Wednesday, 16 October 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order, relating to the adjournment of the House, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting. I indicated to the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) yesterday that it was my desire to move this motion today. We have a certain amount of business which I am desirous of the House of Representatives dealing with this week in order that the Senate can deal with the same matters in the week it sits when the House of Representatives will not be sitting. This will allow people who are listed to speak during the program today and tomorrow to do so, which is the normal procedure. It will give us the additional time we require to complete our business. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.02) —The Opposition does not resist the concept of sitting on Wednesday evenings towards the end of this session. We understand that the Government has a volume of legislation and that, with the prospect of sitting in the first week of December, there is an advantage for us all if we can sit on Wednesday night, have a normal dinner adjournment and then rise perhaps earlier than might otherwise have been the case. However, there are a couple of aspects to this motion which people need to understand and to which we are opposed. The first is that standing order 103 relates to the introduction of new business after 11 p.m. At the moment we are not aware of any new business that has to be introduced after 11 o'clock. We are not inclined to accept that, even in ordinary circumstances, it is desirable for this place to sit after 11 o'clock. Given the extraordinary hours we are now sitting, whereby we sit for a fortnight with very long and demanding hours applicable to honourable members, there is every reason why the House should rise, as far as possible, at 11 o'clock. As the Leader of the House (Mr Young) would know, a predecessor of his, a former honourable member for Grayndler, introduced the fairly arbitrary rule that the House rise by 11 o'clock. For our part we would far prefer that rule to be retained. We are opposed to the suspension of standing order 103 for the rest of this sitting on the basis that it might be required. If there is a reason for the standing order to be suspended, we would be prepared to consider it on that basis. But at the moment we are being told that the Government might want it and that it just wants to cover its flank. Frankly, that is not good enough. It is for that reason we will oppose this motion. In addition, it would be desirable between now and the end of this year that we perhaps also look at the sitting pattern for next year. An increasing number of honourable members are not altogether content with the present sitting hours. I do not know whether the Government has had any survey conducted within its ranks, but the Leader of the House will recall that, prior to the introduction of the two-week on, two-week off sitting pattern, there was a great deal of deliberation about the pros and cons of that sitting pattern. I know that there are honourable members, particularly from Western Australia and more remote places, who certainly like the idea of having the fortnight off. However it is interesting that there are many who nonetheless go home on the weekend, so that in between times the advantage of staying in Canberra is virtually not being pursued. In that climate I am not too sure of the basis of opinion in the House. I have in mind, if the Leader of the House is not pursuing the matter, that we might discuss it within our joint parties to see what the attitude is towards the fortnight on, fortnight off sitting roster. It certainly creates a lot of problems for members in many respects in that short weekend, for when they wish to pursue their normal electoral functions they do not get home until too late to attend most functions on the Friday night. To try to get to one's electorate office on a Saturday morning is just about impossible. Those of us who have rural electorates have to make an election as to which town we are going to because physically we cannot attend more than one town. Whereas in the past many used to go to their electorate offices on a Monday morning, that opportunity is now denied. I think it would be worth while considering for next year whether we ought to revert to the alternative sitting pattern which for so long applied in this place. I think there are within the Parliament quite a few people of that mind. I would be interested to hear the intention of the Leader of the House in that matter. As far as Ministers are concerned, the two-week on, two-week off pattern frankly must be hell. I do not know how they accommodate the problems of seeing those they are required to see, attending to their Cabinet deliberations, attending to their committee responsibilities, attending to their other Party responsibilities and also running a department. Mr Young —Just very talented, that's all. Mr SINCLAIR —You could have fooled me. I think that what happens is that the department tends to run them. We have so many of the Yes Minister variety in this Government that we are all beginning to see the product. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is making an absolute fool of himself over the Australian Bicentennial Authority. We are all very conscious that the implications of that are largely that the sitting hours are not suitable for a reasonable work input. I think that common sense, medical health and even reasonable concentration suggest that there is an advantage in changing the present sitting pattern. For that reason, apart from any other, I put to the Leader of the House that it would be desirable for some reconsideration of the whole question before the final sitting pattern is determined for next year. The Leader of the House has given me an assurance, but members of the coalition parties are interested to get as soon as possible full detail of the program which will take us to the rising of the House. We know that the Government is in trouble about getting all the legislation printed. Whether that is because of the Parliamentary Counsel or ineffective or inadequate instructions from Ministers is another thing, but we are interested in knowing what legislation will be introduced and we are also interested in the sitting pattern for next year. The Leader of the House, in a few words in answer to this, might give me some indication of what they are so that members of this place can pursue the matter. On the basis that the motion seeks to suspend standing order 103, the 11 o'clock rule, for this sitting, members of the Opposition will be opposing it. As I say, we do not oppose sitting on Wednesday nights provided we rise at 11 o'clock, but I think most people, given the two-week sitting pattern, would far prefer that, whatever the other business of the House, we rise at 11 o'clock. I put it very strongly to the Leader of the House that that should be achieved whenever possible for the sake of everybody in this place. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.14) —in reply-There are just a couple of things I should say in regard to the sitting pattern of the House. I understand from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that that Committee is looking at bringing in some recommendations to the Government, after talking to a lot of people, regarding future sitting patterns. There is no doubt that on both sides of the House there is a very strong contingent of supporters for two weeks on, two weeks off, particularly among those who travel from a long way away-the Western Australians. I think those who represent Sydney and Melbourne electorates ought to have a little more thought for those who have to travel a long way from the Northern Territory, Western Australia or the top end of Queensland because it takes them quite a while to come down here. I have undertaken to try to get to the Leader of Opposition Business the program until the end of the year. As he said, it depends very much on the draftsmen and how much of the work they can complete for the purposes of our having the legislation introduced into the Parliament and debated before we get up. I have indicated to him that it may well be necessary for us to sit for the first week of December, but we should know within the next week or so whether that will be necessary. I will give him the information as soon as I have it. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, W. G. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. 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, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Humphreys, B. C. Rocher, A. C.Lindsay, E. J. Aldred, K. J.Scott, J. L. Cameron, DonaldPrice, L. R. S. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill cognately with Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 4) Amendment Bills, Sales Tax (No. 5) Amendment Bill (No. 2), Sales Tax (Nos. 6 to 9) Amendment Bills and Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.20) —We are discussing a package of Bills to give effect to the changes in the wholesale tax schedules and the rate structure which were announced in the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 19 September of so-called reforms of the Australian taxation system. We need to go back to the draft White Paper of June 1985 to see what was originally meant by the word `reform'. The centrepiece of the Government's brave approach to reform before and during the early stages of the July tax summit, as honourable members may recall, was a substantial broadening of the tax base to allow significant cuts in personal income tax. I quote from the overview paper that was put out with the draft White Paper in June 1985. These are the Government's words in the draft White Paper: The main approaches to fundamental reform are to: broaden the income base as much as possible and use the resultant revenue to lower marginal income tax rates; and achieve much more substantial reductions in marginal income tax rates across-the-board by broadening the indirect tax base. The overview paper goes on to state: Important as it would be in helping to achieve worthwhile tax reform, any feasible broadening of the income tax in itself would not permit the Government to go far in lowering marginal income tax rates. These would remain discouragingly high and, correspondingly, incentives to evade and avoid tax would remain strong. It is the desirability of going further than this-and at the same time rationalising the consumption tax regime-that has led the Government to turn to possible approaches to broadening the indirect tax base. In other words, what the Government is saying in its June White Paper is that the kinds of measures in the Treasurer's statement of 19 September are not nearly enough in order to achieve the kind of reform that is necessary to reduce personal income tax rates. In looking at what it might do beyond broadening the income tax base, the Government thought of two possible approaches or options. The overview paper states: Two of a range of possible approaches to broadening the consumption tax base are discussed in some detail in the draft White Paper. Each is combined with the income base-broadening measures which make up approach A. What is termed approach B would involve a dual consumption tax arrangement comprising: a wholesale sales tax of 10 per cent in respect of passenger motor vehicles, wine, soft drinks and those goods in the current 32 1/2 per cent rate class; and a broad-based consumption tax of 5 per cent (on virtually all goods and services, including those goods remaining subject to wholesale sales tax). That was approach B, or option B as it became known. Of option B, it was stated: The relatively modest revenue yield would, however, permit only modest changes in income tax rates, notwithstanding that a substantial change to the structure of the consumption tax base of the nation would be involved. Approach C in the draft White Paper, which is the Government's preferred approach, would permit larger reductions in marginal income tax rates across-the-board as well as imposing a more significant tax burden-at the consumption level-on income which escapes income tax. On the next page, it states: Substantial net gains are possible for low and middle income groups, especially with approach C. The Government's conclusion in the White Paper of June 1985 was: The Government's present view, as expressed in the draft White Paper and based on the belief that the macroeconomic and other issues can be dealt with satisfactorily, is that approach C is the one best calculated to achieve the basic objectives of tax reform. Option C, as it became known, was the object of an extensive sales effort on the part of the Treasurer and, at least initially, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Let me quote to the House what the Prime Minister said in June 1985: We sought the clearest possible mandate for reform . . . We accept the responsibility conferred on us by the people. To do otherwise-to attempt to shift or shelve our responsibilities-would be to turn our backs on all we stand for as a Government and as a party. But it would be more than that; in a very real sense we would be turning our backs on the people of Australia. Also in June 1985 he announced that he would be willing to sacrifice government in order to secure meaningful tax reforms. He was quoted in the Age of 20 June as saying: Well, if it costs me government . . . I would do it, because I don't want to take the easy way out . . . If we pay a political price well, okay, but I believe that in the longer term Australia is going to be better off, that's the course I'll take. But even before that, we began to see some of the crumbling away of the Prime Minister's support for the Treasurer when he was speaking to the Canadian economic summit in March. He appeared to step away from tax reform by saying: . . . the government will not proceed with the legislation of a tax package which does not have broad community support. He said further: . . . we are not in the business of committing political suicide on this or any other issue . . . you've got to get a feeling of what's acceptable unless you want to be engaged in the process of political hari-kari. The Treasurer might have taken heed of that if he had been careful, but the Treasurer continued, believing that he had the full support of the Prime Minister, to push the option C proposal. In early June the Treasurer said: If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal, then you won't see significant reform in this country in taxation for the balance of this century. A little later, the Treasurer, hinting even at his possible resignation if his campaign for tax reform failed, said: If this sort of proposal doesn't get up, one has to decide if there's much point in someone like me worrying about the Australian institutional process, and in Australian institutions, very much longer. Under attack in late June he said: We're not shrinking violets and we're not about to disappear when the first whiff of grapeshot passes the trenches. In a report in the Sydney Morning Herald the Treasurer gave this clear message to the Australian Labor Party's Left and Centre Left factions which are opposing a consumption tax: So if any of our colleagues think that there may be some easy road to soft options, we're not about the soft path. As late as Thursday of the National Taxation Summit the Treasurer said: I am still pressing for a broad-based consumption tax. But after the Prime Minister had gone off to make a deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions at a Canberra motel and after the Prime Minister had pulled the rug from under his Treasurer, the Treasurer said: It's a bit like Ben Hur's-we got across the line with one wheel off. On 13 August 1985, in a very sad Press conference, the Treasurer announced that the remainder of the consumption tax package was to be dumped as it was `unworkable and impracticable'. So the Prime Minister deserted his Treasurer at the Summit. He left Parliament House where the Summit was being held and went to a Canberra motel. He was summoned to meet the ACTU executive who had told him that it had never supported what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had been putting up; that it was not going to have it; that the Government would have to come to heel and all that the Government would be allowed would be the nasties of option A of the draft White Paper. That is what the ACTU executive required of the Government. Of course, under the infamous ACTU-ALP accord it was necessary for the Government to meet those trade union demands. So the Government was left with the punitive option A proposals for broadening the income tax base which had been subject to such grave criticism in its draft White Paper. These proposals certainly did not meet the Government's criteria for reform. I wish to quote again from the overview paper of June 1985 about option A where the paper states: While helpful in making for greater equity in the system, such reductions in marginal rates are quite modest, particularly at lower levels, and the average wage and salary earner would be left facing a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent. How prophetic that that should be in the White Paper because that is precisely what the Government has been left with after the ACTU has exacted its price. So in the package before us we have a capital gains tax, entertainment and fringe benefits taxes, the abolition of negative gearing on rental properties, limits on the write-off of farm losses against non-farm income, the abolition of the concessional expenditure rebate, and other higher taxing proposals, offset by a necessarily restricted set of concessions on marginal income tax rates and a new system of taxing dividends. Then there is that essential ingredient of taxation reform of which the Treasurer said: If we don't as a nation adopt this proposal, then you won't see significant reform in this country in taxation for the balance of this century. What of the proposal for an indirect tax that would give a net revenue yield, after compensating needy groups, of $6.8 billion and allow for substantial net gains for low and middle income groups? Well, here it is in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills: A minor rationalisation of the existing wholesale tax with a net revenue yield of not $6.8 billion but a lousy $75m, or about $110m in a full year. A wholesale sales tax indeed! It is the very tax that was treated with contempt by the draft White Paper. I quote from chapter 13 of the Paper what the Government was saying about the wholesale sales tax it now has as the only centrepiece of consumption tax in its overall package. The existing WST is a narrowly-based tax which applies only to selected consumption goods and some intermediate goods. It does not cover any services and it has many anomalies and inconsistencies . . . Its lack of comprehensiveness in coverage, and its multiple tax rate structure, lead to a number of problems: the narrow tax base means that higher tax rates are required to generate a given level of revenue; the tax impacts differentially on various commodities and so interferes with consumption and production decisions; individuals with the same income bear different tax burdens merely because they have different consumption patterns; and the extent of commodity exemptions and the multiple tax rates lead to greatly increased administrative costs. It goes on: Even if some of the problems in the existing WST could be eliminated, the point remains that wholesale . . . taxes suffer from inherent problems: tax is levied at the point of last wholesale sale so that the base excludes value added at the retail level-other things being equal, therefore, the tax base for a WST will be smaller than for a BBCT- a broad-based consumption tax- . . . levied at the point of final sale and the rates of tax will be higher; a WST cannot be applied to services, which are normally provided at the retail level. This both limits the base and in the absence of a supplementary tax on services, distorts consumer choices and leads to inequities; I am describing here, from the Government's own draft White Paper of June, all the criticisms of the measure that it is left with as the fag end of this tax package. The Paper goes on: A WST is also susceptible to valuation problems because the tax is levied at the point of last wholesale sale. The value of that sale can be influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of transport or other services in the price of goods, with taxpayers having an incentive to exclude such services whenever possible. This further reduces the tax base relative to a VAT or BBCT which is levied at the point of final sale and is much less open to this kind of manipulation. the integration of some wholesalers and retailers creates difficulties in establishing the appropriate value on which to charge tax. The traders who are most vertically integrated can shift profit margins beyond the point where the tax is applied and thereby gain a tax advantage; Finally it states in relation to the wholesale sales tax: will increase business costs to a greater extent than a retail sales tax with an equivalent revenue yield since retailers are required to carry stocks which include WST in their value, adding to their demand for working capital. The Government concluded in this chapter of the draft White Paper: The inherent and introduced limitations of the WST constitute strong arguments for its replacement by a new broad-based tax. That is basically what the Government thought of this particular measure that we are facing in the House today. After one has heard all that, one can understand the Treasurer's despair at being left with only this miserable offering in the cupboard after it had been raided by the ACTU. One can also appreciate his effrontery in calling this tattered remnant of his grand design a far reaching reform. Let us look at the remnant to see what it contains. It replaces the existing wholesale sales tax, which has a four rate structure of 7.5 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 32.5 per cent, with three rates of 10, 20, and 30 per cent; a modest rationalisation. On the face of it this seems sensible. However, when one looks at the inclusions at each level, one gets the impression that the cards have been shuffled carelessly, leaving loads of glaring examples. Let us take the simple examples of biscuits and ice cream. I thought that the Government had rejected the idea of taxing basic food items. That was one of the demands of the ACTU; one of the things the unions said they would not wear. There was also a big outcry at the National Taxation Summit from social welfare groups and so on against taxing food. The Prime Minister said: `No, we will not tax food'. Let us look at the application of these taxes, the way they will be administered and the rather extraordinary thinking of the Treasury and the Taxation Office on this matter. The Treasurer, at page 50 of his statement of 19 September, said: The present WST system taxes confectionery at 20 per cent while exempting close substitute products such as snack food, biscuits and ice cream. That refers to close substitute products. It takes a peculiar sort of mind to equate biscuits and ice cream with confectionery. All those mums who keep biscuits in the cupboard and ice cream in the freezer as basic food items, but will allow their children lollies and chocolates only occasionally, will be amazed to learn that the Treasurer has slammed a 10 per cent sales tax on biscuits and ice cream yet has reduced the tax on lollies and chocolates from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. They are basic food items in every kitchen these days. The big ice cream container in the freezer is the basic standby for puddings when mum is too tired to make a fresh pudding or alternatively the children want a change. The ice cream is always there as a basic food item. Does the Treasurer never go around an ordinary supermarket and see cannister after cannister of bulk ice cream, which is now to be taxed at 10 per cent? Mr Conquest —He is living in a world of his own. Mr CARLTON —He is absolutely out of touch with the ordinary reality of every kitchen. The shadow Treasurer goes down to the supermarket every weekend to have a look at the prices and find out what is going on. Always I see people with big trollies loaded up with ice cream and biscuits. Biscuits are a basic food item. They are not confectionery, they are not the same as chocolates. What do those people think they are doing? This lofty paper prepared in the inner recesses of the Canberra bureaucracy, brought in by the Treasurer, wants people to swallow the idea that ice cream and biscuits are not basic food items and will be taxed at 10 per cent. At the same time the Treasurer has removed entirely the tax on imported thoroughbred race horses. All the mums will be delighted at that. Ice cream is a $500m retail sales industry. It also supports in a very great way the dairying and sugar industries-two Australian industries in dire trouble. It has been estimated that some $6m of sales from those industries to the ice cream industry will be lost as a result of these measures. There is an absolute and basic insanity in this particular measure. I ask the Government to re-examine exactly what it has done in switching around these scales. It should look at exactly what is happening in the supermarkets and kitchens and also in those two distressed industries, the dairying and sugar industries. Let us go on. A week or two ago there appeared an advertisement, of which some honourable members made a joke, which had a picture of the Treasurer and a picture of Senator Ryan, and it said: Why should Senator Susan Ryan have to pay 50% more sales tax than Treasurer Paul Keating to be well-groomed? Some people regarded that as a bit of a joke, but there is a very serious issue behind this. Why on earth should men's toiletries be taxed at 20 per cent and women's cosmetics be taxed at 30 per cent? I have here a list provided to me by a manufacturing company. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you disapprove of some of what this company has done, and I note your concern; but that is unrelated to what I am saying, and the actual argument has to be addressed. This particular manufacturer of toiletries and cosmetics wants to know why Pears toilet soap is taxed at 20 per cent and Pears shampoo is taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Robert Brown —What about dog shampoo? Mr CARLTON —I shall not give to the honourable member the obvious response to that; we shall come to that matter. Why should Menage after-shave be taxed at 20 per cent and Menage splash-on be taxed at 30 per cent? Why should fabric conditioner be taxed at 20 per cent and Sunsilk conditioner be taxed at 30 per cent? The honourable member will not be disappointed: Why should dog shampoo be taxed at 20 per cent and family shampoo be taxed at 30 per cent? Mr Robert Brown —But worse, it is put in the list of male toiletries. I should like to emphasise that there are female dogs. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member is concerned because it is put in the list of male toiletries. It is a grave reflection on the behaviour of some members of this House if the honourable member thinks that there is some correlation. However, shaving cream is taxed at 20 per cent; depilatory cream is taxed at 30 per cent. Room deodorant is taxed at 20 per cent; Rexona deodorant is taxed at 30 per cent. Breath freshener is taxed at 20 per cent; Norsca cologne is taxed at 30 per cent. I should have thought that the Prime Minister, in his concern for the status of women in Australia, would have drawn attention, in the Cabinet discussions on this matter, to the obvious disparity between the treatment of men's toiletries and women's cosmetics. It is a bit like this business of the ice cream and the biscuits. I just wonder how much out of touch the Treasurer and all these other people are. Women's cosmetics are used in very great quantities even in the most modest households. They are not a luxury item in modest households. Women use cosmetics of various kinds on a daily basis. They buy them in supermarkets these days. Perhaps during the war, when apparently the thinking of these ice cream and biscuit taxes was fixed, and when they were all rationed in any case, taxes had to be slammed on them as luxury items. But these days are the ordinary cosmetics to be found in every household luxury items? We have the saga of the pianola rolls. There was a report in the Age of 20 September 1985 headed `Keating faces the music over pianola roll tax'. There is a history attached to this. It is not a major item. It just shows how silly these things can become if there is not someone with common sense overseeing the work of the officers in the Australan Taxation Office. The article states: Mr Howard removed wholesale sales tax from pianola rolls in the 1980 budget after learning that a western suburbs manufacturer was the only Australian still punching holes in a paper roll for those who could work a piano's pedals but weren't too good on the keys. That manufacturer is Mr Barclay Wright, of Petersham, New South Wales, who is the only manufacturer of pianola rolls in this country. The article continued: Mr Keating has now imposed a 20 per cent tax rate on pianola rolls-- And here I quote from this delicious tax statement of the Treasurer, which shows how arcane the thinking is. The 20 per cent tax rate has been imposed on the rolls produced by this single Australian producer: . . . to achieve a consistent treatment with pianos, player-pianos, and the proposed treatment for similar home entertainment items such as records and tapes. The whole industry of people making pianos, player-pianos, entertainment items, records and tapes, is trembling at the competition it is getting from Mr Barclay Wright, of Petersham, who is turning out these pianola rolls so effectively! In order to aid this vast industry, trembling at the terrible competiton from Mr Barclay Wright, the Treasurer is to impose a 20 per cent tax on his products. What an absolute nonsense! That is just a dopey example. But what else do we have? A 10 per cent sales tax is to be imposed, not on books-the Government said it would not impose a tax on books and it appears to have kept that promise-but on `books consisting wholly or principally of maps'. What on earth is the sense in that? I presume that the Government is talking about atlases. What is the difference between a book and an atlas? If the Government wants to tax the maps that one buys for tours and that sort of thing, they can be distinguished easily enough. But to tax atlases, which are used by families and schools for educational purposes, strikes me as being yet another nonsense. I notice that the Government is also bringing in a tax on solar hot water systems and solar energy equipment. That seems to go against the Australian Labor Party's platform, constitution and rules of 1984 which state, under the heading `Energy Consumption and Conservation' that Labor will: . . . investigate the feasibility of offering financial incentives and assistance to encourage the more rapid adoption of energy-efficient technologies and practices, including renewable energy technologies . . . for example, low energy features in first home purchases of low to middle income earners, and the purchase of solar energy equipment- I am turning the Labor Party's words against itself on this issue, because it said in its platform that it would not do this sort of thing but has included it in its proposals. What about soft drinks? There is a peculiar thing about soft drinks which I have never been able to understand. It was an anomaly in the old system which we, I confess, did not remove. According to the Treasurer's draft White Paper on taxation, if one has a wholesale tax which has all sorts of anomalies in it, now is the time to do something about it. But nothing has been done about the business of soft drinks. A still drink with 25 per cent fruit juice-in other words, it is three-quarters water-is not taxed. But if one puts a few bubbles in it and it becomes a carbonated drink, it is taxed. I cannot quite see the logic of that. If the drink were 100 per cent fruit juice maybe the Government would say that it was more nutritious or there might be some sort of argument for not taxing it. But does one make taxation decisions on the basis of whether things are nutritious? I am not sure that that is a good tax principle. I merely draw the attention of the House to the fact Mr Ruddock —It depends on whether you put spa water in it. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Dundas raises further complications which are beyond the Australian Taxation Office to solve. I merely point out that a still drink with 25 per cent fruit juice in it is not taxed but, if it has a few bubbles in it, it is taxed. The Government is introducing some earth shattering changes which I am sure the House will applaud. For example, the sales tax on toothpicks and paper weights is down from 32 1/2 per cent to 20 per cent. This measure merits a full line in the Treasurer's tax package statement. The net taxation take went from $6.8 billion, proposed in the draft White Paper, to give major relief to taxpayers at the lower and middle levels of income, to what we have in the final package-a whole baggage of goods which reduces, for example, the tax on toothpicks and paper weights from 32 1/2 per cent to 20 per cent. That typifies this whole package. Basically, the serious side of this issue is what I noted at the beginning of this debate, that is, that the Government said to everybody that tax reform was one of the most important national objectives. The Government invested months and months going around the country persuading everybody that there had to be a sufficient shift from income tax towards indirect taxes so as to relieve people at the lower and middle levels of income from excessive marginal tax rates on their personal income tax. That was the whole thrust of what the Government told us for months and months. The Prime Minister said that he was prepared to stake the whole future of the Government on it. The Treasurer said that he was prepared to leave politics if he did not achieve his reforms. But what do we find? We find that instead of the Government's preferred Option C, which would have shifted $6.8 billion off the income tax scales into indirect tax, providing major reform and major relief to low and middle income earners, we have before the House a measure which transfers, not $6.8 billion in that direction, but a lousy $110m, and, in the process, produces yet another set of anomalies in the wholesale sales tax rates and schedules. That is the issue before the House this morning. That is what the Government has to be nailed on. Once again, the Government has come out with high promise and failed us on every single count. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.51) —When we are discussing national issues such as taxation it is important to look at the historical position. It is also important to suggest in this debate that the piety the Opposition displays about tax is quite extraordinary. The community is not persuaded by what the Opposition says. We have only to reflect on the Opposition's performance when it was in government to realise that. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), has admitted that there were inequities in the wholesale tax system that the previous Government did not iron out. Also, if we consider the current debate within the Opposition, we are not really sure whether the Opposition wants to have income splitting, a consumption tax or a capital gains tax using section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act which provides for a very punitive capital gains tax, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has repeatedly said. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is well aware that section 26AAA, which taxes at the full marginal rate full nominal gains, is a very punitive capital gains tax. We are not really sure where the Opposition stands on the whole question of tax policy. All we know-our knowledge is shared by the community-is that when the Opposition was in government it certainly did not act against tax avoidance and evasion. Mr Robert Brown —They encouraged it. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Exactly. On the basis of the Opposition's performance in government, it has no credibility. Some tax evaders and avoiders are being dealt with by the court system now. However, the Opposition certainly is not credible on taxes and the community knows it. It knows very well that, when it came to tax policy, the previous Government was a tattered government. It did not perform. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was unable to get any sort of consensus on tax policy. He would roll up some ideas and would be knocked over again and again in Cabinet. Mr Robert Brown —Messner is doing the same thing to him now. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As the honourable member says, the same process is taking place now. Between the agrarian socialists of the National Party who have certain goals and the Liberal wets and dries, the Leader of the Opposition is unable to come up with a credible tax policy. Little wonder that the shadow Treasurer is unable to come up with a credible tax policy. When we paint that picture it is no good the Opposition coming into this chamber and doing what the shadow Treasurer has just done-nitpicking. The Opposition when in government did not perform and, in opposition, is unable to put together a substantial policy. The Opposition is committed to the exercise of choosing minor items and having shots at them. Ross Gittins, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 October, identified very accurately the kind of dilemma faced by some members of the community and the Opposition. The article stated: If ever there was a classic example of the business community's political ineptitude, it's the cosmetic industry's belated campaign to have the sales tax on its products cut from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. The article then develops the argument a little more. It goes on to say that the difficulty the cosmetics industry faces and, I suggest, the difficulty the Opposition faces, is that when governments-we can talk about governments over a long time-come to office and try to put together a comprehensive tax reform proposal oppositions are not prepared to weigh into the debate in a substantial way. What this Opposition is prepared to do is to hold its fire. When the Government puts up a proposition the Opposition gets very excited and tells the Government what a raw deal it is getting. But at the time, in the context of the discussion, it is not prepared to weigh in intelligently. We saw that in the context of the tax debate we had in Australia. We saw very clearly that the Opposition was not prepared to contribute in a substantial way to that tax debate. Rather, it stood off and was prepared to take shots, which it is doing now. We saw that with substantial sections of industry. It is not good. As Ross Gittins said: In the antics of the cosmetic industry we have a classic example of the business community's perverted approach to politics- and I suggest the Opposition's perverted approach to politics- . . . it won't back governments when they are trying to achieve something positive, all it will do is attack them when it reckons it is getting a raw deal. The cosmetics industry has left its run far too late. It has Buckley's chance of getting the tax on its products reduced. But perhaps the association doesn't care about winning so much as it cares about keeping in the clear with its members. I suggest that that is an adequate response to what the shadow Treasurer said about the cosmetics industry issues. He made great comment about the detail of the issues, but that is substantially the point. When the debate about tax was on in this country the Opposition and many people in business were found wanting. So it is no good those opposite bleating at this stage and saying: `We are not happy with this item or that item and so on'. They were not prepared to contribute to the national tax debate and they are not prepared to contribute substantially to it now because they do not have a policy. The people in the community well know that those opposite, when in government, had nothing substantial in the way of a tax policy; it was a shambles. There was an enormous drift in pay as you earn tax collections. There was rampant tax avoidance and evasion that the then Government did nothing to curb; it let them go on. The people out there are still angry about that-the people who had no choice with respect to pay as you earn tax. They still have no choice with respect to pay as you earn tax, but we are doing something about reducing those marginal rates. Those opposite, when in government, were not prepared to do it. They let the tax avoiders and evaders go. What we are now seeing is the wash-up of that in the court system. What has to be recognised in the context of this debate is that in the tax package we have substantial reductions in the marginal rates. We are faced with the absolute ineptitude of the Opposition. The Opposition is saying: `We are unhappy that the Government has removed the sales tax on imported horses'. Those opposite were never prepared to deal with the fact that the horse racing industry is a substantial employer of labour-250,000 people around the country. In fact very little was collected from sales tax on imported horses because very few horses were brought into the country. That is just an example of their inability to recognise that tax policy can play a part in bringing about sensible equity. What we are offering is substantial reductions in marginal rates. From 1 September 1986 the 60c rate will go to 55c, the 48c rate to 46c, the 46c rate to 43c, the 30c rate to 29c, and the 25c rate to 24c. That is part of this whole arrangement in respect to sales tax. From 1 July 1987 the five-rate scale will be compressed to four. The 55c rate will become 49c. It should be recognised that people currently paying 60c in the dollar will be paying 49c from 1 July 1987. The 46c and the 43c rates will come back to 40c, again substantial reductions in marginal tax rates. As part of this overall tax package the 29c and 24c rates will remain. We are suggesting that there is a strategy and an approach on tax. It is no good the Opposition saying: `We are all concerned about these minor items'. What the Opposition has not got is a comprehensive approach to tax policy. Those opposite certainly never had one when they were in government and there is no evidence of them developing one at this stage. The community well knows that. I say to those opposite: `Where is your comprehensive tax policy? Where is your approach to taxes and wages?'. We do not know. There is a debate between the agrarian socialists, the Liberal wets and the Liberal dries. All the factions are weighing in, but those opposite have not got a comprehensive tax or wages policy. The community well knows that. The community knows that those opposite are divided. While they remain so divided it is no good them sounding pious in debates because the community can see through all that piety and nonsense, as we can. That is all it is. In this tax package and in these sales tax amendments we have a substantial approach to tax reform. We had a debate in this country. The Opposition and sectors of business were not prepared to participate in that debate. It is now too late. We have now taken some firm positions with respect to taxes, and the community knows that what is involved in these sales tax adjustments is the pay-off for substantial reductions in marginal rates of tax. That is what members of the community have been saying for a long time. They were saying it when those opposite were in government and they did not listen. All they listened to were their mates in the tax avoidance and evasion industry. They cosseted them. That is all they listened to. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), when he was Treasurer, knew that the ramps and rorts were on. It was well known in the community and in the accounting profession that they were on. There were people selling schemes. Theirs were the only voices those opposite listened to and they stand condemned for it. The only voices were those of tax avoiders and evaders who were out there doing their thing. But they could not hear the ordinary citizens who were committed to paying pay as you earn tax. They were not interested in tax indexation. They certainly were not interested in reducing marginal rates. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not go on further because I know that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) will do a substantial job of putting propositions before the House. There are a lot of things to be said about tax reform. The Opposition is not in a position to say things about tax reform because its record is shabby indeed and because it does not have a policy. This side, as will be seen from following speakers on the Government side, is well aware of what is involved in tax reform and we are pleased to be supporting these Bills. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.02) —As is proper in this place, I must respond to some of the statements made by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). A substantial part of his speech referred to tax avoidance and evasion. I have chosen in this place to retail the difference, which he from a professional standpoint should know, between tax avoidance and evasion. Tax avoidance has always involved people telling the Commissioner of Taxation what they were doing and then telling him why he could not have any money. Tax evasion involves people not telling him. Last night I drew the attention of the House to the potential activities of a very close member of the Labor Party. It is all right for the honourable member for Stirling to lecture us, a Party that brought in 40 separate pieces of anti-tax avoidance legislation, and to vote against me personally by voting to expel me from the House to protect one of his own Ministers, whom I branded as both a tax avoider and a tax evader under the definition I have just given! It is total hypocrisy for him to pontificate in the way he did a few minutes ago while he is prepared time and again to see his name in the list of voters printed in Hansard. He can point the finger at people associated distantly and at arm's length with the Liberal Party. Never has he been able to point the finger at a member of our front bench in the way that I have pointed at his front bench. Do not give me that sort of rubbish! I hope that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) is not going to give us one of his standard speeches in that regard. Mr Robert Brown —On a point of order: On a previous occasion, as the honourable member for O'Connor quite correctly indicated, he was expelled from this chamber for disorderly conduct as a result- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Will the honourable member come to the point of order? Mr Robert Brown —I am. That puts it in context. As a result of accusations which were made against them, unfounded, unsubstantiated, grossly defamatory accusations made against a- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is listening very carefully to the honourable member for O'Connor. He will now continue to speak to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —In answer to that accusation, should the honourable member invite me I will table again the probate statement that saved $1m for the Minister for Finance. So do not say it is unsubstantiated. There are substantial items to consider, discuss and in fact criticise in regard to this legislation. The honourable member for Stirling wanted to lecture us on the racing industry. It might be proper at this stage of the game for me to declare an interest in that matter because I am an owner and breeder of race horses. I am quite happy for those present to be aware of my position in that regard because I think it allows me to speak with some experience and knowledge. Unfortunately I have never had the privilege of buying a race horse from Ireland, as this legislation will allow me to do free of sales tax. I have bought race horses from New Zealand, and they were not subject to sales tax. In answer to a question from the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) gave us a lecture on all these things and finished with these words: Racing has had such a profound impact on the society of Australia that Phar Lap, a dead horse, and Tommy Woodcock, his gentle trainer, will be remembered long after most of us have been forgotten. He made this impassioned plea for the racing industry, supporting the situation that this legislation brings about. Schedule 1 will include new clause 117A so that all race horses imported are free of sales tax. I can tell honourable members that that will help a lot of people; it will help those people who import horses from places that are quoted in the schedule, for example, Ireland. In other words, it will not help very many people. But at the same time, the tax package, as we know it, will cause the quarantining of farm losses. A substantial proportion of the 250,000 people who the Government boasts are employed in the racing industry are employed in breeding horses. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) who has just entered the House would tell us, the owning and the breeding of a race horse is seldom profitable. It is only the people who are prepared to put in capital and take advantage of some tax concessions who go into race horse breeding. Mr Duffy —Or those who are a bit mad. Mr TUCKEY —Yes. Unfortunately one has to have substantial assets behind one in order to go into race horse breeding. The history of breeding race horses is that one can go for probably 20 years sustaining losses for the grand dream that one day one will have a Bletchingly, or something like that. Then, of course, one gets substantial profits and one is taxed quite heavily on them. At the moment this Government has made a substantial attack on that industry because of the effect on those people who have quite deliberately calculated and taken the tax benefit of those losses. Let us remember that those people initially lose 100c in the dollar. They could have the whole 100c. My wife is at pains to explain to me that she would rather we keep the 100c than I have the advantage of only having to spend 54c, or whatever the rate is at present, out of my dollar in trying to breed race horses. I promise honourable members that it is a long time since I made a profit in that area, but I am still hopeful. It is the grand gamble. Nevertheless, I have a 200-acre property which, if it were to run cattle, would employ nobody in a full time capacity. Generally my property employs three people because of the huge labour intensity of horse breeding. Nevertheless, one must look at what one is doing in that industry. It is an industry in which people invest 100c in the dollar and they see it discounted by the tax effect, but it does keep a lot of people in jobs. These people support the industry which the Minister has elevated above this Parliament in his answers to questions. The Government should be quite clear about what it is doing: The sales tax benefit is insufficient compared with the attack that the Government has mounted by trying to quarantine farm losses. On another occasion I shall go into the overall effects of that at much greater length. The racing industry is extremely angry and the Government has not won many friends in that area because it has taken much more than it has given in this alteration and the creation of new clause 117A. More important to me at this stage of the game are the issues that I wish to raise on behalf of my area of responsibility, small business. I mention particularly wholesalers, but again I do not think I need declare an interest because not that long ago my firm cancelled its sales tax licence as we did not need it any more. I am well aware of the operation of the sales tax laws of Australia and consequently I am aware of the huge burden that the present collection measures place upon the business community involved. The legislation labels the person whom we all see as the collector, as the taxpayer. He is considered to be the taxpayer, and that he is. He is obliged to pay the tax on the products he sells on the twentieth of the month following the month of invoicing, whether it is a cash or credit sale. He is obliged to pay that tax whether or not the person he invoices on credit pays him promptly or at all. That is another matter altogether. There are some provisions to allow him in certain circumstances to claim the tax back if the amount is not paid eventually, but in the short term-by that I mean many months-he carries the burden of paying the present inflated interest rates of 20 per cent plus that this Government has imposed on the Australian business community. He has to pay that rate of interest on that money until the client pays him. Everybody knows-I am told by the small business community that even the Treasurer agrees-that this is an unnecessary burden. Absolutely no remuneration whatsoever is paid to the business community for collecting the huge amount of tax for the Government, I think some $6,000m in the present Budget. The business community gets no remuneration and no encouragement whatsoever. In fact, in many cases it is obliged if it is granting credit-and most wholesalers do-to borrow money to pay the tax. Wholesalers issue invoices at the end of the month with the tax shown and by the following twentieth of the month that tax must be in the hands of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is quite active in ensuring that it is. Nobody is likely to have his accounts paid by even the best of his customers by the twentieth of the month following the date of invoice. We talk about a 30-day account and that means it is 10 days later, at the minimum, after the date on which the wholesaler pays the tax that he can expect to find his revenue coming in from his clients. Many people, particularly in these hard times with inflation and devaluation pushing up the value of the stock on their shelves, find it extremely difficult to be good payers. Often they pay something like 60 days later which means that for 40 days the wholesaler is carrying the Government and paying 20 per cent interest on that money. That is grossly unfair and I am aware that past governments have not been able to address the problem. I am advised that the Treasury reckons that it would cost about $250m to extend the collection period by a further 30 days. That is a lot of money. I did my calculation differently. I worked it out that the $6,000m of collections means that this can be broken down into approximately $500m a month. If the collection period were extended by a month it would mean $500m lost to cash flow. It would not be lost to the revenue, but the whole thing would be bumped back. There would be a bump in cash flow, as we in business understand it, and that would mean that the Government would be $500m short. The interesting point about that is that if the Government went to the bond market to get that money-I will not argue the implications of that-and paid the rate that governments can get money for today, about 15 per cent, it would cost $75m a year. The interesting point about the Treasurer's statement on this so-called rationalisation is that for a long time it was presented to the Australian taxpayers as being revenue neutral-in other words, the Government just wanted to clean up the mess as it saw it, but it was not trying to get more revenue out of the arrangement. We now discover that there will be a $75m tax windfall in the first year, $110m in the second year and whatever from thereon in. The Government could actually extend by one month the collection period for all these disadvantaged wholesalers at the cost of its tax windfall of $75m. So theoretically not a penny has been lost. Alternatively, if the Government chose to extend the collection period on a daily basis at a cost of $16.43m a day, it could extend the day back as well. This means that with the first tax windfall-that is, the money the Government did not really want anyway-it could extend the period by four days. That does not sound very much, but the next year the Government could extend the period by another six days at no cost to revenue if it accepted that this was a tax windfall and something that accidentally occurred. The Government would be in a position to give the business community a chance over a period. It is not that often that the Government gets a tax windfall of this nature, so the opportunity will not come around again. I sincerely hope that this plea that I make on behalf of the small business community in particular will be heard by the Government. I am also aware that some sections of big business can get their sales tax in very promptly. I believe the car industry gets it in extremely quickly so maybe the Government should look at that in the context of this arrangement. I do not see that one side of business should have to borrow money at 20 per cent-generally small business-and another have the Government's money out at 20 per cent or 15 per cent on the bond market or short term money market. The reality is that this question needs looking at. There are probably other options that the Government could take to give a reasonable opportunity to the small business wholesaler to pay. I hope that the Government will take that plea on board. The evidence is there. The Government has had a tax windfall; it has admitted so. That tax windfall should be used to extend the time of payment from the 20th of the following month. While I am on this subject, it is interesting to note how tough the Taxation Commissioner has become in making people pay their various tax commitments on time, even if they are tax collectors for government-and the responsibility is not truly theirs. Yet there is ample evidence that the Government is slipping further behind again, particularly in the case of Pharmpay, in paying its creditors. This Government does not seem in the least bit anxious to help me bring forward my prompt payment of government debt legislation, which would be of great help in this regard. That issue is one of great concern to me, but, furthermore, I represent a rural electorate and I must put the point to government that every time a tax of this nature is imposed or increased, there is an additional cost to people in the country. Sometimes it is overstated. Because the tax remains a wholesale tax at present, many goods directed to country people are charged out at the metropolitan wholesale price. In those circumstances it is untrue to say that the additional freight is taxed; it is not, and that is often overstated. Nevertheless, there are many wholesale organisations operating in rural centres, particularly some of the larger centres. If goods are transported to those wholesale centres and billed at that point, there will be an additional unit cost burden for the country people, and it should not exist. It is time that both sides of politics addressed this problem. It would be a considerable problem with regard to the imposition of a retail tax whereby all goods would be charged at that point. I am talking about the additional profit margin as well as the freight. I have made the point frequently in this Parliament that one wonders what rural Labor voters in particular get for their vote. They get very little consideration whatsoever on these issues. They will certainly pay a higher unit tax. The packet of weeties that is consumed by a three-unit family is consumed in exactly the same period by a wages and salary earning family living in a provincial town or by a farming family. All of those people who reside in the country are getting a raw deal at present from this Government, particularly with regard to fuel prices, where a huge cost is involved because of the multiplier effect. People in the country do not have the opportunity to use public transport to the same extent as do those in the city. It is nothing to do a 20-mile trip just to get one's kids on to a football ground. That is a huge cost that country people, whether they be farmers or wage and salary earners, have to meet. In the case of the sales tax, the proposed increases will have the same effect. The rural community is deeply concerned too about its food products. Last night, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) went to great pains to draw the Government's attention to the fact that apparently an almond, irrespective of its condition and irrespective of the fact that it may be used as a health food or a sweet, will be taxed under this legislation. The Government had better look quickly at that. I am told that the industry is not concerned when almonds are spiced up and treated almost as confectionery, but when they are sold in health shops in competition with other types of health foods, such as dried fruits and things of that nature, it would be quite ridiculous to have them taxed in the form proposed. Almonds are a nutritious food. The almond industry is a substantial primary industry within Australia. There is absolutely no reason why almonds should be taxed in any way. I hope that the Government will look at this question very quickly. The major points that I wish to make and repeat are that these sales tax proposals were presented to the Australian public as being revenue neutral. They are not revenue neutral. They will pick up $110m in a full tax year. That tax windfall could quite easily have been applied by one means or another to reducing the burden on that legion of unpaid and unassisted tax collectors whom the Government has regimented for itself and who have been called upon to collect tax over many years. They should at least not be disadvantaged in carrying out their responsibilities to collect tax. I add in that regard-I do not know whether the proposed rationalisation will help in some way-that there is huge confusion in the industry. It is my experience that it is no good writing to the Australian Taxation Office and asking: `Can you give me a list of the taxes I should charge on goods?'. The Taxation Office responds: `No'. One has to send the Taxation Office a list of what one wants to sell and then the Taxation Office will tell one what tax to charge on those items. There are various areas of confusion in that regard, and that should not be so. I am sure that there should be some other way. In closing, this legislation is considered a tax package. I do not like to consider it as a tax package. My view is that it should not be. I reject entirely the criticism of the honourable member for Stirling, who said that we do not know where we are going. It is not our obligation to know where we are going. Honourable members opposite are in government. We know where we are going. We are taking the proper steps and are taking the time that an Opposition is entitled to take to put together the right package by election time. Honourable members opposite have to run the country. They got too much benefit from all the things we did before they came into government. I refer to the wages pause and a few other measures. We had to take over Labor's expenditure splurges. Honourable members opposite boast about all sorts of things. The Government has borrowed $20,000m. The interest bill has jumped from $3,300m to $6,700m. It has doubled the accumulated debt of the Federal Government, something which had not happened over the previous 80 years. By dividing the Government's claim of 500,000 jobs into that debt total, I can tell honourable members that it has cost $40,000 a job. Of course, the Government has not created 500,000 jobs; it has created a fraction of that amount. The others would have created themselves anyway. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.22) —The present wholesale tax base operates to tax all goods at the general rate of 20 per cent, unless they are specified to be taxed at a different rate or they are exempt. Six schedules of goods are contained in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935 for that purpose. The multiple rate structure of the wholesale tax base and the various detailed descriptions of goods in those schedules to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act are widely recognised as being the sources of significant problems in its application and administration. There is no doubt that difficulties can arise in the assignment of particular commodities to an appropriate rate class, with consequent administrative burdens and costs. In some relatively isolated instances, unfair competition between like commodities or close substitutes can arise in the market-place due to those wholesale tax discriminations. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill, which is the main Bill in this package of Bills before the House, is designed to broaden that wholesale tax base and to remove some of the classification anomalies and inconsistencies that presently exist in the wholesale tax structure in Australia. Honourable members would be aware that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced only just over a month ago-on 13 August-that the Government would not proceed with either a tax on selective services or an extension of the wholesale tax base to major new categories of goods; instead, the Government would be embarking upon a rationalisation of that existing wholesale tax system which taxes goods in categories. He said that we would be changing that system and the tax rate structure to reduce distortions, anomalies and inconsistencies. As I have just outlined, the Bills before the House will effect a number of changes to that system. One of the major changes proposed is the rationalisation of the rate classes. Under this legislation, the rate structure is to be simplified to include an exempt category and also to reduce the number of rate categories from four to three. They will be at the 10, 20 and 30 per cent rate. That will be done by absorbing the 7 1/2 per cent rate category into the 10 per cent rate category. Items currently taxed at 32.5 per cent will be shifted to either the new 30 per cent rate category or the 20 per cent rate category. There are a number of schedules to this legislation which outline the specific goods which are taxable at those rates. The items which will be taxed under this legislation at 30 per cent and which were formerly taxed at 32.5 per cent include jewellery, goods made wholly or principally of precious metal, cosmetics, perfumery and bath salts, cameras, films, and radio and television receivers. It is also intended that earth stations designed to receive the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service and purchased for domestic use to receive such services will be exempt. In the first instance, we have a large range of goods the rate of tax on which has been reduced from 32.5 per cent to 30 per cent. That is at a cost to revenue of $66m. The Government ought to be congratulated for reducing the tax on those items, which are used by most Australian families. Mr Ronald Edwards —The HACBASS decision. Mr BRUMBY —As my colleague the honourable member for Stirling says, the HACBASS decision is a very good decision. A number of goods formerly taxed at 32 per cent will now be included at the 20 per cent rate. These include things, which again are common use items, like serviette rings, book ends and book marks, clothing accessories, paper weights, cigarette lighters and so on. They include fountain pens, ball point pens, felt tip pens-which are very popular nowadays-shaving equipment-which of course most males use-ornaments, artificial flowers and so on. Those changes will go some way towards reducing the effective dispersion in the rate structure and the distorting effects of the tax on the relative price of goods. The aspect of this Bill on which I wish to concentrate in the limited time available is that of some of the base broadening measures. They have been the subject of some criticism by the Opposition, particularly one base-broadening measure that will apply a tax of 10 per cent to ice cream. There has been criticism from a number of organisations-the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the Australian Dairy Industry Council and the Ice Cream Manufacturers Federation of Australia. Basically, the coverage of the wholesale tax system will be extended in a number of areas, principally with the very honourable intention of reducing anomalies. Major changes relate to confectionery, snack foods, biscuits and ice cream. The present wholesale tax system taxes confectionery at 20 per cent while, quite anomalously, exempting close substitute products such as snack foods, biscuits and ice cream. For example, popcorn is taxable while potato crisps are exempt. Chocolate-coated biscuits are taxable if marketed as confectionery but, if marketed otherwise, they are exempt. That demarcation leads to administrative complexities in deciding the appropriate rates to apply, and it leads to obvious inequities in the taxation treatment between those goods. To ameliorate those problems, this legislation makes a number of changes. A number of goods will now be taxed at 10 per cent. They include things like potato crisps, chips and straws, other savoury food products such as corn chips, prawn chips and pork crackling or nuts and seeds that have been salted, spiced, smoked or roasted. Biscuits will be taxed at 10 per cent, together with ice cream, ice cream cakes, ice cream substitutes and frozen confectionery other than frozen yoghurt. The issue I wish to raise is that the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the Australian Dairy Industry Council and the Ice Cream Manufacturers Federation of Australia have complained bitterly about the Government's intention in this legislation to impose a tax of 10 per cent on ice cream. I must say that the letters from these three organisations all come from the same address, which is 576 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, that is, Dairy Industry House. We have also received a telex from Mr Clay Manners who is Secretary of the Australian Dairy Industry Council. It states: On behalf of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference, I wish to register the strongest possible protest at the Federal Government's announced intention to levy a 10 per cent sales tax on ice cream. Ice cream is a nutritious and relatively pure food comprising approximately 70 per cent dairy ingredients. Approximately 70 per cent of the total volume of ice cream is sold in take home packs . . . It goes on to state: The ice cream industry is a major customer for the dairy industry. We estimate that the ice cream industry purchases approximately $40,000,000 worth of ingredients from the dairy industry annually . . . The dairy industry fears that the introduction of a tax on ice cream will encourage consumers to purchase cheaper substitutes to ice cream. This may be iced confection or some other dessert food (eg. jelly, frozen yoghurt, custard) which is not subject to sales tax . . . . It would seem the Government's decision to impose sales tax on ice cream was made on the basis of this common misconception of the nutritional value of ice cream. The letter from the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation states, among other things, that ice cream competes in the market not only against ice cream substitutes but also against other desserts such as cake, jelly, custards, puddings, et cetera, which are not subject to sales tax. There is a great deal of literature from those organisations and I cannot read it all. But I want to summarise their arguments. What they are saying is that ice cream uses large quantities of dairy product and sugar and is consumed predominantly in the home as a dessert or as a supplement to desserts. They then say that a tax of 10 per cent on ice cream will cause a reduction in its consumption; in other words they are saying that there is an elastic demand market for ice cream and that, with that tax of 10 per cent, there will be a reduction in consumption of dairy products because dairy products make up a large part of ice cream. They also go on to argue that the price increase in ice cream will undoubtedly lead to increased consumption of ice cream substitutes, of yoghurt, of custards, cakes and puddings. They then go on to say that somehow that will be bad for the dairy industry in total and that the dairy and sugar industries will lose revenue and sales. I want to state a few facts about those claims, which are at best tenuous. If one took a more harsh and more fair assessment, one would say that they are reactionary, illogical and in fact just show all the signs of shooting from the hip. I should begin by saying that ice cream substitutes will also be subject to tax. That is made quite clear in the legislation. Schedule 2, clause 23(h), states that goods which will be subject to the 10 per cent tax include `ice-cream, ice-cream cakes, ice-creams, ice-cream substitutes'. So the argument that putting a tax on ice cream will lead to an increased consumption of ice cream substitutes is simply baloney because ice cream and ice cream substitutes will be subject to 10 per cent tax. There will not be any consumption switch because there is no change in price relativity. The second point I want to make is that in this legislation products of 95 per cent and more dairy product will be totally exempt from tax. So the argument that we are knocking the dairy industry is rubbish. Anything consisting of 95 per cent or more dairy product will be totally exempt. For instance, products like yoghurt will be totally exempt. It is a fact that consumers may make a minor switch to other dessert foods such as cakes, custards, cheesecakes or puddings. However, the point I make in this debate is that, if they do, those foods-custards, cakes, cheesecakes and puddings-contain more dairy product than ice cream. I make the point a bit stronger. I happen to have had presented to me recently a wonderful publication called the Country Women's Cookbook. It has many excellent recipes which I commend to all members of the House. It is a great publication. Honourable members will be aware of the Country Women's Association and the contribution it has made to improving our society in rural Australia. It has produced a number of recipes, which of course are not commercial recipes; they are home made recipes. I want to give honourable members, the ADFF, the ADIC and the ice cream manufacturers an idea of how dairy product consumption will not be affected. These are home made recipes. Let us look at equal serves of ice cream and other desserts. One recipe for ice cream has four heaped tablespoons of powdered milk, half a cup of sugar, two cups of fresh milk, half a cup of hot water and some vanilla essence and gelatine to taste. The most commonly consumed puddings in rural Victoria, according to my understanding and that of the Country Women's Association, are in the book. I have picked out a few of them. One of the common ones is Perfection Pudding. Perfection Pudding, which I can re- commend, uses three eggs, two tablespoons of butter, two tablespoons of flour, two tablespoons of golden syrup, a teaspoon of vanilla essence and three cups of boiling milk. Perfection Pudding has more dairy product in it than ice cream. It has two tablespoons of butter; it has sugar, because it has two tablespoons of golden syrup, and it has three cups of boiling milk. Perhaps honourable members do not like Perfection Pudding. There is another pudding which the Country Women's Association recommends. It is called Milk Pudding Deluxe. Milk Pudding Deluxe, again a very popular line at lunch time, is made with two tablespoons of butter, two tablespoons of plain flour, two tablespoons of sugar, two or three eggs to taste, two and a half cups of milk and vanilla to taste. The fact again is that in milk pudding there is more butter and more milk than in the same size serve of ice cream. I do not want to go through all the recipes. But the fact is, if we switch to ice cream substitutes, that will not happen because they will be taxed as well. So the arguments that the ADFF makes about ice cream substitutes, such as palm and coconut oil, most of which are imported, is not on. There is no change in price relativities so there will be no change in consumption. All people can change to is cakes, custards, puddings, cheesecakes, jellies or chocolates. If people change to chocolate-the ADFF does not make this point in its letter; it is a strange sort of a letter-they will find that chocolate, which used to be taxed at 20 per cent, will now be taxed at 10 per cent. Basically, chocolate is all dairy product. Chocolate will be cheaper; so people will buy more. Even if people eat jelly, we know that jelly is made out of gelatine which is made from the pulverised hooves and horns of cattle. In summary, if people eat cake-- Mr Hurford —I have suddenly gone off jelly. Try another recipe. Mr BRUMBY —The last recipe which I will finish with is mocha steamed pudding. Mocha steamed pudding contains four ounces of butter, four ounces of sugar, two eggs, two dessertspoons of cocoa, two cups of flour, two teaspoons of vanilla and one cup of milk. I again make the point that this pudding has more butter, more sugar and an almost equal amount of milk as the recipe for ice cream. I have researched very thoroughly the claims of the Dairy Farmers Federation, the Dairy Industry Council and the Ice Cream Manufacturers Federation and I have found that they are not substantiated. If there is an equal tax on ice cream and ice cream substitutes there will be no consumption switch. If there is a consumption switch to chocolate-as there may be because we have brought down the tax on chocolate from 20 per cent to 10-per cent it is virtually all dairy product so that is good for the dairy industry. If there is a consumption switch to cakes, cheesecakes, puddings, or even jellies, that again will lead to the consumption of more dairy products because there are more dairy products in cakes, custards, puddings and cheesecakes than there are in ice cream. I conclude by saying that the claims of the ADFF are unfounded. It is a pity that such an organisation can make such ill-informed and illogical claims and expect people in this Parliament to take it seriously. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(11.39) —At the outset I should thank the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) for his cooking lesson. When he goes back to his electorate I am sure that he will find some means of using his expertise in one of the shopping centres. He can indicate to people how they will be better off getting out the mixmaster every time their kids want an ice cream to whip up something else in a hurry. The basis of the tax reform process, as pronounced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), was to be encapsulated in nine principles. The ninth principle-that any reform package must have widespread community support-was, of course, the one by which the Prime Minister's decision not to proceed with option C, but to proceed with some nebulous option D, was justified. Having taken such a stance-I might say that it was a matter of principle-it must follow that the package delivered to the Australian public last month must have the widespread support of the community. By what criteria this can be justified remains known only to the Government. We were assured by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) on 17 September 1985 about this fact: The Australian Labor Party will finalise its deliberations and it will present its package in a totally unified way. The package is endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Party and it is a package which gives us the most comprehensive taxation reform that this country has ever had. I note that the honourable member's concept of `totally unified' is not `to make as one', but merely `a substantial majority'. I agree with his description of the package as the most comprehensive tax reform we have ever had. However, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), has said: The test of whether these changes by the Treasurer to the taxation system deserve the title of fundamental reform is not measured by the number of changes that have been made but by their quality. On 13 August 1985, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Government was not proceeding with either a tax on selected services or an extension of the wholesale sales tax plan, but that it would be embarking upon a rationalisation of the existing wholesale sales tax goods categories and a tax rate structure designed to reduce distortions, anomalies and inconsistencies in the system. Any move to reduce distortions, anomalies and inconsistencies is to be applauded, especially if the moves are successful. Notwithstanding the Treasurer's comment in August about not extending the wholesale sales tax, it is noteworthy that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), in delivering the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985, said that the reform package contained initiatives that would broaden the scope of the present wholesale sales tax system. I find it illogical that the Treasurer says in August that the wholesale sales tax will not be extended and then, in September, he says that its base is to be broadened. This broadening, which is not necessarily inimical, is somewhat irrelevant when the inconsistency of both announcements is considered. We are dealing with legislation which is spreading the tentacles of the Commissioner of Taxation even further. The multiple rates of taxation still apply, though they are reduced in number, for which we must be thankful. Whether the broadening of the tax base and the reduction of the spread of the tax rates has removed the problem of arbitrariness and administrative complexity is conjectural and it is doubtful that it has ameliorated or lessened consumption decision distortions. The argument that the broadening of any tax base can enable the same revenue to be raised and permit a reduction in the rate levels is incontestable. However, in this instance, the broadening of the base and the accompanying rationalisation of the schedules and rate structure will see an additional $110m of revenue raised in a full year. When one looks at the schedules and analyses the products now being taxed that previously were not, and when one looks at the items that have been reduced in the second schedule from 32.5 per cent to 30 per cent, I believe that it is a fair comment that one will see that those people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale will be the ones who will suffer the most from this legislation. I do not see those people buying furs, opera glasses, jewellery and goods made from precious metals, though items such as ice cream and biscuits form part of their normal consumption expenditure patterns. I wish to talk for a while about the tax on ice cream as the honourable member for Bendigo spent some time supporting the Government in this regard. Mr McGauran —He always does. Mr CONQUEST —Of course he always does. I say the greatest Treasurer in the world, not being satisfied with killing off the great chefs of Australia in the restaurant industry, is now starting to tax the pocket money of the kids of this nation by putting a tax on snack foods, such as potato chips, ice cream and other goods. I have received information from the Ice Cream Manufacturers Federation of Australia which reveals that ice cream accounts annually for 10,000 tonnes of milk fat, 14,000 tonnes of non-fat milk solids and 22,000 tonnes of sugar. The Federation's estimate-I believe it is a conservative estimate-of a market loss of 5 per cent in the first year of the new tax will cost the dairy industry nearly $2.5m and the sugar industry about $1m at a time when both these industries can least afford this sort of loss. Ice cream is listed as a food by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its consumer price index calculations. I ask honourable members to note also that a 1982 survey by a Queensland Insitutute of Technology nurtritionist reported that ice cream was the only source of calcium for a number of primary school children. There are a lot of other nutritional values in ice cream. This very acknowledgement of the value of ice cream as a food in 1962 prompted the government of the day to remove the sales tax that existed. So ice cream has been established as a food and it should be seen as a food. I suggest that, if the Government is not prepared to do anything about this iniquitous tax in this House, the Opposition should ask the Senate to take some action to see what can be done to have it removed from the Schedule. The wholesale tax changes which, as I have said previously, will result in a revenue to the Government of $110m in a full year, commenced on 20 September 1985. The tax cuts will be effective from 1 September 1986 and 1 July 1987 and will be equivalent to a 2 per cent wage increase. This is to be achieved by raising the tax threshold and lowering the marginal tax rates. We have been told by the Treasurer that in the first year of operation of this reform package the average income earner will receive an income tax cut of $9 a week. To get some perspective of the significance of that figure it is worth remembering that the average income earner referred to by the Treasurer is grossing around $22,000. I have always made it known within my Party and in other areas that I do not accept the use of an average income. We should be supplied with the most common salary and wage in Australia. The majority of people certainly do not reach the $22,000 limit, and that average income is based on some nebulous figures which I am trying to get from government departments. If one is unemployed or a pensioner, that will not help much, if at all. If one receives $12,500 a year the net gain will be only $3.80, rising to $4.90 at $17,500 per annum. In other words, at this end of the income scale the income tax gains, which are not coming until 1 September 1986, are minimal; whereas the pay-out in sales tax, which is a `right now, straight away' impost, has started eating into the household disposable income already. However, I believe it is worthy of favourable comment that earth stations designed to receive the household and community broadcasting satellite service and purchased for domestic use to receive this service will be exempt. The move to include most major household appliances in the revised Third Schedule at a 10 per cent tax rate is a matter of some concern and is all the more topical and relevant when the present problems at Rank Major Appliances Pty Ltd at Blacktown are taken into consideration. The white goods industry is at a disadvantage compared to overseas countries in regard to production costs. Wages form a component in this consideration but cannot be viewed as the only source of higher costs. Other major cost disadvantages apply to components such as compressors, evaporators, condensers and electric motors. Both the Tariff Board and the Industries Assistance Commission have at various times commented on these aspects of cost disadvantage that the industry faces relative to similar overseas product material and components. The additional 2.5 per cent sales tax impost is hardly the news the industry wants to hear right now. The mergers of 1979 saw rationalisation and the elimination of much duplication of heavy capital expenditure and the resultant waste, but still economies of scale in individual plants were never achieved to the extent that true competitiveness with overseas competitors could be claimed. The calls by Brian Girdlestone, Managing Director of Hoover (Australia) Pty Ltd, for strong government intervention to save the industry in the face of large scale dumping by foreign competitors on the Australian market must be taken seriously. The increase in imports appears not to have been stemmed by the effects of devaluation to an extent that would help the local industry, given the problems Rank Major Appliances is facing. It is paradoxical that the demise of Rank Major Appliances as an Australian entity and provider of jobs will assist those remaining Australian white goods manufacturers in improving their economies of scale and hence their competitiveness. There are a number of anomalies in the wholesale sales tax system which require some response from the Treasurer. I hope that he takes notice of them and replies to them in his closing speech. The first problem is one which affects the manufacturers of carbonated soft drinks. Item 36(3) in the First Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act provides exemption from sales tax for cordials, concentrates and beverages containing the juice of Australian fruits and, in particular, cordials and concentrates which consist of not less than 25 per cent by volume of juices of Australian fruits. Unfortunately carbonated beverages are not accepted as being either cordials or concentrates for the making of non-alcoholic beverages, irrespective of whether they have that 25 per cent Australian fruit juice content. It would be fair to say that carbonated beverages are enjoyed by all sections of society and cannot be regarded today as a luxury. They are also a valuable alternative to alcohol for teenagers, young adults and teetotallers in general. The imposition of the general rate of tax on this product is discriminatory. The moment any such beverage is carbonated the exemption is forfeited. It seems that bubbles and fizz act as the catalyst for tax to be applied. Advice I have received from two soft drink manufacturers in the Hinkler electorate indicates that representatives of the Australian Council of Soft Drink Manufacturers, in discussions with Treasury officials, were advised that the discrimination suffered was never based on anything other than revenue grounds as the current exemption enjoyed by fruit juices is based on an Australian fruit juice content of 25 per cent. A story in the Australian Financial Review of 15 March 1985 reported the Council's discussions with Treasury officials in a similar vein. This discrimination surely is worthy of investigation by the Treasurer if he is sincere in reducing anomalies and inconsistencies in the wholesale sales tax system. Mr McGauran —But he is not. Mr CONQUEST —Of course he is not. I do hope, though, that after the debate has finished on this Bill his advisers will take it back to him and suggest that he should have another look at it. Mr Hunt —I think they might. Mr CONQUEST —I hope they do. There is an area of wholesale taxation which has long angered those taxpayers who reside outside the metropolitan areas. I am referring, of course, to the imposition of sales tax on the freight component of goods costing. The general principle indicates that all costs incurred up to the point where the property in goods passes to the buyer and which are charged by the wholesaler to the buyer form part of the price for which the goods are sold. The manner in which charges connected with a sale of goods are invoiced by the vendor is not in itself a determining factor in deciding whether or not those charges form part of the sale value of goods for tax purposes. Hence the sale price necessarily includes all amounts charged by the vendor, who is not entitled to deduct from the sale value of goods sold by him by wholesale any amounts which are an element of cost such as freight. The High Court of Australia has held, in the case of Commonwealth Quarries and the Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1938), that where the sale price of goods includes the cost of delivery, the sale value of the goods for the purpose of section 18 of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) is the price actually charged, including cost of delivery. I refer now to the rural policy speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Griffith in New South Wales on 20 February 1983. The Prime Minister said: The added cost for country people imposed by sales tax calculated on the freight component of goods will be abolished. Of course, we have heard many a similar memorable quote from the Prime Minister. Now this much-heralded tax reform package has failed to incorporate the Prime Minister's rural policy speech promise. One would have thought that, given the opportunity to embark on a rationalisation of the existing tax system to reduce distortions, the greatest Treasurer in the world would have honoured his Leader's promise. In the Sunday Sun of 29 September 1985 the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) has been quoted as saying: People in rural and provincial Australia still bear enormous financial and social costs by living where they do. One of the worst is sales tax on freight. Freight is an enormous component in rural living costs and it is taxable as well. It has been described as impossible to move, and I have sought from the Treasurer some means of balancing this sort of cost. As a member of the Government's rural policy committee he has had a great part to play in devising this sales tax legislation. I add also that the honourable member for Capricornia has a pet answer when he is barrelled by constituents who are concerned about matters in his electorate. He goes to the media and states that it is clear that the Government has been ill-advised by the relevant department. He forgets that he is a member of a committee which could be ensuring that information received from the various departments, which is passed on to Ministers, is in fact correct. Listening to the self-praise the Government heaps upon itself I would have thought nothing was impossible. I ask the Treasurer, in regard to the freight component, whether it is impossible to remove the freight component from the calculations used to determine sales tax at the point of sale. I put that question to him so that he can answer it and clear it up once and for all. I do not necessarily mean now, under the existing legislation; I mean, is it impossible forever? Is it possible for the legislators in this House to take some action to stop that iniquitous situation of the imposition of sales tax on freight, which is a burden on people in the more isolated areas. It is a ridiculous situation when they are trying to make a living. There are many other things I wish to bring to the notice of the House. One matter we should look at is the difference between the 30 per cent tax on cosmetics and the 20 per cent tax on toiletries which has been referred to in this debate. I am not sure whether that discriminates against women or it is a deterrent tax on those men with feminine tendencies who may wish to buy some lipstick now and again. I think that we should look at the question from both sides and find out why there is a 10 per cent difference between those two sales taxes. I mention also that I wish Ministers would use some other words when presenting statements on the various Bills which come before this House. In regard to horses imported into Australia, the explanatory memorandum to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill states: . . . where horses have been imported into Australia . . . but are entered for home consumption on or after that date . . . no sales tax will be payable . . . I stress the word `consumption'. Therefore, I would hope that the humble pie which the Government must eventually eat on this Bill does not contain that horse meat. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.58) —The legislation we are considering is a package of Bills concerned with the sales tax adjustments that were part of the sales tax proposals announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this chamber on 19 September. The most important of those Bills, which has been recognised by other honourable members who have spoken in this debate, is the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1985. The whole series of 11 Bills is designed to give effect to the rationalisation of the base broadening measures which formed part of the Treasurer's statement presented to the House recently. Apart from the rationalisation of some of the applications of the rates to particular types of commodities, to which attention has been drawn by other honourable members, one of the most important provisions is the reduction of the four rates to three. Those three new rates, apart from commodities which are excluded completely from any sales tax, are 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 30 per cent. I think that sufficient attention has been given to the particular details of these proposals, according to the concerns and priorities which have been expressed by individual members of parliament. I refer to the contribution made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the shadow Treasurer, who led for the Opposition in connection with this legislation. I do not mind-I think it is desirable-that members take advantage of the opportunity on occasions to introduce some humour into their contribution. My colleague, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), did that admirably, but I think we should expect a little more from the person who leads for the Opposition. Probably one of the reasons that the honourable member for Mackellar made a speech which was considerably less than substantial- Mr Ronald Edwards —Trivial. Mr ROBERT BROWN —He trivialised it. I appreciate the suggestion by my valued colleague, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who made a very compelling case when he made his contribution to this debate earlier. He said that the speech was trivialised. Of course it was trivialised and I think that is most unfortunate. The honourable member for Mackellar, in the process of trivialising his speech, took the whole half hour while we have been cutting our speeches to 10 minutes because this legislation has to get through. I noticed that the members of the Opposition have been taking their 20 minutes, but the fellow who led for them took 30 minutes. He spent one-third of that time discussing the ice cream question. He did that because a few representatives of the ice cream industry were sitting in the gallery. I do not mind honourable members playing to the gallery-we all do it to some extent-but when the person leading for the Opposition takes one-third of his half hour to talk about one particular commodity contained in the provisions, simply because a few representatives are sitting in the gallery, it indicates the paucity of his understanding and thinking about the whole question of the tax proposals and the tax structure in Australia. It indicates also the complete absence at this stage of any alternative proposals which the Opposition might put before the Parliament. We expect the person who leads for the Opposition to present the Opposition's alternative. The members of the Opposition are not doing it. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said that it is not their responsibility. He said that they are supposed to be given time. I accept absolutely that honourable members are entitled to have time to get their act together, but they had better start doing it because so many people on the Opposition bench at present are making contradictory statements about the Opposition's taxation policy. We know, for example, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), when he was Treasurer and shadow Treasurer, said all the time that we could not have substantial, significant, effective and long lasting amendments to the taxation system in Australia unless we moved to a broad-based consumption tax. He has been betrayed, sabotaged and isolated. He has been repudiated by his own shadow Minister for Finance, Senator Messner, who said that if the Opposition gets into government it will not have a broad-based consumption tax. What a ludicrous situation this is. I do not mind members of the Opposition referring to ice creams and blaming us for putting a tax on the ice creams the kids buy. That is all good stuff. I am sure that it went over very well with the children who were in the gallery. They probably thought that our chief pre-occupation while in government is to take the money out of the pockets of school kids. Let me put this into context. I am being serious about this. I do not mind that sort of approach. I do not mind even the hypocritical elements that might be in that sort of argument, but I want to put it into context. In the last year that the Opposition was in government an extra quarter of a million people were thrown into unemployment. They were breadwinners; mothers and fathers with families to support. The members of the Opposition should not come in here and go on in that hypocritical way about the Government taxing ice creams whey they were directly responsible, with the economic policies they pursued and the lack of economic direction they had, for throwing on the unemployment scrapheap 250,000 people in one year. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. Honourable members on this side of the Parliament seem to have drawn to their attention fairly frequently that they must confine their remarks to the Bills before the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —There is a point of order which is relevant. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled to the honourable member that there is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —An outstanding ruling you gave, Madam Deputy Speaker. By way of contrast, I refer to the fact that during the three years we have been in government, we have only about 13,000 jobs to create to reach that half a million level we set as our target. Mr Ronald Edwards —Did you say half a million? Mr ROBERT BROWN —That is exactly what I said; half a million more people are in jobs now as a result of the policies of this Government. Members of this Parliament should know that many of those people in those 500,000 new jobs that have been created are breadwinners in my electorate. The economic policies for which members of the Opposition were responsible made sure that the kids, whether ice cream was taxed or not, could not buy ice cream. When my constituents were unemployed as a result of the appalling policies of Opposition members, there were no ice creams being brought into those households. But there are 500,000 households in Australia now where the kids can buy ice cream. Let us not have any of this hypocritical posturing we have been hearing from members of the Opposition. I want to refer to an article to which my colleague the honourable member for Stirling, in his outstanding contribution, also referred. It is an article by Ross Gittins, a person of objective perceptions, a person who writes very effective columns and makes very effective commentaries on many of these issues. In his column `Monday Comment' just recently, Mr Gittins started off with these words: If ever there was a classic example of the business community's political ineptitude, it's the cosmetics industry's belated campaign to have the sales tax on its products cut from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. Further on, he went on to say: So where was the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association last June, when Mr Keating was fighting the battle of his career to persuade the unions and his own party- let me say that I was one of his own Party- to accept a broad-based consumption tax? Where was it when he was battling to have the tax on the association's products cut from 32.5 per cent wholesale to 12.5 per cent retail? Was it taking out full-page advertisements to demonstrate that there was a lot of business support for the Treasurer? Ross Gittins said: No fear! It was keeping its head down, leaving politics to the politicians. Ross Gittins went on to say: In the antics of the cosmetic industry we have a classic example of the business community's perverted approach to politics- What a compelling comment to make. He said: . . . it won't back governments when they are trying to achieve something positive, all it will do is attack them when it reckons it's getting a raw deal. That is precisely what has happened. I want to draw attention to the fact that this particular proposal and these tax proposals generally are very much an essential component of the trilogy commitment that this Government undertook-the most rigid fiscal discipline that any government in Australia's history has ever willingly adopted and committed itself to. The most important part of that trilogy of commitments, the first one, was that the overall level of taxation would not be increased as a proportion of gross domestic product. All of this tax package is directed not only towards restructuring the taxation system to ensure that, as far as possible, we introduce into the system greater fairness, equity, justice, simplicity and efficiency, but also to ensuring that in the process of bringing about this restructuring we do not take advantage of the opportunity to increase the total taxation take. We are not doing that. It was a further confirmation of those extremely important taxation principles that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) explained in one of the most important statements on taxation that has ever been presented to this national Parliament. The Government's taxation policy statement by the Prime Minister on 31 October l984 is one of the reasons why we were so convincingly returned to the treasury bench at the last election. We spelt out very clearly the principles that would govern the Government's approach to taxation reform. Just for the sake of the record, and in conclusion, I will repeat what they were. There was to be, first, no increase in overall taxation; secondly, more cuts in personal income tax; thirdly, a smashing of the avoidance and evasion; fourthly, the system must be simpler; fifthly, it must be fairer; sixthly, there must be no disadvantage to welfare recipients; seventhly, it must be acceptable to employers and unions; eighthly, it must encourage growth; and ninthly, it must have widespread support. We know and the Opposition knows-and the Opposition is embarrassed by the fact that it knows-that the Australian community right across the spectrum rejoices in the great successes of this Government and applauds the Government for the successes that it is achieving. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Darling) Before calling the next speaker, I draw the attention of honourable members on both sides of the House to the fact that a certain amount of leeway is allowed by the Chair when the House is debating Bills such as these, in regard to bringing in anecdotal and comparative material, and the Chair makes that decision; but when an honourable member goes on in an unrelated manner and for a prolonged amount of time, that member will be called to order. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.11) —In relation to the comments made by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I would like to make some observations and draw these to the attention of honourable members. I think his comments were quite unkind and quite unnecessary. He suggested that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who led for the Opposition, trivialised the debate. I must say that, in comparison with the honourable member for Charlton, at least the honourable member for Mackellar was able to join issue on the matters that were relevant to the debate, whereas I must say, without in any way reflecting on the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, that most of the address of the honourable member for Charlton bore little relationship to the important issues that are being discussed today. Really, it was only in relation to the evidence that the honourable member brought before the House in the form of a quotation from an article by Mr Gittins that he really attempted to canvass, by way of debate, issues raised in the discussion that has taken place today. I think the honourable member for Charlton might have been somewhat mischievous in quoting Mr Gittins to suggest that the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association of Australia had not put a view to the Government on the question of sales tax, because the honourable member quoted a writer who could be forgiven for not knowing whether representations were made in relation to this matter. However, the honourable member himself did not offer a view from his own knowledge as to whether a submission was made. He was perhaps being a little disingenuous about that, because he would have been in a position to have made inquiries to find out whether a submission had been made. I do not know whether a submission has been made by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association of Australia, but I did receive a letter-I am sure it is the same as the honourable member received-and in that letter, dated 8 October l985, this statement is made: The CTFAA provided detailed submissions to the Government and the Economic Planning Advisory Council at the time of its review of the Australian Taxation System. That is what that organisation says it did. I do not suggest that it would want to be misleading me or the Parliament; but the honourable member would have been in a position to make inquiries about that. For him to come in here quoting some writer who would not be in a position to know that, as if it were in some way authoritative, to rebut the arguments that have been advanced in this matter does not do the honourable member any credit whatsoever. I am prepared to take the cut and thrust that we have in this place. I am prepared to accept the arguments about whether we were responsible for unemployment or whether the Government's record is better than ours or worse than ours. Those arguments will go on from time to time. But in advancing those arguments we have not heard any reasoned comment in relation to the claim made by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association of Australia about the impact of these sales tax changes on its industry in particular. I do not believe it is trivialising the debate one iota for honourable members to canvass in this discussion the way in which the wholesale sales tax rates are being rationalised and the impact of those decisions that the Government has made. Nor do I regard it as being trivial that one should want to canvass-as I shall do, in a short while-the extent to which the decisions taken by the Government, in its own words, represent a real rationalisation of the wholesale sales tax system. When one recognises the Government's statements, as I do, looks at them and is asked to accept them at face value, in my judgment, one is certainly entitled to go through the individual decisions that have been made and to ask whether those decisions give effect to the Government's stated objectives. That is not trivialising the debate one iota. It is a serious contribution, as was the contribution by the honourable member for Mackellar. It will be equally seriously put by me in this debate that the Government's decisions in this area do not represent a reduction in the distortions, anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in the wholesale sales tax system. I have an interest in this matter because a significant manufacturer in my electorate is Rexona Pty Ltd, a company that manufactures at North Rocks, New South Wales. The company wrote to me. It may have written to other honourable members. I know that the honourable member for Mackellar had the information the company provided before him when he was speaking on this subject. The letter made the point that the statement by the Treasurer suggested that only cosmetics, perfumery and bath salts, as personal products, would be left in the Schedule that deals with luxury items and that one would have been entitled, upon reading that statement, to have assumed that the tax on other products, that were not perfume, cosmetics or bath salts, would have been reduced to the 20 per cent margin and those products put into the general category. Rexona was genuinely surprised when it read the detail of the changes that are to be made by the Government. It has noted particularly that shampoos, hair conditioners and deodorants are being classed as cosmetics and taxed at the luxury rate. All honourable members would recognise that those products, in particular, are used by something of the order of 90 per cent of Australian households. Very few Australian households would not use those products. They do not differ significantly from toilet soaps, toothpaste or shaving preparations. They are personal products, clearly regarded by most Australians as necessities of life. They are sold through major department stores and outlets, supermarkets and the like. They are not sold in perfumeries in the broad. Rexona's product range, in particular, is sold in places such as Coles, Woolworths, Franklins, Bi-Lo, Jack the Slasher and Jewel. Those stores are general food and merchandise outlets. Rexona makes the following comparisons in relation to its product range. The following products are taxed at the 20 per cent rate: Pears toilet soap, Menage after shave, fabric conditioner, dog shampoo, shaving cream, room deodorant and breath freshener. The following products are taxed at the 30 per cent rate: Pears shampoo, Menage Splash-on, Sunsilk conditioner, Family shampoo, Depilatory cream, Rexona deodorant and Norsca cologne. Clearly, those products are comparative. Yet when one looks at the way each product has been taxed, one sees very clear distortions, anomalies and inconsistencies. Such anomalies could have been addressed quite reasonably by the Government if it were prepared to look at the second Schedule. I draw to the attention of honourable members the items contained in the second Schedule. They can make their own judgment as to the simplicity of the change that could have been effected if the Government had the will to do so. Item No. 19 of the second Schedule includes: Hair oils, hair lotions, hair lacquers, hair settings, hair dressings, hair trainers, hair tonics, hair restorers, hair tints, shampoos, hair rinses, hair bleaching preparations, hair dyes, hair dye removers, pomades and hair waving solutions, hair emulsions, sachets and hair medications. In regard to some of those items, particularly hair medications for dandruff and the like, one asks: On what basis should they be classified as luxury items? If one were determined to catch exquisite French perfumes, one might elect to leave in the Schedule item 27, which clearly refers to perfumery, eau-de-cologne and toilet waters. Products such as leg tan creams, suntan oils, body powders, foot powders, nail polishes and lacquers, face powders, rouge and items of that sort clearly should be removed from the Schedule and, in my judgment, properly so. When one looks at the goods that are to be removed one sees greater inconsistencies. The Government saw fit to remove from the Schedule item 31 which deals with safety razors, safety razor blades, electric shavers and other mechanical shavers and parts and accessories for those shavers. The Government also saw fit to remove from the Schedule item No. 32, shaving brushes, and item No. 33, shaving sticks, shaving creams, shaving soaps, shaving powders, shaving tablets, styptic pencils and liquids and other preparations for use before or after shaving. Item No. 34, shaving sets containing any goods covered by items Nos 31, 32 or 33, is to be removed from the Schedule. Item No. 35, toilet or dressing cases and toilet or dressing sets, including home hair waving sets, hair brushes, hair combs, eye-brow brushes, hand mirrors, clothes brushes, hat brushes, manicure and pedicure sets and pieces, dressing table sets and hair tidies, is also to be removed. Looking at the other items the Government has seen fit to remove from the Schedule, such as serviette rings, book ends, book marks, collar boxes, jewel boxes, jewel cases, tie boxes, handkerchief boxes, stud boxes, paper weights, paper knives, fobs, nut crackers, incense burners, card cases, cocktail picks, toothpicks, cigar or cigarette cases and lighters for cigarettes, cigars or pipes, serves only to highlight the Government's inconsistencies. Item No. 8 is to be removed from the Schedule. It includes fancy goods made of ivory. I thought we were not able to sell ivory goods in Australia because they are made from a prohibited import, the elephant, from which the ivory comes being an endangered species. Yet fancy goods made of ivory are to be taxed at 20 per cent. Inconsistencies abound, yet the Government would have us believe that this reform is very significant, that it is a rationalisation of the wholesale sales tax system and part of the Government's efforts to put in place significant tax reforms to meet the objectives the Government set for itself and held out to all Australians as being significant. Yet in these inconsistencies we recognise-I certainly recognise-that we have been presented with an ad hoc arrangement put together in the dead of night, certainly very much in a rush- Mr Blunt —In a motel room. Mr RUDDOCK —I do not know whether Government members got down to dealing with what items they would leave in the Schedules when they met at the Canberra International Motor Inn to settle the tax arrangements. However, obviously the arrangements were made at that time in that way. The Government has brought forward a document that is easily as defective as all that has gone before, of which people have been critical and which people have claimed has been full of distortions, anomalies and inconsistencies. Certainly, this document is every bit of that. The honourable member for Charlton suggested that honourable members on this side of the House were not giving their time and attention to dealing with tax reform and that we were not announcing our own proposals on tax reform at this time. I make the point, very properly, that the Government is now bringing forward its proposals. They deserve to be examined properly. I am prepared to be involved in that process and to discuss with the Government its proposals. Our proposals have to be put to the people at the time they have to make a decision as to whether they will re-elect the Government or elect us. The proposals do not have to be advanced on the Government's timetable. They have to be advanced at a time when the electorate can make a judgment of its own. They will be in order at that time. The people of Australia will be in a very well informed position as a result of the efforts of the Opposition to ensure that they have before them proposals that will present a coherent and realistic reform of the taxation system. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(12.25) —The Government makes much in support of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill about introducing a more rational and fairer system of sales tax and of correcting anomalies. We have heard honourable members in the debate this morning dilate about anomalies that seem to have been created or will be created by this legislation in relation to items as humble as ice cream, biscuits, cakes, cheescakes, puddings, chips, cosmetics and the like. We heard the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) dilate about the shadow Treasurer trivialising this debate by discussing ice cream. It may be trivialisation, so far as that high flying macro-economist the honourable member for Charlton is concerned, to talk about a tax on ice cream, but it is certainly not trivialisation for the ordinary housewife, the average Australian, to whom ice cream is an important and pleasant part of the diet. The honourable member for Charlton, the great macro-economist, is obviously out of touch with the ordinary people of this country-the people he is elected to represent. It is a matter of note that the legislation does not attempt to address the greatest injustice, the greatest irrationalism and the greatest anomaly of the sales tax system. This was referred to earlier by my colleague the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest). It is quite simply, as has been stated many times before in this chamber, the imposition of additional cost on Australian consumers who have chosen to live at any distance from the major centres of production and manufacturing. I am sure that I do not have to draw the attention of the responsible Minister to this discriminatory facet of the sales tax system. The plain fact is that, since manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers must make provision for freight costs in their prices, sales tax is proportionately higher for the retailer who supplies the market in more remote locations. Of course, the retailer passes on that cost to the consumer-the same person who eats the ice cream. It is one of those factors that impose upon those living in the Northern Territory, northern Australia and those other parts of Australia outside the south-eastern seaboard a higher cost of living. I am fully aware that this Government could not give a hoot for the residents of the Northern Territory, and the Government's failure to address this discriminatory aspect of the sales tax is one of the least proofs of that. However, since this Government makes so much of its alleged concern for a more equitable Australia, I might be forgiven for believing that it would wish to address this anomaly. After all, while anomalies concerning the importation of horses or the cost of dog shampoo may more readily capture the imagination of Ministers, anomalies concerning the equal treatment of people should also cause them some worry. I accept that there is no easy answer to this anomaly through the sales tax system. The Northern Territory Government some years ago introduced a system allowing rebates on the freight component of sales tax, so I understand the complexity of the problem. I am by no means certain that I accept the arguments put forward that changes to the points at which the sales tax is levied would only create other difficulties, but I am aware that the Taxation Review Committee chaired by Justice Asprey and the first Commonwealth Committee on Taxation both addressed themselves to this problem and recommended that no changes be made. Specifically, the Asprey Committee stated its view in these words: Equity cannot be achieved without sacrificing simplicity and certainty and unduly increasing compliance costs and the costs of collection of the tax. It therefore does not recommend any change. Accordingly, bowing to higher authority, I propose that the Government should find ways and means outside the actual sales tax legislation to correct the anomaly. It is obvious how the Government can achieve this move towards a more equitable Australia. A zone tax rebate was introduced specifically to compensate Australians in the more remote parts of our country for exactly this kind of additional cost of living charge. In fact, I am reliably informed that, if the Government were to take into consideration the inflation factor and match the level at which zone tax rebates were set when Ben Chifley introduced the concept in 1945, they would presently stand at 10 times their current level. I would not expect this Government to be willing to multiply the current rebate system by a factor of 10. However, the zone deduction-since 1975, the zone rebate system-has been steadily whittled away since it was introduced. We saw marginal increases in the zone A and B rebates in the 1984 Budget and in 1981-82, but those increases have by no means compensated remote Australians for the annual inflation rate over the years. It is also of some note that deductions allowable were considerably increased in the early years of operation, rising from $80 to $240 in 1947, to $360 in 1956 and to $540 in 1958 for zone A recipients. This reflected the then national Government's concern to encourage the development of the more remote parts of this country. In more recent years the zone allowances have in no way served to compensate for the imposts placed upon remote Australians by such anomalies as those contained in the sales tax system as it is today. The sales tax impost is only one of many ways in which those Australians who by choice or by birth live in remote areas are discriminated against and treated unequally by Commonwealth legislation and priority. If this Government finds itself unable to find ways and means, either through direct rebate on the freight component of sales tax or through zone allowances or by other means, to compensate these people, it must accept that it will be justly accused of pure humbug when it parades its alleged concern for a more equitable Australia. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(12.32) —The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills before the House today are the remnant of the Hawke Government's broad-ranging proposals announced in June to reform this area of the taxation system. We all saw the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stand up before the people of Australia and proclaim that we were going to have, in effect, a brave new world. We all saw the way in which the Treasurer claimed that the Government was going to move decisively and firmly and take steps that would be looked up to for many years by the people of Australia. We know the way in which the Treasurer claimed that the tax reform he was going to introduce would be the most wide-ranging and broadly based tax reform this country had seen for many years. The wholesale tax package which this Government has the hide and the audacity to bring before this Parliament today is the only remnant of that late, unlamented, bold attempt just a short time ago to broaden the indirect tax base. It is interesting to consider the way in which the Treasurer, after he produced in June 1985 his little white booklet entitled `Reform of the Australian Tax System', at taxpayers cost, expended so much time and effort in trying to sell these unacceptable alternatives. We had option A, option B, option C, and so on. But as the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, quite rightly indicated, there really was only one option on the agenda, one option on the menu, and that was option ACTU. We heard a lot about tax carts. We heard claims from various members opposite that they were firmly inside the Treasurer's tax cart. What an awful place to be, particularly when that tax cart became a night cart and was hijacked by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. What a terrible shock Australian Labor Party members must have had when that night cart crossed the finishing line minus a wheel, as I think the Treasurer said. It was a very unpleasant situation for them, and I am certain that we on this side of the House have every sympathy for their wholehearted endorsement of the Treasurer in this matter. The Prime Minister also gave us a keen insight into his loyalty and character. We now know a little more about this man who promised so much to the people of Australia in 1983, this man who was prepared to promise anything in order to crawl into office. We saw the loyalty that he gave to his Treasurer. The Treasurer was sold down the drain by the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under him in his deal with the ACTU, a sordid deal in a Canberra motel during the tax summit fraud. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), one of my National Party colleagues, was ejected from this chamber when he, as a representative of the people, tried to come in here and listen to the charade that was going on when the Government had spent a fortune to bring people from all over this country to talk about tax options. What happened? These people came into this Parliament-I might add that permission was not asked of Parliament for this place to be used-and kicked the Government. They said they would not have options A, B, C or D at any price. The people of Australia rejected overwhelmingly the repeated efforts of the Treasurer to sell his preferred option. That option-C, I think he called it-was designed originally to raise a net $6.8 billion, just a bit more than the Government's anticipated budgetary deficit this year. It was thought that sort of money raised from indirect taxes would give substantial relief to the ordinary taxpayers of Australia, the ordinary taxpayers who have been over-taxed by this high spending profligate Government since March 1983. The $6.8 billion that was supposed to be raised has turned out to be a fizzer. We find that all the Government claims it will now raise is a net $110m extra revenue in a full year. Yet the Treasurer comes into this place and tries to suggest that he is like Moses bringing forth the commandments. He tries to suggest that Australians will in some way be impressed by his meagre efforts. It was interesting to hear some of the various anomalies that were outlined by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who will soon be the Treasurer of Australia. The honourable member spoke very eloquently just a short time ago on this matter. He pointed out that basic food items, such as biscuits and ice cream, would be taxed at 10 per cent despite the Government's earlier decision not to tax food. That is another promise that has been broken, another worthless promise which can be added to the promises that were torn up after the Labor Party policy speech charade at the Sydney Opera House in 1983. Men's toiletries and even dog shampoo are taxed at 20 per cent, whereas cosmetics for women are taxed at 30 per cent. What does this mean? Does it mean that this Government is discriminating against women? Mr Nehl —It hates women. Mr SLIPPER —It could be. Perhaps that is why it brought in that ill-conceived Sex Discrimination Act just a short time ago. The Government believes that women are not able to take their proper place in society without government assistance. I believe that the women of Australia and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a woman who has come into this House representing her electorate, have indicated that they are quite able to compete. The people who conceived that Sex Discrimination Act must stand condemned because of some of the terrible things that were included in that legislation. I do not know whether the Government has a down on music, but pianola rolls, for which there is only one manufacturer in Australia and from which the tax was removed by Mr Howard when he was Treasurer, are to be taxed at 20 per cent. On the other hand, toothpicks and paperweights have had their tax reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. The Government suggests that these are rationalising measures and claims that it is trying to make the situation a little better. But as the shadow Treasurer said: The changes fiddle at the edge of tax reform, but even the fiddling is out of key. I would take that just a little further. I would say that not only is the fiddling out of key, but also that the Government is totally out of step with the Australian people. At the time of the next election-and we do not know exactly when that will be-the people of Australia will sweep this Government to the dustbin of history where it can join its late unlamented predecessor, the Whitlam socialist Government. We, on this side of the House, wish to stand up and expose once and for all the audacity of this Government in parading before the men and women of Australia in coming to this place, in going on to the television screens and into the newspapers of this nation pretending that it is bringing forward the most wide ranging changes in the Australian taxation system. This package which is being brought before the House today is an attempt, an attempt which will fail, to salvage a bit of face for the Treasurer. With the Prime Minister stabbing him in the back over this issue and the people of Australia rejecting the Government's preferred option and its surrender to option ACTU with its associated tax carts, night carts and so on, I think that the Treasurer and the Government are in real trouble and I am quite certain that they will be swept from office at the next election. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(12.42) —I thank all the honourable members who have taken part in this wide ranging debate. Whenever the subject of sales tax is before the Parliament it gives a lot of joy to a lot of members of the Opposition because it is easy to find anomalies. Where lines must be drawn, there are always difficulties on the margins. However, I wish to pay attention to a couple of the points that were raised by honourable members. For example, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) raised the question of sales tax on freight. On 15 May 1985 I addressed this matter during my reply to the debate on other significant reforms of the sales tax law that have been introduced by this Government. As I explained, we are all interested in this issue. We would love to be able to do something about it. However, it is a very complex issue. Years ago it was considered by a Senate select committee and to date no one has been able to devise a legislative solution to this problem. I believe that there is an inequity in sales tax being applied to freight and I would welcome any suggestions from the Opposition that are constructive in resolving this matter. However, I understand that many manufacturers and wholesalers, when dealing with country clients, arrange their transactions so that the property and the goods pass free on board and the freight is excluded from the sales tax. I wish that we would see more of this practice. There were also concerns about sales tax on cosmetics, toiletries and similar products. We have all noticed the advertisements and I will not describe them because unfortunately I have only a minute to go as these Bills need to be passed by lunchtime. It is not argued that the tax treatment of those items is wholly free from anomalies. With a multiple rate structure anomalies are difficult to avoid, as I said earlier. Retention of certain items at the 30 per cent rate was necessary, principally for revenue considerations. Getting rid of anomalies was not the main consideration. We had difficult choices to make, but all in all this is a package which can be defended. I defend it and I believe that all the nit picking that has gone on in this debate is nothing more than that-nit picking. The total package is one that is worthy of a responsible and worthy government. Once again I thank all honourable members who took part and I hope that the Bill will receive the recognition that it deserves. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 September, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith. Bills (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 September, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. I ask him: Will he ask the acting head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet whether a report in this morning's Press that that same acting head had been subject to duress in providing what purported to be an apology to the Prime Minister last week is in fact a correct report? Will he arrange for the tabling in this Parliament of all drafts of that apology which were apparently the subject of duress exerted by Mr Barron of the Prime Minister's staff on Mr Visbord? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the acting head of the Department saw me yesterday to suggest that there might be some questions such as this and to reassure me that there is no truth at all in the story now published. The story must have been going the rounds for a couple of days. I accept what the honourable gentleman has said on the basis of a Press report. I hope that he accepts what I now say: The Press report is without foundation. Mr LEE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is the Minister aware of a report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald which claims that the New South Wales Law Reform Commission has questioned the publication of disclosures by jurors on their deliberations and proposed that such coverage should be made an offence? In the light of the publication of jurors' disclosures in two recent trials, will the Attorney-General give consideration to enacting legislation to restrict disclosures of jury deliberations in Federal courts? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for Dobell for the question. It is a matter that has been of some concern in the course of the administration of justice. The system of justice relies on the integrity and acceptance of the jury system. There has been a suggestion that, where there is some attempt, perhaps even well meaning, by the media to find out what might have happened in the jury room, to find out whether there was unanimity or for some other purpose, this could well seriously jeopardise the trial of someone. More importantly, from the point of view of justice, it could jeopardise public support for the jury system. I notice the report by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. It talks not only about that but also about the question of majority verdicts. I will address my mind to the question of the right of privacy of the jury and the right of protection from harassment. These are the important things. If we accept the view that the verdict of the jury is final, conclusive and singular in that sense, it detracts from it if attempts are made to go behind that verdict and suggest that there may have been a plurality of considerations or differences of opinion. In other words, we could reach the situation where there is no respect for the jury decision. It is recognised that the freedom of the Press entitles it at the appropriate time to make Press comment and perhaps to refer to the decision of a jury. But in some of the more recent media interest in jury matters, there has been a suggestion that perhaps a jury brought in a verdict that was not intended and, in one case, that occurred while the jury had brought in the verdict, but the judge had not brought in the question of what penalty might be imposed. In that lapse of time, all sorts of imputations are made not only within the media but also in other places. Then there is the inevitable result that members of the jury start to defend themselves in the media. There was nothing but a contest in the media of what might have happened in the jury room. It did nothing for the question of justice. At present we need to consider this matter in the context of freedom of the Press. We must also place emphasis on the fact that there should be no harassment or interference with the decision of a jury. Mr Carlton —What about Hayden? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member can point to people on his side. I will not be diverted from what I was endeavouring to say which is that the jury system is one of the most valuable ones. It is one that I want to see continue without having to impose legislation. There is always the question of contempt, which can be a matter for the court itself. I am reminded by advice that I have received that the Australian Law Reform Commission was given a reference on contempt which would include the question of the law of contempt to protect the secrecy of jury deliberations. That reference was given to the Commission in April 1983 and we will consider that report as soon as it becomes available. I look forward to it. I assure the honourable gentleman that the question that he raised is a very serious one. It is very important that not only the people but also the media understand that they have a responsibility not to try to interfere with the course of justice. That means allowing the jury to come to its deliberations without any harassment or invasion of privacy. Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Will the Government, without any qualification, condemn the 35-hour week deal done between the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia and a major building company, in clear breach of the accord, the building industry agreement and the Government's own code of conduct for the building industry? What action will the Government take to stop this deal in particular and to prevent any more such deals? Mr WILLIS —I wish to say a number of things about this question. Firstly, of course, we are aware of the situation to which the honourable member refers. There were various reports in the newspapers and other media this morning relating to claims by the Builders Labourers Federation of Australia to have achieved a 35-hour week on one substantial building project in Victoria, and to being close to achieving a 35-hour week in another one. My understanding of the situation is that neither of those claims is correct. In respect of the first development, the Jack Chia development in South Yarra, Melbourne, which is a very large construction project, a 36-hour week has been negotiated not by the Builders Labourers Federation as such but by the building industry unions under the auspices of the Victorian Trades Hall Council. What has been the situation in Victoria for some time-indeed, throughout virtually the whole of the period of the previous Government-has been a shopping industry agreement. This shopping industry agreement began, interestingly enough, with the Grollo organisation. The agreement provided for over-award payments in respect of work on shopping centre projects and, gradually, for the extension of fewer hours. Since 1981 in Victoria the shopping industry agreement, an informal agreement, has provided for a 36-hour week on Victorian shopping centre construction sites where the shopping centre construction is worth more than $1m. In the case of the Jack Chia project, in stage one there is a shopping centre element worth about $40m in a project worth between $200m and $250m. It is on that basis that the unions have negotiated this 36-hour week on this construction project, in conformity with what has been an arrangement of several years standing in this industry. It is something which began during the reign of the previous Government, which did nothing to reject and repudiate it. It was a pretty well established element of the industry when we came to office. In respect of the second claim by Mr Gallagher that there was virtually agreement reached on Victoria's central project, which is a major proposed development in La Trobe Street, Melbourne, my understanding is that there have been no negotiations whatsoever with the Builders Labourers Federation regarding a 35-hour week on that project which, at this stage, is a project on paper which may or may not go ahead. More generally, the question of the actions of the Builders Labourers Federation are, of course, a matter of concern to the Government. We totally repudiate Mr Gallagher's claim that he has a right to pursue a 35-hour week. It is quite clear that, under the national wage guidelines, there is no capacity for him to do that. It is quite clear from the building industry agreement that, generally, it is a 38-hour week with the proviso that existing arrangements, such as those at the Victorian shopping centre, will continue to apply. Mr Gallagher is in breach of that agreement and in breach of the national wage principles in trying to achieve a 35-hour week. On the information available to me, his claim that he has achieved one and is about to achieve another is totally incorrect. This Government will certainly do all in its power to prevent breaches of national wage guidelines by the Builders Labourers Federation or any other organisation. Mr KENT —Is the Minister for Transport aware of allegations relating to concessional international travel obtained by a director of Qantas Airways Ltd? If so, what action is being taken on the allegations? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am aware of allegations of the nature referred to by the honourable member. The matter is the subject of urgent consideration by me at the moment. Mr CARLTON —Will the Treasurer please explain the difference, for tax deduction purposes, between a lunch provided for a client in a restaurant, a lunch provided for a client in a board room and a lunch provided for a client at something called a seminar? Mr KEATING —I can hardly believe this. This is about the fifth go around on the restaurant issue and I do not think I have much more to say. Obviously, if anybody tries to circumvent this change to the tax system by seeking to arrange sham seminars for luncheons, that simply will not be accepted. I am quite certain that the Commissioner of Taxation will break into those arrangements like Elliott Ness into a Chicago brewery. Mr DUNCAN —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Mr Tim Fischer —What about- Mr DUNCAN —I am not going to ask my question in monosyllables so that the honourable member can understand it. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in today's Age concerning a letter alleged to have been written by Dr Tiller in which Mr Justice Murphy is mentioned? Has he any information to provide to the Parliament? Mr YOUNG —Last night the honourable member for O'Connor raised a question during the adjournment debate concerning an alleged letter written between two Perth businessmen which included the name of His Honour, Justice Lionel Murphy. I do not think anybody here needs any introduction to the person so named or to the circumstances in which he now finds himself. Like the previous Government, or those people who have held my portfolio in the past, it has been my intention not to involve the Parliament in investigations being conducted by the Australian Federal Police or, now, the National Crime Authority because there is very little the Parliament can do to help those sorts of things. Nevertheless, this matter has been raised and, as it has received some publicity, I felt it best that those members of the Press who have not already run anything about this matter should be made aware of the circumstances surrounding it. I have been advised by the Australian Federal Police that they received from the Age newspaper a photostat of the letter allegedly written by Dr Tiller to Mr Quartermaine which refers to arranging a meeting with Lionel Murphy on a particular matter. Dr Tiller was interviewed on 5 April in relation to the letter, after the letter had been handed over by the Melbourne Age to the Australian Federal Police. So the matters contained in the letter were not news to the Melbourne Age today. Dr Tiller, in his interview, denied writing, sending or having any knowledge of the contents of the letter. He also stated that he was in Canada at the time the letter was allegedly written. He admitted knowing Mr Quartermaine but denied knowing or ever having met Lionel Murphy. I should say in relation to this matter that, on 24 September, there was an article in the Melbourne Age headed `Surgeon urged agent to avoid tax scandal'. The article states: A leading WA surgeon under Tax Office scrutiny discussed with a Perth businessman the futility of making `further inducements' to department officials and urged him to seek support from a powerful public figure in Canberra to avoid what he called a public scandal. Federal Police have questioned orthopaedic specialist Mr Michael Tiller about the letter sent to them by the National Crime Authority in which he wrote to former travel agent Murray Quartermaine. The letter was not sent by the National Crime Authority to the Australian Federal Police; it was sent by the Melbourne Age. On page 3 of the first edition of the Age, which reached us this morning-obviously, the honourable member for O'Connor must have talked to the Melbourne Age before he made his speech last night-we see an article headed `Murphy was figure named in tax case letter, MP claims'. The article then carries substantially what the honourable member for O'Connor had to say last night. As I have said, this news is nothing new to the Melbourne Age. It was aware of the content of the letter. That newspaper knew the problems it would have concerning writing anything about it prior to the matter being mentioned under privilege here last night because it had been responsible for handing it to the police, rightly so, for the police to carry out their inquiries. I should also add that the Australian Federal Police investigations have been hampered by the absence from Australia of both Mr Quartermaine and Mr Moll and the unavailability of the original document. The Australian Federal Police are not in a position to prove the author of the letter. There has been substantial evidence in the past of falsified documents in the Moll case. Australian Federal Police investigations into the activities of Christo Theo Moll are continuing. A warrant has been issued in Western Australia for his arrest. Investigations have revealed a number of other persons involved in the illegal transfer of funds out of Australia. Mr DOWNER —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of Senator Button's admission on 9 October that the Government introduced its new fringe benefits tax on cars without a study of its likely effects on the car industry-the industry itself estimates that it will cost 50,000 units and 12,000 jobs-will the Government either now abandon the new tax on cars, which the industry says could cripple the Government's car plan, or amend the car plan to accommodate the effects of the new tax on the industry? Mr KEATING —The thing about members of the Liberal Party of Australia is that they are always out there to protect ramps in the tax system for those people who, for years, they allowed to escape through the 60 per cent net. They never bothered to close loopholes in the tax system because they knew that their constituency was slipping through the 60 per cent rate while everybody else had to pay. Any government which moves to take away those tax opportunities and tax ramps comes under criticism from the Opposition. Let me just say this about the motor industry and the motor plan: At no time when the motor plan was being considered was it ever envisaged by the industry that production would run at these levels. It is running at the highest level that most managers in the industry can remember. The fact of the matter is that it is running at those levels because of demand and employment growth induced into this economy. The second point is that we are now in a position, as I have said before, where no industry is entitled to prosper under the advantages of tax minimisation. What was happening with the fringe benefits packages, particularly those in respect of motor vehicles provided by employers, was that 100 per cent business deductions were being made available for motor cars which were substantially given to employees for private use. The Government, in reaching its position on motor vehicles, took into account the views put by the motor industry lobby. Indeed, the outcome of the Government's package is fashioned differently from that proposed, for instance, in option A of the White Paper. Basically, we have provided the users of motor vehicles, be they employers, employees or the self-employed, with a rule to fall back on for a proportion of business use as a deduction without substantiation, or a higher proportion of business use on the basis of substantiation. The fall-back rule is a very generous one. From zero to 25,000 kilometres, tax will be based on 11 per cent of the original cost; from 25,000 to 40,000 kilometres, where a lot of motor vehicles would be, tax will be based on 7.4 per cent of the original cost; and over 40,000 kilometres tax will be based on 3.7 per cent of the original cost. So it is not onerous; it is fair and reasonable. The implication in the question is that the Government should do an employment impact study on every change in the tax system. That is an absurd proposal. I would be in here all the time revealing the Government's assessment of employment impacts for a myriad of tax changes which affect various industries. The car plan will proceed. The package is designed for possible impacts in respect of consumer choices on motor vehicle production in Australia at the moment. It has to be understood that when the car plan was put together nobody in the industry believed that motor vehicle production would be running at the levels now experienced. It has been experiencing boom conditions and, if anything, supply constraints in the industry have come under pressure. At the moment I think most of the car manufacturers in this country are delighted with the Government's policies. Some honourable members opposite shake their heads. If they shake them any more they will fall off. Why on God's earth do they shake their heads when I say that most members of the motor vehicle industry are delighted with the Government's policy? It has brought the industry prosperity at a time when it was in deep trouble. Because we are turning back more than we are raising from these tax measures, which will promote consumption-in fact, we are handing back $3 billion more than we are raising by these measures-and reducing the burden of taxation by lifting disposable after-tax incomes on people who have been paying their fair share of tax, people will be encouraged to spend more and consumer confidence will be lifted. The likelihood is that the motor vehicle industry will benefit from lower marginal tax rates and a fairer tax system, a less distorting system. But this is a package, and, like all packages, each part hangs with the other. If these industries wish to complain about the impact of the treatment, the only comment I can make is that they have had it too good for too long in having 100 per cent business deductions for motor vehicles provided under fringe benefit arrangements substantially for private use. Mr CROSS —My question is directed to the Minister for Science. What progress has been made in promoting the exploitation of ultraviolet blocking agents derived from coral, as discovered by researchers at the Australian Institute of Marine Science? Mr BARRY JONES —This is something which may have enormous economic significance for Australia. Researchers at the Institute discovered compounds in the Great Barrier Reef corals which protected coral-producing organisms from damage by solar radiation. Essentially, the corals they are using are large white skull-shaped corals called-I regret to use the word as it is a bit archaic now-niggerhead corals. Mr Sinclair —That's a bit racist. Mr BARRY JONES —We will have to change that through legislation. The significance is that coral-producing organisms have been found which prevent damage to the texture of the coral from the sun. The research has been expanded into the isolation of new ultraviolet blocking agents which, as far as we know, are more effective and probably safer than the known agents in commercial use. I say probably because there has been a tendency for the ultraviolet blocking agents themselves to be carcinogenic. Of course, we will have to be very sure, and the testing procedures for human use will be very rigorous. However, the economic implications are very significant for things such as varnishes, paints, coatings for wood, coatings for plastic, coatings for fittings in cars, and so forth. So economically it may be very significant indeed. AIMS has concluded a licence agreement with ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd whereby the Institute would apply for an Australian patent and the company would apply, on AIMS's behalf, for foreign patents in the major overseas industrial countries. All the patents considered to be required have now been applied for. The company will pay for and maintain all foreign patents and will pay the Institute royalties determined by the extent of usage of the invention. If the invention fulfils its expectations there is no doubt that it will have a very wide usage, not only in this country but overseas, and may make a major contribution in reducing the dangers inherent in the Australian sun-worshipping lifestyle. Mr CONNOLLY —Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs recall the comments in the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security Agencies on Mr David Combe's attributes, which include `hostitility to the CIA and therefore probably to other secret intelligence services'? Can the Minister confirm that intelligence or security functions at the Australian Consulate in Vancouver, at which Mr David Combe will soon take up duty, are to be or have been either downgraded or transferred to the Australian Consulate-General in Los Angeles? Mr HAYDEN —The Consulate in Vancouver will not be dealing with Central Intelligence Agency matters. If the honourable member cares to look at a map of the world he will find that Vancouver is in Canada and not in the United States of America. I am not aware of Vancouver being a centre which has handled intelligence matters in the past, but I will certainly look at the proposition and let the honourable member know. Frankly, I doubt very much that the assertion explicit in what he said applies in that particular case. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: What new initiatives has the Government undertaken to ensure an equitable share of access to programs and services for migrants? Mr HURFORD —I congratulate the honourable member for Calwell for his initiative in asking that question. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HURFORD —It was done on his initiative. I place that on record, Mr Speaker, and I know it is a subject in which you are very interested as well. Indeed, this Government has taken initiatives to ensure that some affirmative action is taken to overcome the disabilities suffered by migrants. Mr Sinclair —Make a statement about it. Mr HURFORD —A statement has been made about this and it is the proper function of Question Time to elucidate on those questions. I know the Leader of the National Party of Australia is very sensitive on a lot of these issues because the Government of which he was a member for so many years totally ignored the needs of migrants, and particularly of those migrants with a non-English speaking background, who have special disabilities. I am very glad indeed of this opportunity to outline to the House the initiatives taken by the Government. In difficult times, when spending has been restrained, our Government nevertheless kept up, and indeed increased, the services for migrant communities. Perish the thought that the coalition will ever return to government, because it would go through the rhetoric of cutting government spending and one of the first things that would go is special services for migrant communities. I will go through the list of things that our Government has done. We have made information available to migrants in their own language, provided translation services, migrant resource centres and facilities for learning English and so on. So far I have referred only to those services which are being undertaken by my own Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This Government is going further. My Department basically looks after the more recently arrived migrants, but many services, for efficiency and equity reasons, must be delivered by other government departments and statutory bodies. For example, the ethnic aged have special needs which should be undertaken by the particular government department which looks after the aged. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the word `mainstreaming'. I will banish that word from my vocabulary because it should be understood that we need to ensure that migrants have equitable access to the programs and services of the Government across the board. The Government's new initiative is a mechanism is to ensure that the other departments and statutory bodies are looking after these special needs. The Cabinet has given me responsibility to monitor and report on the actions of other departments whose affairs impact on migrants. Those departments will report to me by 30 September each year on the actions they have taken up to the previous 30 June and they will report prospectively on what they will be doing in the following year. The reports will promote for migrants this equitable access to programs and services. I am pleased to say that the reports are now being received from these other departments. When they have been studied and assessed I will be looking for an opportunity to report again to this Parliament. I will have much pleasure in doing so and I would hope that the Opposition will give me the opportunity to report on these important matters. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister for Foreign Affairs no doubt is aware of the kidnapping of Rob and Jenny Williamson in May this year, while working for the World Bank in Pakistan. It is now claimed that they are in the hands of the Government of Afghanistan, having been held by the Khad, the Afghan State Information Service-the Afghan KGB equivalent-at a detention centre near the Pakistan border. What urgent action will the Minister take, with the Soviet Union in particular, to require this couple's release? Mr HAYDEN —These people have been in detention for some time, having been abducted by a Sasooli tribe several weeks ago. That was done in retaliation for the gaoling of a Sasooli leader, Alla Ghul, who in turn had been gaoled for the kidnapping of a young child. The proposition was that if Alla Ghul were released these people would be released. The situation has become increasingly confused. It is now doubtful that the Sasooli hold these people; it is more likely that a breakaway tribe has detained them. We suspect that these people are being detained in Afghanistan, although this cannot be established beyond any doubt. We have been involved constantly in representations and I must record publicly our extreme and deep gratitude to the Government of Pakistan for the way in which it has worked unflaggingly to be of assistance. It has gone to the extent of releasing Alla Ghul on parole, in spite of the fact that he was in gaol on a capital offence, in the hope that this would lead to the release of the Williamsons. I cannot say any more on those matters at this point. We have made representations to a series of governments. We have made representations in Moscow and we have arranged for representatives to be made in Kabul. We have used friendly governments with good standing in Kabul to use their representatives there to make those representations. The most recent report I have on this matter I received shortly before Question Time. We are making another approach to such a friendly government. I am sure that I do not have to go into all the details here publicly, but I am happy for the honourable member to see all the files on this matter. We are asking that friendly government, because of its good standing with the Government of Kabul, to make further representations for us. Assertions have been made that the Williamsons are being held by the secret service of the Afghanistan Government. That is not confirmed beyond any doubt. We have been advised equally that a breakway tribal group is detaining these people. All I can say is that we have maintained a constant and alert vigilance and involvement in this matter. We have been assisted greatly by a range of governments and by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has also involved himself in this matter. We have maintained very close contact with the parents of Dr and Mrs Williamson. That is where the matter stands. It is a matter of melancholy concern for me that I cannot tell the honourable member more than that, but I can assure him that the diligence and industry which has been displayed to this point will continue unabated. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister responsible for consumer affairs. My question relates to an article in yesterday's edition of the Canberra Times, headed `Tarago now safer'. The article states that Toyota is upgrading the safety standards of Toyota Tarago vans. The question at stake is whether previous Toyota Tarago editions may not have been safe in terms of their passenger safety. I note also that there is such a vehicle in the Commonwealth car fleet. Can the Minister advise the House on the current state of discussions in this respect? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question of product safety generally is now being addressed by consumer affairs organisations. As a result of representations made, the honourable member would be aware that the Office of Consumer Affairs in my Department is considering whether it should have the power to recall all unsafe products. So, we are dealing with the problem directly. At this stage the problem is handled on the basis that we would expect the manufacturer immediately to recall any product which was deemed to be unsafe, but I hope that the Trade Practices Act will soon have the force of law for mandatory recall. As to particular matters relating to the vehicle concerned, my attention has not been drawn to this problem. I will have inquiries made in the specific terms in which the question has been addressed and let the honourable gentleman have the advice I receive. Mr SINCLAIR —In the light of the Treasurer's fairly contemptuous dismissal, when he said, in response to the question from the honourable member for Mackellar, that some entertainment expenses can be valid, will he explain to the House the justification for the anomalous treatment between the expenses incurred by a commercial traveller entertaining prospective clients in a restaurant and the Prime Minister entertaining members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions at the Lodge or Kirribilli House? Mr KEATING —It has not penetrated the dullards on the other side of the House that a business or government can still entertain, but at its own cost. If the Government chooses to entertain an official visitor at its cost, that is its option, as it is the option of a company to entertain a visitor or client. Commercial travellers can entertain clients, but the cost is not deductible. If the commercial traveller chooses to provide such entertainments, they are a cost to the business. Mr CLEELAND —My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. What effect will the campaign by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory against the transfer of title to Uluru National Park to the Aboriginal traditional owners have on the Territory's tourist industry? Mr JOHN BROWN —I thank the honourable member for McEwen for that question. He always exhibits an intelligent view of the tourism industry. It does not please me to tell the House that the campaign being waged by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is not doing this industry any good at all. He is tramping the country telling the people of Australia, and by implication the world, that Ayers Rock has been lost to Australia, that it will be followed by Katherine Gorge, and that possibly the Barrier Reef will be next to go. Considering the parlous state of the Northern Territory's finances, particularly as the Northern Territory exists almost totally on the benefits of its tourism product, it seems to me to be a rather stupid thing to do, and particularly as he is wasting $300,000 of public money in pursuing his line. The odd thing about it is that this campaign is not only stupid but also highly hypocritical, because only last week the Northern Territory Government spent a lot of money promoting Kakadu National Park as a great tourist resort-as, of course, it is; it is one of the nation's great tourist attractions. The facts about Kakadu National Park are worth examining. It is on Aboriginal land. The land was entrusted in the traditional Aboriginal owners by the Fraser Government, to its great credit, in 1978. It was leased back to the Commonwealth and made into a wonderful resort for all Australians, but particularly for international visitors. Those honourable members who have not been to Kakadu National Park should just take the trip there, particularly to Yellow Waters, the wonderful lagoon, where the motel and all the operations are run by an Aboriginal tribe. If honourable members did that, their fears about Ayers Rock might dissipate. So the whole thing is highly ridiculous. The week before last a questionnaire was distributed around Ayers Rock to the tourists, and 807 questionnaires were completed. One question was: `What is your attitude to the proposals for title transfer and Aboriginal involvement in the management of the Park?'. Of the respondents, 58.6 per cent supported the transfer; 9.7 per cent did not care; 23.6 per cent opposed it; and 8.2 per cent did not comment which is a fairly positive measure of the attitudes of visitors to Uluru National Park about the involvement of the Aboriginal tribe. What is more important is that in an interview last week in the Northern Territory, the manager of the Four Seasons Hotel at Uluru National Park made the observation that the greater the involvement of Aboriginals in the tourism industry in the Northern Territory the better, because one of the great attractions in the Northern Territory is Aboriginal culture. So much for Mr Tuxworth and his barn- storming around Australia wasting public money pursuing a very sleazy argument. Mr COWAN —I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It refers to the dumping of European Economic Community farm products on world markets and their effect upon Australian overseas trade. What new actions are being undertaken to make the EEC more aware of the great problems that it is creating for world trade and especially the viability of the Australian farmer? Mr KERIN —I thought, Mr Speaker, that I had answered this question yesterday for the honourable member for Capricornia. The new actions that we are taking in respect of the European Economic Community's subsidisation get down to the diplomatic level, exchanges at business level and at government level, trying to point out to the EEC the lack of wisdom in the path it is pursuing. Not only is it damaging efficient agricultural producers such as Australia; it is wrecking the agricultural enterprise of the developing world. In terms of Europe's own sticky economic performance, particularly with respect to manufacturing, the diversion of resources into agriculture is hurting the economic performance of the 10 nations of the EEC. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics-at the initiation of the previous Government-has been conducting a study for four years, and it produced a report in September. It has come down with the conclusions that the cost to Australian agriculture and to Australia's standard of living is now amounting to about $1 billion a year. Not only that, but the cumulative effect of the common agricultural policy has probably cost Europe about one million jobs. All that the CAP is doing, apart from the attractive politics of it to the rural lobbies in the European countries, is capitalising into land, and about 80 per cent of the value of the CAP is now in the hands of about 20 per cent of the farmers in the European countries. Dr Stoeckel, the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is at present in Europe, at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with various institutes-academic, business and agricultural-pointing out to the Europeans the lack of wisdom in the course that they are pursuing. At the government level, as I pointed out yesterday, the Prime Minister and I were able to get some understandings with the Europeans on beef. We have been able to have taken on board our comments on the EEC's own internal regime concerning sugar. In terms of the Green Paper on agricultural policy that the Europeans have just brought out, we again are commenting on that and putting pressure on the EEC, through the Commission, and on the member countries. This is wholly a question of diplomacy, discussion, talking, arguing, putting forward academic studies, and taking every action that we can-as well the Opposition understands. The Opposition had a special Minister for trade representation there, the Hon. Vic Garland. The Opposition indulged in a range of strategies. Whereas when in government the Opposition felt that the best approach to the EEC was to kick it in the shins at every chance possible, we believe that the conduct of international relations should not descend to the level of abuse and we are pushing just as hard as Opposition members did in terms of factual content in trying to substantiate the deplorable effect that the CAP is having on agricultural producers in both the developed and the developing world. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has sought my indulgence to add to an answer given to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I have granted the Minister that indulgence. Mr HAYDEN —Since the honourable member for Bradfield asked a question with respect to the new Trade Commissioner in Vancouver, I have asked the Department of Foreign Affairs to give me information on the detail of the question. The note that I have states: Insofar as his Consul-General work is concerned, Combe may be required to have access to the usual forms of classified information relating to visa and passport matters. Otherwise, our normal intelligence exchanges will continue to be handled by the High Commission in Ottawa as they have been in the past. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983, I present the Prices Surveillance Authority annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1986 entitled `Response to Government Guidelines', together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present two major environmental reports: The final report of the Interim Consultative Committee on the National Conservation Strategy for Australia, and the report of the Working Group on Rainforest Conservation. I also table the text of a statement relating to the reports. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 Halverson,Mr McArthur and Ms Mayer. 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 Drummond. 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 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 every 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Fife and Mr McArthur. 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 sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further capital gains and wealth taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of capital gains and wealth taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale and Mr Slipper. 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 all steps be taken to prevent the continuous erosion of the rights of the holders of freehold land. Your petitioners draw to the attention of Parliament the denigration of freehold rights as practised in N.S.W. and calls on the Parliament to enact overriding legislation to allow full and proper compensation to all Australians where Government requires the use of private property and traditional rights attached thereto. 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 the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. 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 humble petitions of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we wish you to reverse the decision to cut funding to children's services. (a) Further cuts in Pre-School Education funding at the Commonwealth level will make it increasingly difficult for kindergartens to continue providing preventative, developmental education support to young children and their parents. (b) Cuts to Fee Relief and services in the Child Care system are going to impose hardship on the middle and lower income earners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider these cuts. by Mr Holding. 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. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective world peace initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being, maximum employment, utilising natural resources for peaceful purposes, developing healthy soils and growing a plentiful food supply and tree cover. By so doing, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Fully support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of the defence budget to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage into hygienic humus for use in rehabilitating impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the 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; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Tuckey. 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 backgroung signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned ex-service persons in the electorate of Bass in Tasmania respectfully showeth that: (i) The welfare of Australian veterans and their dependants should be kept out of bureaucratic costing exercises. (ii) The Veterans' Entitlement Bill 1985 does not represent the actual needs of ex-service persons, especially the abolition of dependants' pensions, the alteration to the assessment of rates of disability pensions and the alteration to Section 47-the onus of proof. (iii) As ex-service persons who served their country in time of need, and now apparently forgotten by governments, we are deeply concerned that our organisations were not consulted before the amendments were made. Your petitioners therefore pray that: (1) The controversial parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985 be repealed. (2) That ex-service organisations be given the chance of a ``Summit'' type meeting, as accorded management and trade unions, at which to express their opinions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain Wollongong (electors of the Division of Cunningham) shows-Living Music Radio (here circumstances of case stated) has been allocated 104.5 Mhz on FM radio band and has blocked out all Sydney FM radio reception. Those stations affected 2 triple M and 2 day FM. Your petitioners therefore pray that (1) They allocate to another frequency (here terms of action petitioned stated) (2) Reduce power output transmission. by Mr West. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's failure to ensure that the public receives a reliable, cheap and efficient postal service. 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 MACPHEE(Goldstein)(2.54) —This is a time for action and not for words by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). This morning when people in Canberra tried to post their letters they found on every letter-box in Canberra the following notice: Please Note We regret that due to an industrial dispute in the New South Wales mail network postal services will be disrupted until further notice. Consequently customers should lodge all mail in a post office box or over the counter at their nearest post office. This posting box will be out of service for the duration of the dispute. A concerned citizen brought that notice to me this morning at Parliament House. A short while ago the notice was back on the same letter-box. The Minister has a lot to explain to the Australian public about this matter. Post offices have been closed today in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Canberra and New South Wales as a result of the strike in Sydney. We have had the nailing up of mail-boxes in New South Wales and the taping up of boxes elsewhere. Who has taped over them? Has it been postal workers? If so, by what authority? Are they committing a Federal offence? I ask the Minister to answer these questions. Did the management of Australia Post authorise it? If so, why in Canberra? For example, why is mailing letters in Canberra to someone else in Canberra now affected because of a strike in Sydney? Are Canberra's mail drivers out on strike as well? Are they on strike in sympathy with the mail sorters? Why is mail not being collected from mail-boxes and why are Canberra residents being prevented from posting their letters? The same questions may be asked about Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia where we are informed, at least, that a similar situation prevails. What about Christmas mail? This is the time of year when everyone sends mail overseas. Is Australia Post to guarantee that mail which now cannot be distributed and will not be able to go by sea will be posted by air at no greater cost to the customer? I ask the Minister to answer these questions. I also ask him-it is a shame that he has left the chamber, but I hope that he will understand the importance of this point- Mr Carlton —Where is the Minister? Mr MACPHEE —Where is the Minister? I ask the Minister to explain why, when this situation has reached the sad stage it has, he has not used his powers under section 8(1) of the Postal Services Act 1975. That section states: The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission- that is, Australia Post- give to the Commission, in writing, such directions, with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, as appear to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest. Consultation may be begun by telephone this afternoon. The direction in writing obviously will not be posted. One could not even post it in Canberra's post boxes. However, the direction may be given by telex. Section 8(1) obliges the Minister to act in the public interest. For months the Minister has been telling Australia Post what he expects of it. Australia Post management has responded positively, but some of its employees, particularly in Sydney, have been anxious to defy the Minister and, therefore, the Government, the management of Australia Post, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and even the Federal Executive of its own union, the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union. In March this year the Minister opened a new post office in Wodonga. In his speech he made the following observations: I am glad to see that Post is trying hard to rectify the situation in New South Wales. It is consulting regularly with union representatives and its own employees and has instituted training programs to improve industrial relations and management skills among its supervisors and managers. It is implementing measures to tell the public quickly of delays in the mails and the reasons for them. Several problem areas which have contributed to poor performance in mail processing have been identified and I am told Post is consulting with staff over rectifying these. But the plain fact is that these diverse issues-human relations, industrial relations, the authority of management and organisational arrangements-must be resolved if Post is to lift its performance standard in New South Wales. If service quality in New South Wales continues to fail then growth in demand for Post services will decline as dissatisfied customers go elsewhere. The consequences of such a decline could well be catastrophic for the whole organisation. I am encouraged by the fact that the senior managers of Post are confident that service can be improved, and know that this must occur before the end of 1985. Mr MacKellar —Who said that? Mr MACPHEE —The Minister said that. We are very nearly at the end of 1985. He continued: Certainly, the public cannot be expected to endure the poor level of service that prevailed last Christmas. It is, of course, essential that staff at all levels accept the need for changes that will improve performance and in turn ensure the continued viability of the enterprise. The Opposition totally endorses the views expressed then by the Minister. So did the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission has endorsed the management practices of Australia Post and the changes it needed to make in order to make the New South Wales mail distribution system efficient. We know the problems of social engineering that occurred many years ago with the Redfern Mail Exchange. We know that Australia Post made a very conscious decision to create decentralised distribution centres. But sadly, in doing the right thing by its employees, it distributed the agitators. We now have these agitators who were on nothing short of a rort, a rort exposed by Australia Post management to the Arbitration Commission and totally condemned by the commissioner concerned, who was a former Transport Workers Union official. It was totally condemned as a rort, which no other employee in a Commonwealth establishment anywhere else could expect to get and no other workers for Australia Post anywhere else in the country could have got. They were able to greatly increase their income by delaying mail processing during the week, and then insisting that everybody on a shift be rostered on at the weekend to get massive amounts of overtime-at great cost to the public and in contravention of the clear direction by the Minister to Australia Post to produce an efficient and low cost mail distribution service. The importance of this today is that over 40 per cent of all Australian mail is processed in New South Wales. In Sydney only 60 per cent of the mail is distributed at the advertised time. Elsewhere in Australia 90 per cent of mail is now being distributed at that time. People are still putting mail in boxes, as they are entitled to do, especially with the Christmas period arriving and cheques to be paid and so forth. Over seven million articles are now banked up. This small section was described by the Managing Director of Australia Post, Mr Eltringham, on 21 June in the following terms: It's the hard-heads, about 5 per cent of the work force, who make it hard for all concerned. That is putting it mildly. It is they who are frustrating government policy and not only jeopardising a service to the public but in fact bringing it to a halt. They are denying their own Federal Executive and everybody else. I put it to the Minister that he has an obligation to read very carefully all that Commissioner Grimshaw of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has said and all that the people who use the mail services, all who are organised enough to band together and express opinions, have said must be done. For example, the Chairman of Major Mail Users of Australia, Mr Malcolm Overland, has been seeking to see the Minister, and on his last inquiry through his office was told in no uncertain terms that the Minister would see him when he was good and ready. That is not good enough. In a Press release on 14 October, two days ago, Mr Overland said: After many years, during which unsound work practices were allowed to develop, the management of Australia Post is to be commended for trying to remove inefficiencies from the system. It is to be regretted that management is being frustrated in its attempts by mail sorters, who are ripping the system off by their refusal to allow management flexibility in scheduling work rosters to meet the demands of a continuous work load. As a result of excessive overtime, some staff are regularly doubling their wages. This prevents Australia Post employing up to 300 additional permanent staff needed to operate the system in New South Wales efficiently. Business users of Australia Post's services have had enough. If the mail sorters refuse to handle the mail, they should be replaced by those who will get the mails moving again. Since it is Government policy to retain Australia Post as a government monopoly, the Minister for Communications must accept full responsibility for the current intolerable lack of service to the community. The Major Mail Users of Australia, representing more than 20 per cent (in excess of $200m) of Australia Post's revenue, is determined that the Minister face up to these responsibilities. An urgent appointment is being sought with the Minister to reinforce this view. A similar telegram was sent to the Minister by the Australian Direct Marketing Association. Again, it is worth putting on record what the degree of concern is amongst Australian commercial organisations using Australia Post and obliged under the Act to use Australia Post. The Association says to the Minister: This Association is deeply disturbed by repeated disruptions to the mail network in New South Wales. We fully support all the initiatives being attempted to be implemented by Australia Post management and urge that all measures necessary be taken to force the union responsible for these dislocations to resume work on the same basis as their counterparts in every other State. This Association has been co-operating with Australia Post management over many years in an attempt to resolve the problems associated with the New South Wales network, but these senseless continual strikes by the union who have no regard for business and the community generally are forcing our members to take alternative steps. If a reliable service cannot be restored a large volume of work currently enjoyed by Australia Post will be diverted causing significant job loss which may never be recovered. Our members are being forced to use other means to convey advertising mail and distribution of product. This disruption is occurring when our members' mail is at its peak and loss of revenue will cause hardship if this situation brought about by the union is allowed to continue. Members are currently considering withholding payments of moneys where delivery performance is not met. Provision should be made during protracted delays for non-payment of moneys owed due to non-performance. Further we request a relaxation of statutory requirements covering private delivery contracts when disruptions of this nature take place. What people are doing is this: Many commercial organisations communicating with me and other people in Canberra are now buying heavy duty envelopes weighing more than 500 grams to post a simple letter because the Postal Services Act obliges everyone to post through Australia Post if the letter is less than 500 grams in weight. People are prepared to pay the extra cost to engage a private courier service to get the mails through. One of the essential things in any community is that the mails must get through. Here there is a total stalemate where everyone is in agreement about what has to be done. In those circumstances the Minister has no alternative but to act. Australia Post is on record as begging this Government, privately and publicly, not to do away with the no work as directed no pay provisions. It is on record as condemning the removal of other legislation such as the famous Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act-the CE(EP) Act-because it believes that the escalation and disruption is due to that. Mr McQuitty, then Managing Director of Australia Post, was quoted last year as saying: In New South Wales, absenteeism, external disruptions, internal disputes and other problems have rendered service performance unsatisfactory for many years. Decentralisation from the Redfern Mail Centre had improved efficiency from 79.5 per cent to 90.8 per cent in 1982-83. Unfortunately it has not been practicable to maintain that improvement-due primarily to the effects of the repeal of the no work-no pay legislation which had prompted negotiation rather than immediate resort to industrial action. As I recall, on only six occasions was this kind of legislation actually employed. The threat of it brought about a situation where people could actually start talking to each other. Mr Saunderson —Rubbish! Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member knows what the situation is. A small group of people, in their own greed, are denying 300 other people the opportunity for jobs and are seeking to gain money they are not entitled to at the expense of the public. We believe that those people should be told: `Get back to work or lose your job'. The Government should be supporting Australia Post in that, and those in Sydney who want a job can replace them and, through the Government's training programs, can soon be given the opportunity to get the mails moving. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.08) —It has been accepted by the Opposition spokesman and has not been denied at any stage by me that we have a real problem in relation to the mail service in New South Wales. One point I want to make right from the start relates to a quotation by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) of somebody saying that this problem had existed for many years. This is the first time in the history of this dispute within Australia Post in Sydney that Australia Post management has been in a position, as a result of the hearings before Commissioner Grimshaw, to take a stand on the issue. I want to go to the issue in more detail than the previous speaker did. The issue is, of course, the ridiculous overtime provisions which operated in Australia Post in New South Wales. I indicated in this place yesterday and confirm again today total support for Australia Post management in what it is endeavouring to do to bring about a situation whereby the union will have to understand that there is no way-I reiterate this because it is the advice of Australia Post management-that Australia Post management is going to allow what was known as the one on, all on provisions of overtime and the ridiculous situation that went on for so long in Australia Post in New South Wales ever to come back again. That is the core of the problem. Having said that, I wish to say one other thing in relation to the work force of Australia Post. Unfortunately, as has been indicated, there is a small group of people who have brought about the situation in New South Wales. The vast majority of Australia Post workers, not only in other parts of Australia but also in New South Wales, are attempting to get on with the job and are making their best efforts in the interests of Australia Post and the community. However, the motion is interesting. It specifically refers to the Government's failure to provide `a reliable, cheap and efficient postal service'. The fact is that at the moment we have what can be described only as a tragic situation in postal services in New South Wales. However, it should be said that the mail performance nationally by Australia Post is excellent. In 1984-85 the national proportion of postmarked standard articles delivered which met delivery standards was 88 per cent. That is an overall national figure and it is based on world performance standards, not something invented by Australia Post, this Government, the previous Government or anyone else. When one breaks down that national figure one finds the following State results: Victoria, 94 per cent; Queensland, 93 per cent; Western Australia, 95 per cent; South Australia, 96 per cent; and Tasmania, 90 per cent. However, the figure for New South Wales was only 76 per cent-not 60 per cent, as was indicated earlier-and that is why the national standard comes down to 88 per cent. It has been dragged down by the performance in New South Wales. Honourable members talk about cheap services. Let us have a look at that issue. The fact is that, subject to the problems we are facing at the moment and let us not entirely ignore the performance of Australia Post over a longer period, mail service performances in relation to delivery within advertised time targets are considerably better than those in most parts of the world. They are certainly better than comparable countries such as Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Let us compare our 33c charge for standard letters with charges of other countries. The figures I am about to quote are all calculated in Australian currency. The charge in the United States is 34.3c; in Canada 37.1c; in Japan 37.9c; in Sweden 35.6c; in West Germany 42.1c; in the United Kingdom 34.5c; and in France 36.3c. Those charges are for comparable mail articles. Australia Post is one of the only two postal organisations in the world which operates at a profit and receives no subsidy. In fact, it may now be the only one because of what is happening in the United Kingdom. The updated figures from that country may have changed the position. It is very easy for honourable members to come in here today and berate the performance of Australia Post overall. That is totally unfair. Let us look at the sort of advice that we are getting from the Opposition about the handling of this matter. We have had the Opposition spokesman on communications, the honourable member for Goldstein, talking about `no work as directed, no pay'. He then moved on to the infamous Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. I will deal with that in a bit more detail, because it is no solution to the matter at all. It is well known to the shadow Minister that Australia Post, through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the hearings before Commissioner Grimshaw, has stand-down provisions for a period of six months. It is using those stand-down provisions and if people are not prepared to carry out directions and work as directed those provisions have been and will continue to be used. Let us have a look at the suggestion that Mr McQuitty is quoted as having made. He said that the repeal of the no work as directed, no pay and the CE(EP) provisions or a combination of both, was at the core of the problem. With the greatest of respect to Mr McQuitty, that is nonsense. The CE(EP) legislation, that great piece of industrial democracy, was introduced in 1977 and it came into operation in 1979. Let us now discuss what happened in relation to that legislation while the Opposition was in office. In December 1981 there were headlines like these in the Sydney Morning Herald: `Communications chaos'; the next day `Mail walkouts block pensions'; and then the next day `A million mail items pile up'. Those were the sorts of headlines we had in December 1981. Did the Opposition, then in government, use the provisions of the CE(EP) legislation? I am not suggesting for one minute that it should have used them because they do not do anything for the problem. Did the Opposition use them? No, it did not. I will turn in a moment to the occasions on which such provisions were used. The shadow Minister has been calling for dismissals of people. That is what he wants; he has a penchant for dismissals. A fortnight ago it was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board; now it is Australia Post employees. Let us look at the position in 1981. There were 28 million postal articles held up in that dispute; 15 million in New South Wales and 13 million in Victoria. What did the Government do about it? It did nothing. It could have acted then, it could have given the directions that the shadow Minister is talking about now, it could have used the CE(EP) Act, it could have done all sorts of things. In fact, the CE(EP) Act was used nine times between 1977 and 1983, but not once was it used for dismissals. The Opposition knows that as well as I do. Opposition members come in here and display absolute hypocrisy about the way in which we should proceed. They quote people as saying that the CE(EP) legislation would solve this sort of problem. That is nonsense. Honourable members know it is nonsense because they did not go down that track themselves. All they did was grandstand on those issues and do nothing about them. Then we had the argument put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that perhaps the answer to all this is some sort of privatisation. The way in which he put the argument was a bit hazy. He tends to be a bit hazy on detail. Nevertheless he indicated that that was the way in which we should proceed. Why that should be the way to go I have no idea, but the Leader of the Opposition seemed to see some value in it on 14 October when he was interviewed on the Channel 10 evening news bulletin. He said: If a public monopoly held by Australia Post were not so tight, the consequences of this kind of strike would not be so great and it certainly is an argument in favour of greater privatisation and greater flexibility. Mr Hunt —Hear, hear! Mr DUFFY —The honourable member says `Hear, hear'. What does `greater privatisation and greater flexibility' mean? When will we be told what the Opposition's policy actually is? The Opposition talks about greater privatisation; does it intend to sell off bits of Australia Post, privatising some areas and not others? No one has any idea. Yet these are the people who are telling us how to run Australia Post. They move from the wets to the dries to the rain forests. On 15 October, the very next day, we had a statement from the shadow Minister for Communications, who said-and nobody disagreed with the first part of this- They are jeopardising- he is referring of course to the postal workers in Sydney, that small group who are causing this tremendous industrial trouble- the entire future of Australia Post as a national mail network . . . I can agree with him that far. The honourable member goes on to say-in a sense no one can disagree with the fact that there is a lot of truth in this aspect, because I have said it too-that unless some of these people wake up to themselves they will give ammunition to people who want to privatise. The night before, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that that was an argument in favour of greater privatisation. But that statement has been broken down and we have no idea where the shadow Minister stands, because he spoke about giving ammunition to those who would like to see it broken up and sold to private enterprise. It would be interesting to know who the shadow Minister is talking about. Is he talking about giving ammuntion to his Leader? Does he support him on this issue? It is about time the shadow Minister responsible for all the statutory authorities in the Communications portfolio came here-not around the corridors and not in various other places-and told us and the rest of the people of Australia where he stands on the privatisation issue. There have been many interjections from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). It is interesting to look at where he stands on this issue. In February 1983 the honourable member for Menzies said- Mr N. A. Brown —Ancient history again. Mr DUFFY —It may be ancient history to the honourable member but it is very worrying when we have a situation in which we have the Leader of the Opposition saying one thing and we have no idea of what the shadow Minister is saying on this issue, and yet they are posing as members of an alternative government. Let us go back and look at what the honourable member for Menzies said: . . . as a matter of principle, the exclusive power of the Australian Postal Commission to carry letters for reward should be continued. It is humbug for the honourable member for Menzies to come in here and carry on like this. For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, I ask: Why did the honourable member for Menzies believe that Australia Post should continue to keep its exclusive power? For the benefit of the National Party of Australia, I shall quote again the honourable member for Menzies, who said: It is vital that the postal service should be able to keep down the costs of country and remote mail services which it would be able to do as a result of this decision. Nothing put forward here today has been of any assistance in any way to any honourable members on this side of the House in the resolution of this dispute. We heard again all the confused talk about privatisation. We heard about no work as directed, no pay. Stand-down provisions are in fact already inserted in the award in relation to Australia Post and are being used by the Australia Post management. We were taken back to that nonsense about the CE(EP) Act, which was never anything more than a recipe for industrial anarchy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(3.23) —The response of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to the discussion on the matter of public importance highlighted the seriousness of the issue before the House this afternoon. From listening to the Minister, one could not help noticing that he does not have his heart on this issue. That he has avoided entirely the issue before the House is quite pertinent. He gave us a rundown on the effectiveness or efficiency of other countries' performances in delivering mail. He gave us a rundown on other countries' mail charges. He also asked what we did about Australia Post in the past. These issues are not pertinent to the issue which is before us today. The issue we are discussing is a mail strike which is taking place today and which is causing disruption and chaos today. It is causing the loss of millions of dollars and is putting at risk hundreds if not thousands of jobs of people right throughout Australia. That is the issue before the House-not the cost of mail in some other country and not how quickly some other country can get its mail delivered. Those are not the issues. It just highlights the fact that this Minister is not prepared to defend the Government on this matter in his usual effective way. I truly believe that he does not believe that the Government and, indeed, the union involved in this matter are right. One of the problems of having a Labor government is that it is too closely associated with the union movement in this country. The result is that whenever we have an industrial dispute that brings unions into conflict with the Government, the Government is long on rhetoric but short on action. We saw this take place only recently with regard to the Mudginberri dispute, which has gone on for months and months. That was a situation where unions-in this case the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union-were brought against the Government. What happened? Workers made mutually agreeable contracts with their employers, the employer got a new market and Australia got new export income. Yet what happened? The union movement tried to stop it. What did this Government do? It did nothing but give us words; it took no action. As a consequence, the viability of the abattoir at Mudginberri was put at risk, the jobs of those people who worked at Mudginberri were put at risk and the income that all Australians so desperately need in order to keep this country running was very nearly lost to us. We did get action. We got action from the National Farmers Federation and from Opposition members of this Parliament. The issue that we are discussing today is a mail dispute over a new roster system. It has been pointed out to me that really the nub of the problem is that the mail sorters in metropolitan areas will lose part of their excessive and, in some cases, unearned overtime payments. It was also pointed out to me earlier today that, given the situation that has been operating in some of those mail sorting centres, perhaps Ned Kelly would be happy to work there, and he would be able to work there without his helmet on, too. This strike is causing disruption and chaos, as I mentioned earlier. Some millions of postal articles are being held up, companies are losing money and Australians are losing their jobs or their job certainty. Indeed, 300 unemployed Australians will lose the opportunity of having a job if the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union gets its way in this matter. Why is this situation so serious? It is so serious because we have a government which is not prepared to stand up and be counted. We do not have a government which is prepared to enforce the sort of rhetoric that it espouses here in the House. The APTU, which is the relevant union in this matter, is clearly wrong. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does not agree with the APTU. The Australia Post management does not agree with it. The Major Mail Users of Australia does not agree with the APTU. The customers of Australia Post do not agree. Even the more responsible and, I dare say, majority of Australia Post employees do not agree. When I speak of Australia Post employees, I say that the majority are responsible, good citizens of this nation. In Goulburn, in the centre of my electorate, the mail centre is still sorting mail. It is doing so because the sorters do not agree with the sorts of tactics that the people in the metropolitan areas who listen to the APTU espouse. They are working overtime in Goulburn in order to provide a service that Australia Post has been able to provide in the past with a degree of pride and, indeed, it has provided satisfaction to those people who work for it. I am told that the workers in Goulburn are handling in excess of an extra 1,500 bags of mail per day in order to try to make up for the lack of activity of their counterparts in the metropolitan areas. As a result, they are working up to an extra four hours overtime per day. They are doing this because they are responsible members of the Australian community. They have more interface, if I may use that word, with the community. They go home, to the pub, to the club or wherever it may happen to be at the end of work each day and they hear the complaints of the people who use Australia Post regularly. If Australia Post is on strike, the people who work at the Goulburn mail centre get to be told all about it and they understand the chaos that it causes. This does not take place in a metropolitan region. I guess the fact that the Goulburn mail centre is still operating means that it is worthy of congratulations and also is indicative of the better style of person that one tends to find in country areas. Why do all of those groups that I mentioned earlier agree on what needs to be done? They agree because they subscribe to good old common sense, just as the workers and management at Mudginberri subscribe to it. These people know what needs to be done; in fact, even the Minister knows what needs to be done. On 30 April, in a speech to the National Press Club, he said: And if, in fact, Australia Post is to survive, its performance has to be lifted. We all agree with that; obviously the Minister does. He also went on to say in that speech: . . . what the unions have to understand and what post management has to understand-and I think they both are starting to understand it-is that you cannot protect the monopoly position of Australia Post because it's being bypassed. Those very words highlight the seriousness of the situation facing Australia today. He also said: All I'm saying to you is that in my view Australia Post have got about this year to get their house in order or they won't have much of a house to get in order because of the fact, as I say, that people are now bypassing the system. People are bypassing the system. That is why today the people at Goulburn mail centre are prepared to work against what their mates in Sydney are doing. They understand, as does the Minister, that if Australia Post does not perform satisfactorily it will not remain a viable operation and the jobs of the people who work within it will be put at risk. It is those very jobs that we on the Opposition benches are trying to protect, to ensure that Australia Post is viable and that those jobs remain viable. I will quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 October which reports what was said by a chap from the Major Mail Users of Australia. The article states: Mr Overland said the problem in this instance was not with Australia Post, but with an unresponsive Government. Since it is Government policy to retain Australia Post . . . It further states: . . . Mr Overland's comments come at a time when many principal users are moving away from Australia Post to private enterprise in an attempt to get their mail delivered on time. The National Roads and Motorists Association is a clear example of what is happening. Eighty-five per cent of deliveries of its magazine Open Road are now delivered by private contractor-at a saving to the NRMA, I point out, of about $1m. I also take the opportunity to point out that this Government has a major responsibility for this matter because it did away with the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. That provided for the no work as directed, no pay principle. But this Labor Government got rid of that Act. The previous Liberal-National Government introduced it. That sort of legislation would give this Minister the opportunity to do what he knows is right and what we on the Opposition benches know is right to protect the viability of Australia Post and to give those 300 unemployed people an opportunity to work. If this Minister and this Government are not strong enough to act in a proper fashion, let them get out of the way and let someone who has the ability get on with the job. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(3.33) —I wish to speak on this matter of public importance. When we listen to Opposition members, we hear the same old tired reaction. When they hear about industrial disputes, it is like waving a red flag to a bull. All they want is blood. They want to kick heads; that is their solution. Their solution is to go out and kick a few heads and not worry whether that resolves the dispute. Everybody recognises that there is a very serious problem that has existed in New South Wales for quite some time. We should perhaps look at what caused that problem. The problem resulted from the creation of the Redfern mail exchange, which occurred under the previous Menzies Liberal Government. It allowed what was obviously a very poor decision to take place. Millions of dollars were spent in establishing a centralised organisation, which created an imbalance in the power in the mail area. The creation by the Whitlam Labor Government of Australia Post and Telecom Australia created an opportunity for a re-organisation to take place in New South Wales. That has been going on for the past 10 years. During the period of the last Liberal conservative Government under Malcolm Fraser there were periods of intense industrial disputation in Australia Post. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), said that one of the problems of the relationship between a Labor government and the trade union movement is that we do not know how to handle industrial disputes. For the benefit of the previous speaker, let us see how the previous Government handled them. During the vintage years of the previous Government 323,000 work hours were lost in Australia Post through industrial disputation. During the year 1981-82, what was that Government's solution? Did it implement the CE(EP) legislation, which it had as a powerful weapