the rock and magnificence of the desert but also have the opportunity to appreciate the significance of Aboriginal culture in the ageless environment of Central Australia. At the appropriate time I will move the Opposition's substantive amendments to this legislation. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(1.40 a.m.) —It is clear from the comments of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, that they have no real knowledge of the background to the decisions by the Government to present this legislation to the House. I propose in my remarks to provide some historical background to this most important debate. It gives me much pleasure to support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1985 and its companion Bill, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985, which amend the existing Acts in order to give the land in Uluru National Park-that is, (Ayers Rock and the Olgas)-to the Aboriginal traditional owners through an Aboriginal land trust. The land will then be leased back to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to be managed as a national park for a lease period of 99 years at an annual rental of $75,000 plus 20 per cent of gross park entrance fees to be paid by the Commonwealth Government. I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on these two Bills as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The Committee has had a long-standing interest in Uluru National Park, dating back to 1973. It was only a few years later that I had the opportunity to visit Ayers Rock and the Olgas and hear for the first time the true Aboriginal name for Ayers Rock. I had stayed overnight in Alice Springs and had heard Ted Eagan, the well known popular song writer and ballad singer of the Northern Territory, sing a ballad about a rock named Uluru and its traditional Aboriginal owners. The November 1973 report of the Environment and Conservation Committee describes the visit of the Committee to Ayers Rock. Members of the Committee talked with elders of the Pitjantjatjara people and learnt of the long historical association which the Pitjantjatjara had with Ayers Rock, involving a strong tribal, religious and mythological association. In fact there is evidence of there having been a continuing Aboriginal presence in the area for more than 30,000 years, with ceremonies attracting as many as 500 people for short periods. Most importantly, members of the Committee met Uluru, the traditional keeper of Ayers Rock, who told them of his distrust and fear of white people after his removal from the area and the alleged killing of his brother by whites on that occasion. At this point I think it is worth quoting from the report of the Committee because it is an answer to the ill-informed members of the Opposition who claim that the Aboriginal people have no right to ownership of Uluru. The Committee stated: The Committee was informed that Ayers Rock was of great importance in traditional life, and was one of five main features which delineate the tribal boundaries, and about which tribal mythology and folk lore centre. Uluru indicated he and a number of other tribal people would like to return to Ayers Rock and settle there permanently. They suggested that this need not be at Ayers Rock itself, but they could live some distance away, providing a bore for water be provided. Uluru is apparently anxious to return to Ayers Rock before he dies, in order that the tribal association and mythology can be explained and transmitted to his son, who is regarded as the heir to his father's position in relation to Ayers Rock. We were advised that if Uluru dies before passing on the secrets of Ayers Rock to his son, then all traditional association between his people and Ayers Rock will end. Uluru indicated that there were certain areas of Ayers Rock that were regarded as sacred and from which he would like to have white people totally excluded. These were chiefly on the west side, with other smaller areas in the north and east. He also told of some of the sacred objects associated with these sites which had been moved or stolen. Some traditional activities could be resumed there immediately, others could only be resumed on the return of the missing sacred objects. A number of the sacred objects are believed to be in Canberra or Darwin. I know that honourable members will be interested to hear of what happened to Uluru after his meeting with members of the Committee. It is pleasing to note that he did indeed return to Ayers Rock, but, unfortunately, he subsequently died in the late 1970s. I think it can be safely assumed that he passed on the knowledge of the sacred sites and mythology to his sons, one of whom, I understand, will be the Chairman of the Uluru board. I have made inquiries with regard to the missing sacred objects. My understanding is that the Aborginal people know where some of the relics are and have access to them. I also understand that consideration is being given to the sacred objects being returned to the park, as has been proposed by the Environment and Conservation Committee in the 1973 report. The Committee concluded in 1973 that Ayers Rock was of great importance in traditional Aboriginal mythology and that any management regime should take full account of Aboriginal interest and the need for Aboriginal involvement to be meaningful and continuing. In March 1977, the Committee brought down its report entitled 'Management of Ayers Rock- Mt Olga National Park'. The report welcomed the decision of the Government to declare the park under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and recommended a number of ways in which the Aboriginal people could become involved in the active management of the park as part of a comprehensive management plan. Over the years the Committee has noted the evolving input from Aborigines from 1973, when Aborigines were discouraged from visiting the area, to 1977 when small areas were designated for exclusive Aboriginal use, to the present Bill which provides for the logical and justified Aboriginal ownership of Uluru. I take this opportunity to express my whole-hearted support for the decision by the Government to provide for an Aboriginal majority on the governing board of the Uluru National Park. During my period of chairmanship, the Committee has visited Kakadu, Cobourg Peninsula and the Kimberleys and has always sought the view of the Aboriginal people in those places. While the nature of Aboriginal involvement may range from full management to consultation and employment, the Committee has always held the view that Aboriginal lifestyles and culture are as important an aspect of a national park as are the natural and physical features. Committee members were most impressed with the Aboriginal involvement in the Cobourg Peninsula National Park. I note that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) will be speaking later in this debate. No doubt he will draw attention to the fact that the Northern Territory Government, of which he was Chief Minister at the time, had the foresight to enact legislation to grant freehold land to the traditional owners for its use as a national park and established a board of management with an Aboriginal majority. Cobourg was originally intended to be a site for the first permanent European settlement in the Top End and our Aboriginal guides were able to show us the remains of the houses which had been demolished by the departing European fleet. Apparently the colonial government of the time was worried that the houses, if they were not demolished, could be used by a Russian invading force. In respect of both Kakadu and Cobourg, in my view, the management arrangements are working most satisfactorily for both the Aboriginals who are associated with those parks and the tourist industry which provides considerable employment opportunities and important export income. The fact that Aboriginals are involved and that some areas may be set aside for their exclusive use, is not to the detriment of a national park, but rather enhances the concept of a national and cultural park. In respect of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985, I do not wish to add anything to my previous comments, except to say that I am most pleased to note that the opportunity has been taken to clarify the provisions of the existing Act to allow the amalgamation of stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu into one region comprising Kakadu National Park. Stage 2 of the park was declared on 28 February 1984 and a notice of intent to submit a report recommending declaration of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases as part of the park was issued on 13 March 1984. I look forward to the time when the pastoral leases of Gimbat and Goodparla are added to the Kakadu National Park. I commend the Bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Cameron) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories and Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(1.52 a.m.) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to certain savings proposals announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 14 May 1985 which affect the repatriation pension system. The Bill now before the House makes amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. Standard of Proof As the Treasurer stated, the Government has recently reviewed the conditions applying to the grant of repatriation pensions as part of its overall economic review of Forward Estimates of expenditure. In this review the Government paid particular attention to a recent decision of the High Court of Australia which involved an interpretation of the onus and standard of proof required under section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920 to be applied by the Repatriation Commission when it determines a claim for a disability pension by a veteran or a claim for a war widow's pension in respect of a veteran's death. Section 47 of the Repatriation Act, which was inserted in 1977, states that the Repatriation Commission must grant a claim for pension unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim. In February this year the High Court, by a majority of three to two, gave its decision in the case of Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien. In this decision, the High Court confirmed a view previously expressed by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920 could require that a disability pension or war widow's pension be paid even in a case where there is no evidence which points to there being a reasonable possibility or a connection between the veteran's incapacity or death and the veteran's war service. On this view, in order for a pension not to be granted it would appear that the Repatriation Commission would have to demonstrate conclusively that the cause of a veteran's incapacity or death was not contributed to in any way by anything related to the veteran's period of war service. Honourable members will appreciate that such an onus of disproof at the criminal standard is virtually impossible to satisfy in almost all cases, particularly where the origins and development of the disease that caused the veteran's death are not fully explainable by medical science. Before the 1977 amendment, section 47 had required repatriation determining authorities to give the claimant the benefit of any doubt as to the existence of any fact, matter, cause or circumstance which would be favourable to the claimant and as to any question which arose for decision under the claim. Determining authorities were also directed to draw from the evidence furnished to them, including medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant. The legislation also stated that the onus of proof lay, not on the claimant, but on the person or authority contending that the claim should not be allowed. While there was a good deal of confusion about the exact meaning of this benefit of doubt provision, it was understood that the ordinary civil standard was to be applied to the proving of material facts. Mr Justice Toose, who conducted the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System, thoroughly examined the standard of proof issue. In his report in 1975 he said, at page 254: I am of the view that matters, such as the criminal burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, do not arise in pension proceedings. 'Benefit of doubt' in the Repatriation legislation arises only in the matter of adjudicating if the determining authority is in doubt. His Honour concluded that the provisions of the then section 47 had proved unsatisfactory and should be amended. His Honour then recommended, at page 256 that: . . . the Act should provide that a determining authority, when considering the evidence, should draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant and accept as proof any credible evidence of the claimant which is not contradicted. In weighing the evidence, if there is any doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favour of the claimant''. Mr Hodgman —That is not what the Bill says. Mr SCHOLES —If the honourable member had been listening he would have understood that I was not talking about the Bill. Mr Hodgman —I was listening to you. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. The Minister will continue. Mr Hodgman —Madam Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Do sit down. There is no point of order. I call the Minister in continuation. Mr Hodgman —Madam Acting Speaker, I object to your saying that there is no point of order before I have even expressed it. That is the most incredible ruling ever from the Chair in this Parliament. Mr SCHOLES —When the second reading speech to the 1977 amendments of the Repatriation Act is examined, it is clear that the then Government intended to clarify the meaning of section 47 consistent with the views expressed by Mr Justice Toose. There is no indication that the Government intended that section 47 be so substantially modified as to impose a standard of disproof at the criminal standard to the determination of repatriation pension claims. It would seem that the government of the day was intending to clarify that the benefit of any doubt in section 47 meant the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Since section 47 was amended in 1977 there has been a good deal of judicial consideration of the present standard of proof contained in section 47. In October 1981 in Repatriation Commission v. Law, the High Court stated that the standard of proof in repatriation pension matters required that: 'In relation to any fact necessary to establish entitlement, the Repatriation Review Tribunal must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the fact does not, or did not, exist before it could refuse an application or dismiss an appeal by a claimant'. In 1982 in Lennell v. Repatriation Commission, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia indicated that there was to be no automatic grant of pension when a veteran died of a disease, the cause of which was unknown. However, in 1984, in O'Brien v. Repatriation Commission, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia said that, in order to satisfy the criminal burden of proof applied by the Act, the Commission would not necessarily satisfy the Tribunal beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds for granting a claim even if there was no material which pointed to a connection between incapacity or death and war service. This view was confirmed by the majority decision of the High Court in O'Brien's case in February this year. In his minority decision in that case, Mr Justice Brennan described the present section 47 as 'a piece of administrative legerdemain', because it ensures that in the administration of the Act the prescribed conditions of eligibility should not be required but that claims be granted unless it appears beyond reasonable doubt that those criteria are not fulfilled. His Honour suggested that section 47 needed to be applied on the following basis: If the facts of a case support a reasonable hypothesis of requisite connection between incapacity or death and war service, the Commission must grant the claim; if a reasonable hypothesis of entitlement arises on some of the facts, the Commission must grant the claim unless other facts dispel the hypothesis; if, however, the Commission is satisfied that there is no reasonable hypothesis of entitlement on the known facts or that any such hypothesis contended is dispelled by other facts, there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim. I remind honourable members that the Parliament legislated as recently as last year to set up a three-tiered determining system. This was hardly a sign that the Parliament believed that there was to be virtually automatic acceptance of disability and war widows' pension claims. It has always been accepted that the repatriation pension system should be generous. Nevetheless generosity seems to have gone beyond reasonable bounds in a situation where a pension must be granted in respect of a veteran's incapacity or death even if there is no evidence raising a reasonable possibility of a link between the incapacity or death claimed and the veteran's period of eligible war service. This in fact is the position because the effect of section 47, in the light of its interpretation by the courts, is to bring the determination of disability pension claims close to one of automatic acceptance for the vast majority of claims. It is not surprising that claims for disability pension are pouring into the Department of Veterans' Affairs and that expenditure on disability pensions and war widows' pensions is increasing rapidly-by 55 per cent and 70 per cent respectively over the past three years. The Bill I am now introducing draws on Mr Justice Brennan's proposition. It provides in respect of all claims for pension that, where the Repatriation Commission is reasonably satisfied that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis of a connection between the death and capacity of a veteran and the veteran's war service, or that any such hypothesis which has been raised, has been dispelled, a pension shall not be granted. The requirement that there be established such a reasonable hypothesis of a war service connection is intended to ensure that a pension is not payable merely because there is a theoretical connection which is of a remote, fanciful or tenuous nature. In addition, it is proposed to continue to apply the criminal standard of proof to claims for pension in respect of: First, a disability where a veteran had overseas war service or where, during service in Australia in World War II, the veteran was personally engaged in direct combat against the enemy; second, a disability where a veteran was allotted for operational service in Korea, Malaya, Borneo or Vietnam; third, a disability suffered by a member of the Defence Force where he served on peace-keeping duties overseas or where the member is involved in hazardous duties so designated by the Minister for Defence; and fourth, death for these three categories except where the veteran or member died or dies 40 years or more after eligible service. In respect of claims in relation to the four categories I have just mentioned, I want to make it clear that a claim must be granted unless the determining authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds for doing so. This is the standard of proof, subject to the proposed requirements that there be a reasonable hypothesis of a link between death or incapacity and service, that presently applies. Apart from these types of claims for pension I have specified, all other pension matters arising for determination under the repatriation legislation will be determined on the civil standard of proof in the ordinary way, that is, that the determining authority is not to grant a pension unless it is reasonably satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so. As far as the change in respect of war widow's pension is concerned, honourable members will accept that there are very few conditions which would take 40 years or more to manifest themselves. This is why it is proposed by the Bill that in cases of death more than 40 years after a veteran's war or other qualifying service, a claim for war widow's pension will be determined on the civil standard of proof as I have described it. At present it is not unusual for deaths of veterans aged over 80 years to be accepted as war related in circumstances where common sense suggests that the aging process or normal causes of death in the community were reasonable explanations. The inequity of the law as it stands is evident if we consider two groups of widows. On the one hand are those widows whose husbands, on whom they were usually financially dependent, were killed during service or died as a direct result of injuries or disease suffered during war service. On the other hand there are widows receiving war widows' pensions who are not in financial need, whose veteran husbands had full working lives, were available for the period since war service to help with family responsibilities but whose deaths did not disclose evidence of a direct connection with war service. In both cases, war widows' pensions are payable and precisely the same tax free and means test free pensions and treatment entitlement apply, although it is often difficult to see any evidence linking the deaths of recently deceased veterans to their war service. I emphasise that in future a war widow's pension will continue to be payable to a widow of a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner. Assessment of the Rates of Disability Pension The Bill, by amendments to the Schedule to the Repatriation Act 1920, proposes changes to clarify the circumstances in which disability pensions are to be paid at a rate higher than the general rate. Since 1920, there has been a special rate of disability pension payable in circumstances where, because of total and permanent incapacity resulting from war service, a veteran has been unable to resume or to continue in civil employment. The special or TPI rate pension was designed for severely disabled veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themsevles or their families or put away money for their old age. It was never intended that the TPI rate would become payable to a veteran who, having enjoyed a full working life after war service, then retires from work possibly with whatever supperannuation or other retirement benefits are available to the Australian work force. Determining authorities have found the application of the present legislative provisions difficult because the provisions, unchanged since 1920, contain outmoded and imprecise terms. The amendments clarify the eligibility criteria and make it clear that to qualify for a TPI pension a veteran must be eligible for the 100 per cent general rate pension. In addition, the TPI rate pension can become payable only when a veteran is totally and permanently disabled by accepted disabilities and is thereby precluded from continuing to engage in remunerative work. If a person has had the usual span of a working life or has retired voluntarily or has left employment for reasons other than accepted disabilities, a TPI pension is not payable. It would be in only very rare cases that any veteran beyond the normal retirement age could be eligible for this pension. Special provision is made by the Bill to cover veterans who are under 65 years of age, are unemployed, and are genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work. An intermediate rate pension may be payable where a veteran is prevented by accepted disabilities from engaging in other than part time or intermittent work. The Bill clarifies the test for this rate of pension in a similar way. Part time work is to be less then 20 hours work a week. Dependant's Pension The Bill also contains amendments to delete from future grants of disability pension the provision of separate nominal benefits to the wives and children of such pensioners. The rates of dependants' pensions have not changed for more than 20 years. Some entitlements are as low as 28c per fortnight and cost more to pay than the benefits themselves are worth. It is also intended to delete some now outmoded provisions whereby small pensions are payable to those members of a deceased veteran's family, other than a wife or child; for example, the parents or grandparents of an unmarried veteran. These people are now provided for in the general social security system. It is proposed that no new grants of these dependants' benefits be made. Existing beneficiaries will have payments frozen at current levels. I emphasise that the dependants' pensions referred to in this context do not include war widows' pensions and orphans' pensions. Savings Provisions The modifications proposed to the application of section 47 and the criteria for the assessment of intermediate and TPI rate pensions will apply to future determinations of pension claims and the assessment of pension increases. Pensions already granted will not be affected by these amendments. The amendments relating to special rate and dependants' pensions and to the O'Brien decision will apply as from the date of effect of this legislation. Where the amendments relating to the application of the civil standard of proof are proposed to apply to claims for pension, they will apply to all such claims and applications for review lodged from 15 May. Because of the backlogs in the determining system, it is most unlikely that any claims or applications for review lodged from tomorrow onwards will be determined before the amending legislation comes into effect. In any event claims and applications for review will be determined as closely as possible in the order of their lodgment in the Department. Financial Impact Since the High Court's decision in Law's case in October 1981 there has been a dramatic increase in the number of disability pension claims lodged which goes far beyond what might have been expected, even allowing for the aging of the overall veteran population. In 1980-81, 22,000 claims for pensions and applications for increase were lodged. In 1984-85 there are likely to be 33,500 entitlement claims and 15,000 applications for increase in pension, a total for the year of 48,500. In short, the number of claims will have increased by 120 per cent in four years. This increase is despite the fact that the number of surviving veterans will have decreased during the same period from 636,500 to about 560,000. Acceptance rates have also increased dramatically. In 1981-82 the acceptance rate for pension claims at the first level was 50.9 per cent. The acceptance rate following the O'Brien decision is approaching 80 per cent and is still rising. At the Veterans Review Board, reviews of entitlement claims have an acceptance rate of 87 per cent. The acceptance of war widows claims by the Veterans Review Board is now close to 100 per cent. The financial impact of this trend is enormous. Whereas in 1981-82 expenditure on disability pensions was $303m and on war widows pensions $206m, the 1984-85 figures will be $469m and $350m-increases of 54.8 per cent and 70 per cent respectively. In relation to TPI pensions, up to 1981-82 there was a steady decline in the number of pensioners. By early 1982 there were 14,000. Since then there has been a continual growth in their numbers to the present figure of 21,800. It is estimated that, if the trends in lodgment of claims and acceptance rates for disability and war widows pensions were to continue, expenditure in 1989-90 would be $650m a year higher than this year's expenditure. Savings from the legislative amendments in this Bill are expected to be $36.8m in 1985-86 and substantially more in subsequent years. Conclusion Honourable members are aware of the Government's intention to rationalise and simplify the repatriation legislation through the new Veterans' Entitlement Bill. That Bill will be introduced later in these sittings, but so that honourable members and ex-service organisations, in particular, may study its content, it will not be debated until the Budget sittings. The changes announced in the Treasurer's statement need to be enacted as soon as possible through amendments to the existing repatriation legislation. These amendments will be incorporated into the Veterans' Entitlement Bill at the earliest opportunity after the passage of this Bill. I repeat that in the determination of claims for disability and war widows' pensions the legislation continues to protect the legitimate claims and rights of the veteran community. The Act will continue to provide that the requirement to submit evidence in support of a claim for a pension shall not be taken to impose any onus of proof on a claimant. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will continue to have statutory responsibility for investigating relevant matters where a claim for a pension is made. The Act will continue to provide that, in determining any claim, a determining authority is required to act according to substantial justice and the merits and all circumstances of a case. The Act will continue to take account of difficulties that lie in the way of ascertaining facts for any reason attributable to the effects of the passage of time, including on the availability of witnesses, or to any deficiency in official records. Finally, let me reiterate the Government's commitment generally to the continuation of generous and effective benefits and treatment for those who suffer because of their war service for Australia. Australia has by far the most comprehensive and generous repatriation benefits in the world. After the Bill I have introduced becomes law this will still be the position but the savings achieved, in addition to helping to meet the objectives of the total savings package, will provide scope for future improvements in repatriation hospitals and programs to care for our aging veterans and war widows. I commend the Bill to the House. Bill (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. House adjourned at 2.22 a.m. (Friday) The following notice was given: Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to extend the operation of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1966 and the Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1963. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act relating to the prevention and settlement of disputes in the electricity industry. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 May 1985: Defence Act-Determination-1985-No. 29-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. National Health Act-Amended principles, formulated under sub-section 40AA, dated 13 May 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 59) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Is it a fact that during the last election campaign the Electoral Commission sent people overseas to gather postal votes; if so, (a) what was cost of this exercise, (b) how many officers were involved and what were their classifications and positions, (c) where did each officer go and for how long, (d) how many votes were collected by each officer, and (e) what was the cost per vote of these votes compared with ordinary votes. (2) What was the expenditure on interpreter services and other assistance for ethnic voters for the last election. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised by the Australian Electoral Commissioner that following approaches by shipping companies, an Assistant Returning Officer was appointed in respect of each of three ships which were at sea for most of the postal voting period. The decision had regard to the number of potential voters-the ships were carrying approximately 3,600 Australian passengers in total. (a) $6,629. (b) and (c) Three officers were involved: 1. Assistant Director, Field Operations, NSW (Clerical Administrative, Class 9) aboard the SS Canberra from Miami to San Francisco, 18 November to 4 December 1984. 2. Director, Operations, WA (Clerical Administrative, Class 8) aboard the SS Oriana from Fremantle to Singapore, 14 November to 22 November 1984. 3. Assistant Manager, Enrolment Processing, NSW (Clerical Administrative, Class 5) aboard the SS Fairstar from Sydney to Fiji, 20 November to 29 November 1984. (d) (1) 586. (2) 540. (3) 126. (e) The average cost was $5.29 per vote as against $3.32 in respect of an ordinary vote and $6.49 in respect of a postal vote at an overseas post. (2) I am advised by the Electoral Commissioner that expenditure by the Commission on interpreters during the election amounted to $11,668. This represents direct expenditure only and not the cost of employing bilingual polling officials in line with the Commission's policy of engaging officials competent in a relevant language in locations known to have a concentration of former migrants. In 1984, 674 of these were engaged with a coverage of 31 divisions and 333 polling places. Other assistance was provided in the form of advertising in the ethnic press the close of the Roll, absent and postal voting facilities, and the manner of marking a formal vote, at a total cost to the Commission of $73,871. Similar advertising on ethnic radio was provided free of charge by the Special Broadcasting Service using material supplied by the Commission. This latter figure does not include $155,596 spent on providing summaries of the Yes and No cases for the referendums in 25 languages. (Question No. 88) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: What have been the relative variations in (a) Royal Australian Air Force flying hours, (b) Royal Australian Navy steaming time, and, (c) (i) Army track time, (ii) artillery ammunition firing allocations and (iii) training time, since 1972-73, using values for that financial year as base 100. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details of the various Defence Force activities questioned are set out in the tables below in so far as records permit. In the case of RAN steaming time, figures are given for both the Destroyer Force and HMAS Melbourne, which together in recent years have consumed the larger proportion of the Fleet Fuel Allowance and so provide a good indication of overall Fleet activity for the period in question. Before 1982-83 the method of record keeping does not permit an accurate response to questions about the variations in total Fleet steaming time. Despite an extensive search of archival material, no information on Army training time for the period 1972-73 to 1975-76 is available. This lack is attributed to changes in responsibilities within Army Office, and the relevant table is appropriately annotated. Variations in activities from year to year are normally dictated by the level of Government funding together with endeavours to achieve the optimum use of assets within the amounts allocated to operating costs. A number of factors are relevant: Government guidelines on total expenditure; Government and Departmental guidelines on the distribution of total expenditure; eg, to give greater emphasis to long-term capital investment; Single Service policies on optimisation of allocated funding; Variations in the size of the various force elements brought about by short term considerations such as ship refits or aircraft grounding for safety reasons; National commitments which introduce short term tasks; Major international exercises not occurring on an annual basis. RAAF FLYING HOURS Against base Financial year 1972-73 1972-73 100.0 1973-74 90.3 1974-75 90.7 1975-76 97.9 1976-77 101.5 1977-78 98.8 1978-79 98.4 1979-80 96.3 1980-81 97.3 1981-82 92.3 1982-83 93.6 1983-84 89.2 1984-85 (a) 95.1 (a) 1984-85 is authorised rate whereas previous years are achieved rates. RAN STEAMING TIME (Destroyer Force and HMAS Melbourne) Destroyer Force Days Total underway/ HMAS Total days available Melbourne Financial year available (a) underway unit (b) (c) 1972-73 7.2 100 100 100 1973-74 7.9 106 97 130 1974-75 6.0 82 98 66 1975-76 7.0 117 121 6 1976-77 6.1 100 119 124 1977-78 6.6 103 113 101 1978-79 6.8 95 100 15 1979-80 6.0 87 104 89 1980-81 6.0 92 110 110 1981-82 6.0 113 112 35 1982-83 7.2 118 111 . . 1983-84 7.4 98 96 . . 1984-85 (d) 8.9 111 109 . . (a) Units not refitting or conducting intermediate dockings. (b) Variations due in part to refit/docking cycle. (c) Decommissioned 30 June 1982. (d) Based on achievements to 30 March 1985, and estimates to June 1985. ARMY TRACK TIME Light Tank AFV Financial year running running 1972-73 100 100 1973-74 100 79 1974-75 118 101 1975-76 136 115 1976-77 150 (a) 150 1977-78 238 166 1978-79(b) 296 146 1979-80 325 116 1980-81 380 133 1981-82 389 138 1982-83 353 134 1983-84 356 136 1984-85 360 141 (a) mechanised Infantry Trial commenced. (b) 1 Armoured regiment change over from Centurion to Leopard Main Battle Tank. ARTILLERY AMMUNITION ALLOCATION Field Medium artillery artillery Financial year (HE) (HE) Redeye Rapier 40mm 1972-73 100 100 100 . . (a) 100 1973-74 100 100 100 . . . . 1974-75 100 100 100 . . . . 1975-76 113 114 100 . . . . 1976-77 113 114 100 . . . . 1977-78 105 85 100 . . . . 1978-79 105 85 100 . . . . 1979-80 105 85 100 . . . . 1980-81 116 (b) 73 90 100 (c) . . 1981-82 167 (d) 83 75 (e) 100 . . 1982-83 156 64 40 100 . . 1983-84 142 64 25 100 . . 1984-85 156 58 (f) 45 100 . . (a) 40 mm removed from service in 1972-73 (b) Operational Deployment Force raised (c) Rapier entered service 1980-81 (d) Army Reserve expanded (e) Allocations reduced to extend Life of Type to 1987-88 (f) First year of 155 mm; allocations constrained due to stock availability. ARMY ACTIVITIES TRAINING DATA Field Div Force Bde Ftx Bde Regt Unit O'seas Tewt Log Cpx Div Div Cgs Bdf (a) Ftx Ftx Ftx Ex (b) Ex (c) Tewt Cpx Ex Tewt (d) 1976-77 100 . . 100 100 100 100 100 . . 100 100 100 . . 1977-78 . . 100 (e) 150 51 116 . . . . . . . . 100 100 . . 1978-79 . . 100 200 56 83 100 200 100 (f) 200 100 100 . . 1979-80 100 50 225 98 216 200 100 166 . . 200 100 (g) 100 1980-81 . . 300 200 100 250 100 100 133 100 . . 100 . . 1981-82 100 100 250 72 266 100 100 . . 100 100 100 . . 1982-83 . . 150 475 95 250 100 100 66 100 300 100 50 1983-84 . . 250 200 108 300 . . 100 33 100 200 100 100 1984-85 . . 150 350 82 316 200 100 . . . . . . 100 50 (a) Field Training Exercise (b) Tactical Exercise without Troops (c) Command Post Exercise (d) No information available for the years 1972-73 to 1975-76 (e) 1977-78 used as base 100 (f) 1978-79 used as base 100 (g) 1979-80 used as base 100 (Question No. 113) Mr Slipper asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Is it a fact that it is the duty of all Australians to maintain allegiance to the Crown. (2) What is the policy of the Government in relation to the prominent display of pictures of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, in the offices of Government departments. (3) Has any change of policy taken place since the Government came to office in 1983. (4) Is it a fact that pictures of Her Majesty the Queen have been replaced in the offices of Government departments by pictures of the relevant Ministers in charge of those departments; if so, (a) has he any evidence to indicate that this action may cause loyal Australian subjects of Her Majesty to doubt seriously the allegiance of the Government to the Crown and (b) what action is the Government prepared to take to restore pictures of the Queen to their former locations in the offices of Government departments. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The position of the Crown is established in the Constitution. (2) Colour prints of photographs of the Queen are provided free on general request under the Government's free-issue program including to Government departments for display as required. (3) No. (4) There has been no directive to Commonwealth Government departments regarding the display of photographs of the Queen. (Question No. 228) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What are the criteria for appointment to the Australian Sports Commission. (2) Who assesses whether a prospective Commissioner satisfies these criteria. (3) On what basis is an offer of appointment as a Commissioner made. (4) What are a Sports Commissioner's obligations. (5) What remuneration and compensation for expenses does a Sports Commissioner receive. (6) What is the term of appointment of a Sports Commissioner. (7) How often are meetings of Sports Commissioners held. (8) What constitutes a quorum for a meeting of Sports Commissioners. (9) When is he expecting to appoint more Sports Commissioners. (10) Why does he require more Sports Commissioners. (11) What is the budget allocated for meetings of Sports Commissioners. (12) Which Commissioners hold office on national sporting bodies and what are the details of their office. (13) What sporting bodies have been funded as a result of recommendations of the Australian Sports Commission since its inception and what were the terms of the grants. (14) Are Commissioners entitled to travel; if so, what provision is there for reimbursement of costs incurred. (15) What are the role, functions and powers of the Sports Commission. (16) What departmental functions were transferred to the Sports Commission when it commenced operations. (17) What duties were assigned to the people in his Department who previously performed these functions. (18) Will he table in the House the 1983 report of the interim committee proposing guidelines for the establishment of the Australian Sports Commission; if not, why not. (19) What is the Sports Commission's relationship with (a) him, (b) his Department, (c) sports bodies or associations, (d) the Confederation of Australian Sport, (e) institutions, such as the Australian Institute of Sport, and (f) other levels of government. (20) Has the concept of 'sports profile', used for determining a sportsperson's suitability for funding, been developed or discussed by the Commission. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As with all Government appointments to Boards and Commissions, an assessment is made of the potential contribution that could be made by the individual concerned to the work and activities of the organisation. The appointment process for the Australian Sports Commission is outlined in the Australian Sports Commission Bill 1985 (the Bill). (3) Offers of appointment are made on the basis of specified terms of office and remuneration conditions. (4) Commissioners are obliged to undertake their duties to the best of their ability and to serve the best interests of the Commission, the objects and functions of which are outlined in the Bill. (5) Commissioners are currently paid the following fees and allowances as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal (i) Sitting Fees-Chairman $286, Deputy Chairman $211, Committee Chairman $180, Member $131. (ii) Allowances-All Commissioners receive a common rate of travelling allowance of $125 a day for each day away from home. (6) Currently Commissioners are appointed for three years and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman for five years. The length of appointments to the statutory authority, when formed, is outlined in the Bill. (7) The Bill provides that the Commission shall hold such meetings as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. Currently, meetings of the full Commission are held about every three months. Committees have been established to examine specific priority areas and they meet more frequently between full Commission meetings. (8) This is provided for in the Bill. In the meantime, the Commission agreed at its first meeting to adopt an interim rule that a quorum consist of 8 members. (9) and (10) Unless unforeseen circumstances occur, I do not expect to appoint additional Commissioners for some time after the current appointments are confirmed following passage of the enabling legislation. (11) In 1984/85, $58,000 has been budgeted for meetings of the full Commission. (12) Two Commissioners hold office on national sporting associations. Mr John Newman is a Director of the Confederation of Australian Sport (CAS) and is President of the Federation of Australian Karate-Do Organisations. Mr Phil Coles is Secretary-General of the Australian Olympic Federation. (13) The major program for provision of assistance to national sporting associations is the Sports Development Program. Grants made under this program in 1984/85 were outlined in my press statement of 10 October 1984. The terms of the grants include the following: A copy of the organisation's latest annual report and annual audited financial statement is required prior to payment of the grant. A Statement of Final Costs is required from a qualified auditor certifying that the grant moneys received were spent in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant and that the grant was expended within the specified period 1 July to 30 June of the financial year in question. Use of any part of the grant moneys for purposes other than that specified in the letter of offer is not permitted unless specifically agreed to by the Commission. Formal advice of unexpended funds is required. Funds not expended by the organisation for the purposes outlined in the application should be returned to the Commission, unless agreement has been reached to use these funds for other approved purposes. A report for each event, project and position funded is to be provided in due course to assist with an evaluation of the Program. Funds allocated for international travel are not to be used for bilateral competition with South Africa. Grants will not be paid until funds from the previous year have been acquitted. (14) Commissioners are entitled to first class air fares in Australia for travel associated with their duties. (15) The Bill spells out in detail the powers, objectives and functions of the Commission. (16) The following specific departmental functions were transferred to the Commission: Program management in respect of the following programs- (i) Sports Development Program (SDP) (ii) National Athlete Award Scheme (iii) National Sports Science Research Program both (ii) and (iii) are funded under the SDP. Research, information and policy functions with respect to those areas of sports policy within its responsibility, including assistance to national associations, high performance athlete assistance, sports development, sports science, sport and disadvantaged groups. (17) As a general rule the staff performing these functions in the Department were transferred to the Commission. In all 16 staff positions were transferred to the Commission. (18) The Interim Committee for the Australian Sports Commission reported in March 1984. Its report provided confidential advice on a range of issues associated with the establishment of the Commission. It is not envisaged that the report will be made public. (19) The Commission will report direct to the Minister and, in the case of my Department, it will have the normal links that exist between a Department and other bodies and authorities within the portfolio. With the other organisations mentioned in parts (a) to (f) of the question the Commission will be responsible for establishing and sustaining close, co-operative links to ensure maximum consultation and the exchange of relevant information and advice, in accordance with the Commission's function of co-ordinating activities in Australia for the development of sport. (20) The Government currently provides assistance direct to sports people through the National Athlete Award Scheme. To be eligible for assistance under that scheme, an athlete must qualify according to certain criteria, including primarily their current or prospective international ranking. To that extent a 'sports profile' concept is used. In addition, assistance is governed by a categorisation of sports, based on Olympic Status, The guidelines and criteria for the Scheme are currently under review in the context of the Government's proposed Sports Talent Plan which will be introduced as soon as funds are available. Under the Plan, it is envisaged that new guidelines will be developed and a more detailed 'profile' of athletes, including details of costs incurred, training/competition schedules and results achieved will be developed and maintained for evaluation purposes. (Question No. 251) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Following the amended River Murray Waters Agreement and the recent publication entitled The River Murray Commission, will the Minister request the Commission to be specific in issuing a clear public statement which explicitly states the extent of its role, particularly in relation to recreation and environmental issues and its role generally in multiple use planning and research of the River System, and how this new role interfaces with that of relevant government departments and agencies. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Under the Constitution, primary responsibility for recreation, environmental and multiple-use planning issues associated with the management of the River Murray system rests with the individual States. Under the new River Murray Waters Agreement, the Commission is empowered to make representations to governments on these matters particularly insofar as they have a significant impact on water quality and quantity in the River. A number of advisory committees and working groups, comprising representatives of the four governments from relevant agencies, has been established to advise the Commission on its new responsibilities, including the matters referred to above. In this context, the recent appointment by the Commission of an education officer, the increased incidence of Commission-sponsored public meetings at various locations along the River and the release by the Commission of discussion papers and press statements on specific issues will, I believe, ensure that the public is continually informed of and can contribute to the Commission's developing role in river basin management. I have drawn the Commission's attention to the honourable member's question. (Question No. 274) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) My Department normally arranges film or video production through Film Australia or through the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism where there is an advertising component. Minor production only is carried out within my Department. (3) Films/videos produced during 1983-84 were: (a) and (b) Quarantine information (video)-$17 193. Audio Visual Test of Auditory Comprehension (video)-$400 est. (4) The following equipment is held: two new colour video cameras for use within the Department's ADP and Central Training areas were delivered in February 1985; four video recorders, three colour cameras, one editing suite and associated tripods and lighting equipment are held by the National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney. (5) No staff are specifically employed on film/video production. (Question No. 281) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services produces its own films and videos for both internal and external use and, in so doing, follows Film Australia guidelines. In addition, the Department has occasionally employed Film Australia to produce films, in which case various departmental officers have acted as advisers. The Office of Local Government has provided funds and co-operated with other authorities in the production of films as part of the Local Government Development Program. (2) There exists in the Department a limited capacity for film/video production. (3) Only one film titled RSI-The New Industrial Epidemic was produced by the Department in 1983/84 at a cost of $5,861.20. Six videos were produced by the Department in 1983/84. The titles (a) and cost (b) of these videos are as follows: $ (a) Staff Apartments-Port Moresby (b) 60 (Three videos titled the above were produced at a total cost of $60) Embassy-Dhaka Nil Embassy Site-Riyadh 1,427 Embassy Site-Beijing 1,368 No films or videos were produced externally in 1983/84. (4) The management Division of this Department holds the following film/video production equipment: 1 Hitachi Colour Camera; 1 Rank Arena NGC Video Recorder 3/4" U-matic; 1 Sony Betamovie 1/2" Beta. The equipment is used for internal training courses. The Overseas Property Office of the Department holds the following film/video equipment: 2 Hitachi Video Cameras; 1 Hitachi portable recorder; 1 National portable recorder; 1 Hitachi video tuner; 1 Sanyo video cassette recorder. Videos are taped by staff when undertaking overseas inspections and used for briefings. Videos for the presentation of overseas site and locality information to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works are professionally prepared by the private sector. (5) No officers are employed exclusively in film production. Those officers involved in this function incorporate the task into their range of the duties. A total of approximately 15 officers have, at some stage, been concerned with providing advice on or producing films and videos. Pending full development of workload measures, the component of salary costs attributed to film/video production cannot meaningfully be estimated. (Question No. 346) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Is it a fact that his Department required a technical visit by its experts to Germany before certifying the German MBB, BO 105 twin-engined helicopter but did not require a similar inspection of the French AS355 helicopter; if so what are the reasons. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The Department was unacquainted with the German MBB BO 105 machine when the application for Australian certification was made whereas the French AS 355 helicopter, as a development of a line of aircraft, was well known to departmental officers owing to earlier certification visits primarily directed to the AS 330J and AS365C types. (Question No. 639) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to readership claims of (a) 518,000 on page 38 of the National Times of 7-13 November 1982 and (b) 295,000 in the National Times of 1-7 March 1985. (2) What reductions in advertising charges to the Government has the National Times made during the period. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. As my colleague the Special Minister of State explained in his answer to Question No. 734 of 10 November 1983, there were conflicting readership claims for the National Times in November 1982-518,000 based on the McNair Anderson Readership Survey and 341,000 based on the Survey of Readership of the Roy Morgan Research Centre. The Commonwealth used the Roy Morgan Research Centre data as the source of readership information. The National Times has moved to use the Roy Morgan Research Centre data as in the recent reference to a readership of 295,000. (2) Commonwealth Government advertising rates are negotiated annually with newspapers by the Commonwealth Government's master agency for Press display advertising, USP Needham Australia Pty Ltd. The negotiations are based on audited circulation and readership figures and on readership claims established by research such as that carried out by the Roy Morgan Research Centre. There have been movements up and down in rates for the National Times depending on size of advertisements and any increases are considered acceptable in view of rate changes in comparable print media. (Question No. 664) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) (b) 1983 1984 Joint Coal Board 254 251 Australian Atomic Energy Commission 1063 1078 The Pipeline Authority 111 118 Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority 651 661 (Question No. 692) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) 1286. (b) 1343. The Department of Resources and Energy was formed in March 1983. (Question No. 769) Mr Everingham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: What quantity of uranium yellow cake (a) has been purchased to 17 April 1985 and (b) is estimated will be purchased by the Government from Queensland Mines Ltd, and at what cost. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) Nil. (b) The Government has agreed to purchase 800 short tons of uranium yellow cake from Queensland Mines Ltd, deliveries of which are anticipated to commence in May 1985. There is also provision for the Government to purchase a further 900 short tons between 1986 and 1988 should certain circumstances apply. The cost of these purchases is finalised prior to the delivery of each shipment in accordance with a contract formula. Consequently, a precise final cost is not available, but for the first 800 short tons will be of the order of $50,000,000. (Question No. 309) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic 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 taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a and b) The table below gives details of number of claims for repetitive strain injury: Financial year Number of claims 1983-84 32 1984-85 (to 20.3.85) 65 (2) (i) Analysis of claims for repetitive strain injury are as follows: Analysis of claims Period Female Male Accepted Rejected Finalised 1983-85 (to 20.3.85) 91 6 66 Nil 23 (ii) Type of duties of claimants are: Type of duties Number of claims Typists/steno-Secretaries 34 Keyboard Operators 36 Clerical Administrative 15 Clerical Assistant 1 Sorting/Scanning 11 (3) Number of employees who have been rehabilitated are as follows: Rehabilitation Employees Return to full time employment 17 Return to part time employment 10 Redeployed 16 Repetitive strain injury cases (RSI) are referred to Commonwealth Medical Officers as early as possible whilst those returning to work are either permanently redeployed or are redeployed until return to original duties as recommended by the Commonwealth Medical Officers. (4) A Departmental Joint Working Party on RSI was established on 3 September 1984, out of concern for the incidence of RSI within the Department's Central Office. With the approval of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Afairs Consultative Council the recommendations of the Working Party are being implemented both in Central and Regional Offices. (Question No. 319) Mr Ronald Edwards asked all Ministers, 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 answer to the honourable member's question, as regards the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, is as follows: (1) (a) 10 (Department of Aboriginal Affairs seven); (Institute of Aboriginal Studies three). (b) Three (Department of Aboriginal Affairs two); (Aboriginal Development Commission). (2) Of the 15 claimants, thirteen were female keyboard operators and two were male clerical staff who used keyboards on an intermittent basis. Liability has been accepted for all but one of the claims lodged. (3) At this stage it is too early to say how many staff have been successfully rehabilitated but only two claimants have not returned to their former duties. Affected staff with the Institute of Aboriginal Studies have since ceased their period of employment. Rehabilitation of affected staff has been achieved by following advice tendered by Commonwealth Medical Officers and claimant's doctors. (4) Steps taken to prevent further instances of repetitive strain injury (RSI) include: Keyboard staff have attended seminars about RSI. Speakers included occupational health specialists, representatives of the Public Service Board and RSI support groups. Management representatives of the Department have attended several external RSI seminars. Suitable ergonomically designed office furniture has been procured. Keyboard staff are required to take a 10 minute break from keyboard work every hour. A professional review of Departmental office equipment and ergonomic practices has been undertaken and a report received by the Department. A copy of this report has been provided to the Australian Public Service Association and consultation is being undertaken between the Association and the Department. (Question No. 394) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What guidelines does he have for a review of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (2) Has he had any discussions on a review of CSIRO; if so, with whom. (3) Has any proposition been put to CSIRO regarding a review; if so, what was the nature of the proposition. (4) Does the Minister intend to restructure the CSIRO along the lines of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Refer to the Prime Minister's statement of 7 May 1985. (2) I held discussions with the Chairman and the Executive of CSIRO in addition to those with the Prime Minister and other Ministers, the Chairman of Australian Science and Technology Council and the heads of my Department and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I also had meetings of a more general nature with CSIRO Division Chiefs and CSIRO staff associations. (3) See (1) and (2). (4) The Government will not consider any restructuring of CSIRO until the report from ASTEC is available. (Question No. 526) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Has the decision been taken to set up Australian Youth Services (AYS); if so, is AYS to be established in place of the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) and like organisations. (2) Was there consultation between the AYS consultative committee and CYSS youth workers leading up to any decisions. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) No. (2) The Government is committed to full consultation with relevant government and non-government bodies involved in youth affairs, including CYSS project personnel, on the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs on the development of an Australian Youth Service. Initial consultations have already taken place with CYSS project personnel and other groups in the youth affairs area. A consultation team consisting of officials from my Department and the office of Youth Affairs has visited all capital cities as well as various regional centres including Townsville, Burnie, Alice Springs, Bunbury and Newcastle. The main program of consultations commenced on 25 February 1985 in Perth and was completed in Sydney on 11 April 1985. Further meetings have been held since the completion of the main program and several meetings with Commonwealth departments and national bodies involved in youth affairs are still to be held. (Question No. 621) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) How many officers in the Minister's Department, or in statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, are permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence (a) permanently and (b) occasionally. (2) What are the levels of these officers. (3) Are these vehicles used by officers to provide transport to and from work. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 78. (b) 652. (2) Other than SES Level 3 and above, the majority of officers involved are scientific and technical field staff of various classification. (3) Yes. (Question No. 675) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in each statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Staff Year ending employed Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 30 June 1980 7,050 30 June 1981 7,082 30 June 1982 7,033 30 June 1983 7,127 30 June 1984 7,051 National Standards Commission 30 June 1980 26 30 June 1981 26 30 June 1982 26 30 June 1983 26 30 June 1984 30 Australian Institute of Marine Science 30 June 1980 70 30 June 1981 92 30 June 1982 93 30 June 1983 106 30 June 1984 103 Anglo-Australian Telescope Board 30 June 1980 48 30 June 1981 48 30 June 1982 50 30 June 1983 48 30 June 1984 49 (Question No. 702) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: How many people were employed full time in the Minister's Department in (a) 1983 and (b) 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following figures are provided for the Department of Science and Technology, the Department of Science being created by the Administrative Arrangements Order of 12 December 1984. Staff Year ending employed 30 June 1981 3,350 30 June 1982 3,141 30 June 1983 3,148 30 June 1984 3,242 (Question No. 788) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 April 1985: For imports of (a) whisky, (b) brandy and (c) wine, in each month since 1 January 1984 what have been (i) the volume of clearances from bond, (ii) the rate of customs duty applicable and (iii) the customs revenue gained by the Government from (A) the EEC, (B) the UK, (C) France, (D) Germany, (E) Italy, (F) Japan and (G) all other countries. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: For imports of whisky, brandy and wine the details requested have been provided in the attached tables: Table 1-Quantity-sets out the quantities of the products cleared for home consumption Table 2-Customs Duty Rates including details of changes which occurred during the period Table 3-Duty A$ Details of quantities and amounts of Customs duty are compiled from information provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Table 1 QUANTITY-LITRES Germany Federal EEC UK France Republic Italy Japan Other Wine January 1984 587,236 Nil 172,213 237,386 174,229 Nil 155,368 February 1984 539,787 25 139,982 120,670 256,262 99 103,744 March 1984 485,238 512 110,569 187,499 171,307 Nil 159,358 April 1984 490,484 22 118,478 111,715 239,111 2 78,717 May 1984 795,493 279 236,676 229,412 309,554 131 150,417 June 1984 615,877 119 187,003 179,932 216,258 Nil 204,415 July 1984 541,927 255 162,677 147,493 227,032 54 72,989 August 1984 941,539 54 291,549 179,764 432,074 540 245,303 September 1984 864,706 Nil 288,563 243,310 329,143 406 155,487 October 1984 593,354 Nil 212,624 178 063 181,139 421 154,500 November 1984 1,151,706 Nil 390,225 339,681 392,088 Nil 144,083 December 1984 923,011 12,081 321,608 227,331 328,991 Nil 117,239 January 1985 833,026 1 314,218 180,586 328,802 Nil 170,599 February 1985 689,121 9 199,046 116,884 365,697 Nil 222,795 Brandy Jan 1984 74,059 253 71,381 100 1,205 Nil 1,255 Feb 1984 92,876 181 10,956 142 437 Nil 964 March 1984 46,183 23 45,506 64 337 17 964 April 1984 18,021 22 17,486 173 115 Nil 1,765 May 1984 53,983 172 50,619 233 518 Nil 1,939 June 1984 53,182 Nil 51,561 209 609 Nil 1,778 July 1984 39,967 2 39,119 149 213 7 2,152 August 1984 92,837 21 91,233 284 274 Nil 2,162 Sept 1984 36,344 13 34,636 203 11,389 Nil 970 Oct 1984 68,889 867 66,660 259 205 Nil 1,822 Nov 1984 50,449 320 48,940 228 436 Nil 2,344 Dec 1984 42,102 360 38,624 458 1,141 Nil 3,200 Jan 1985 129,200 234 126,254 204 358 Nil 1,914 Feb 1985 65,049 609 62,725 146 345 Nil 180 Whisky Jan 1984 753,264 752,643 17 1 179 4,251 124,698 Feb 1984 437,562 435,508 Nil Nil 12 1,538 80,244 March 1984 344,570 341,794 Nil Nil 181 984 93,249 April 1984 302,902 300,630 17 Nil 91 1,550 53,387 May 1984 529,845 528,211 1 7 25 444 97,068 June 1984 662,019 660,148 Nil 233 91 1,970 116,325 July 1984 618,886 614,961 246 7 126 1,381 137,430 August 1984 918,672 916,002 9 Nil 91 4,036 111,447 Sept 1984 450,142 448,143 121 Nil 93 1,928 83,319 Oct 1984 529,743 527,479 Nil 12 Nil 2,496 108,198 Nov 1984 510,093 506,547 402 64 340 44 95,378 Dec 1984 591,138 558,982 96 48 118 1,290 82,638 Jan 1985 1,174,010 1,170,922 Nil 13 113 6,369 140,418 Feb 1985 Not available Table 2 CUSTOMS DUTY RATES FOR WHISKY, BRANDY AND WINE LEGEND: PNG: Papua New Guinea FI: Forum Island Countries NZ: New Zealand NSA: Not Specified Above L: Litres /: per NOTE: In relation to the EEC, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Japan the General Rate of Duty applies. General Special Item Goods rate rate 22.05.1 1 January 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.1 - Champagne $0.48/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.20/L 8pm 21 August 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.1 - Champagne: 22.05.11 - - Containing more than 1.15% by volume of alcohol 11%, and $0.48/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.20/L 22.05.19 - - Other $0.48/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.20/L 22.05.2 1 January 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.2 - Sparkling wine, NSA $0.65/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.20/L 8pm 21 August 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.2 - Sparkling wine, NSA: 22.05.21 - - Containing more than 1.15% by volume of alcohol 13%, and $0.65/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.20/L 22.05.29 - - Other $0.65/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.20/L 22.05.31 1 January 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.3 - Wine, NSA, containing not more than 20% by volume of alcohol: 22.05.31 - - In packs not exceeding 5L $0.25/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.10/L 8pm 21 August 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.3 - Wine, NSA, containing not more than 20% by volume of alcohol: 22.05.31 - - In packs not exceeding 5L: 22.05.311 - - - Containing more than 1.15% by volume of alcohol 11%, and $0.25/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.10/L 22.05.319 - - - Other $0.25/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.10/L 22.05.39 1 January 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.3 - Wine, NSA, containing not more than 20% by volume of alcohol: 22.05.39 - - Other $0.40/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.10/L 8pm 21 August 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.3 - Wine, NSA, containing not more than 20% by volume of alcohol: 22.05.39 - - Other: 22.05.391 - - - Containing more than 1.15% by volume of alcohol 16%, and $0.40/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.10/L 22.05.399 - - - Other $0.40/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.10/L 22.05.4 8pm 21 August 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.4 - Wine, NSA 11%, and $0.70/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.65/L 22.05.9 1 January 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.9 - Other $0.70/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.65/L 8pm 21 August 1984 22.05 * WINE OF FRESH GRAPES; GRAPE MUST WITH FERMENTATION ARRESTED BY THE ADDITION OF ALCOHOL: 22.05.9 - Other $0.70/L PNG: Free NZ: $0.65/L 22.06 1 January 1984 22.06 * Vermouths, and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts $0.25/L PNG: Free NZ: Goods, not being Vermouth $0.10/L Remainder: Free 8pm 21 August 1984 22.06 * Vermouths, and other wines of fresh grapes flavoured with aromatic extracts: 22.06.1 - Containing more than 1.15% by volume of alcohol 12%, and $0.25/L PNG: FREE NZ: Goods, not being Vermouth $0.10/L Remainder: Free 22.06.9 - Other $0.25/L PNG: FREE NZ: Goods, not being Vermouth $0.10/L Remainder: Free 1 January 1984 22.09 * Spirits not falling within 22.08; liqueurs and other spirituous beverages; coupound alcoholic preparations (known as concentrated extracts) for the manufacture of beverages: 22.09.2 - Brandy made wholly from grape wine: 22.09.29 - - Other $16.89/L of alcohol PNG: $16.69/L of alcohol FI: $16.69/L of alcohol NZ: $16.69/L of alcohol 2 February 1984 22.09 As above 22.09.2 As above 22.09.29 As above $17.57/L of alcohol PNG: $17.37/L of alcohol FI: $17.37/L of alcohol NZ: $17.37/L of alcohol 2 February 1985 22.09 As above 22.09.2 As above 22.09.29 As above $18.02/L of alcohol PNG: $17.82/L of alcohol FI: $17.82/L of alcohol NZ: $17.82/L of alcohol 1 January 1984 22.09 * Spirits not falling within 22.08; liqueurs and other spirituous beverages; coupound alcoholic preparations (known as concentrated extracts) for the manufacture of beverages: 22.09.2 - Brandy made wholly from grape wine: 22.09.21 - - Containing not more than 57% by volume of alcohol $17.89/L of alcohol PNG: $16.69/L of alcohol FI: $16.69/L of alcohol NZ: $16.69/L of alcohol 2 February 1984 22.09 As above 22.09.2 As above 22.09.21 As above $18.57/L of alcohol PNG: $17.37/L of alcohol FI: $17.37/L of alcohol NZ: $17.37/L of alcohol 2 February 1985 22.09 As above 22.09.2 As above 22.09.21 As above $19.02/L of alcohol PNG: $17.82/L of alcohol FI: $17.82/L of alcohol NZ: $17.82/L of alcohol 22.09.91 1 January 1984 22.09 * SPIRITS NOT FALLING WITHIN 22.08; LIQUEURS AND OTHER SPIRITUOUS BEVERAGES; COMPOUND ALCOHOLIC PREPARATIONS (KNOWN AS CONCENTRATED EXTRACTS) FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF BEVERAGES: 22.09.9 - Other (includes whisky and brandy other than brandy made wholly from grape wine) 22.09.91 - - Containing not more than 57% by volume of alcohol $21.06/L of alcohol PNG: $19.56/L of alcohol FI: $19.56/L of alcohol NZ: $19.56/L of alcohol 2 February 1984 22.09 As above 22.09.9 As above 22.09.91 As above $21.86/L of alcohol PNG: $20.36/L of alcohol FI: $20.36/L of alcohol NZ: $20.36/L of alcohol 2 February 1985 22.09 As above 22.09.9 As above 22.09.91 As above $22.39/L of alcohol PNG: $20.89/L of alcohol FI: $20.89/L of alcohol NZ: $20.89/L of alcohol 1 January 1984 22.09 * SPIRITS NOT FALLING WITHIN 22.08; LIQUEURS AND OTHER SPIRITUOUS BEVERAGES; COMPOUND ALCOHOLIC PREPARATIONS (KNOWN AS CONCENTRATED EXTRACTS) FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF BEVERAGES: 22.09.9 - Other (includes whisky and brandy other than brandy made wholly from grape wine) 22.09.99 - - Other $20.06/L of alcohol PNG: $19.56/L of alcohol FI: $19.56/L of alcohol NZ: $19.56/L of alcohol 2 February 1984 22.09 As above 22.09.9 As above 22.09.99 As above $20.86/L of alcohol PNG: $20.36/L of alcohol FI: $20.36/L of alcohol NZ: $20.36/L of alcohol 2 February 1985 22.09 As above 22.09.9 As above 22.09.99 As above $20.06/L of alcohol PNG: $20.89/L of alcohol FI: $20.89/L of alcohol NZ: $20.89/L of alcohol Table 3 DUTY-A$ Germany Federal EEC UK France Republic Italy Japan Other Wine Jan 1984 170,943 Nil 52,983 59,984 57,123 Nil 174,291 Feb 1984 177,654 6 43,421 36,415 92,099 95 51,382 March 1984 153,029 128 38,214 51,076 59,773 Nil 57,710 April 1984 158,138 6 35,470 28,393 88,799 1 24,040 May 1984 255,628 9 82,428 60,990 107,243 63 49,516 June 1984 210,493 30 68,475 47,512 86,334 30 196,964 July 1984 181,108 72 57,626 39,248 83,044 72 34,233 August 1984 302,147 18 99,447 50,130 143,027 18 59,620 Sept 1984 294,160 Nil 93,036 66,825 133,376 Nil 181,516 Oct 1984 410,349 Nil 210,305 83,192 108,790 Nil 164,499 Nov 1984 769,704 Nil 373,854 162,046 220,692 Nil 65,832 Dec 1984 671,815 Nil 343,510 112,059 195,528 8,234 59,340 Jan 1985 614,909 Nil 341,911 83,075 186,494 2 78,388 Feb 1985 445,649 Nil 193,457 61,117 188,133 2 96,186 Brandy Jan 1984 1,281,571 18,062 1,219,987 1,783 21,692 Nil 24,029 Feb 1984 1,583,303 3,689 1,548,150 2,607 7,952 Nil 18,082 March 1984 820,311 465 807,937 1,188 6,021 301 18,016 April 1984 320,582 463 310,479 3,193 2,250 Nil 32,232 May 1984 962,999 3,245 900,199 4,325 9,905 Nil 36,424 June 1984 947,822 Nil 916,965 3,883 11,994 Nil 34,060 July 1984 634,342 33 618,523 2,765 4,023 138 40,696 August 1984 1,647,296 396 1,617,497 5,279 5,091 Nil 40,215 Sept 1984 651,977 255 619,910 3,760 11,389 Nil 18,550 Oct 1984 555,292 15,505 514,482 4,816 3,807 Nil 33,470 Nov 1984 904,802 5,927 876,802 4,230 8,099 Nil 42,834 Dec 1984 762,849 6,348 698,605 8,511 21,184 Nil 59,163 Jan 1985 2,296,244 4,105 2,241,794 3,785 6,640 Nil 34,825 Feb 1985 1,160,983 10,873 1,118,091 2,735 6,488 Nil 3,334 Whisky Jan 1984 1,527,167 15,185,705 390 13 3,768 85,500 2,714,647 Feb 1984 8,848,588 8,806,928 Nil Nil 245 31,063 1,630,933 March 1984 7,080,271 7,022,751 Nil Nil 3,965 20,284 1,928,030 April 1984 6,328,158 6,280,138 367 Nil 1,983 21,629 1,126,612 May 1984 11,087,172 11,052,491 31 142 551 9,568 2,005,479 June 1984 13,852,419 13,813,116 Nil 4,653 1,983 53,197 2,435,840 July 1984 12,884,980 12,802,522 5,128 146 2,750 28,799 2,895,456 August 1984 19,226,086 19,169,622 192 Nil 1,983 84,547 2,346,267 Sept 1984 9,392,243 9,350,209 2,514 Nil 2,040 40,638 1,758,413 Oct 1984 11,102,404 11,054,318 Nil 255 Nil 52,439 2,280,715 Nov 1984 10,674,827 10,605,613 2,349 1,396 7,441 914 2,024,258 Dec 1984 11,792,504 11,747,496 2,007 555 2,571 26,908 1,747,497 Jan 1985 24,616,704 24,550,747 Nil 286 2,479 134,203 1,944,006 Feb 1985 Not Available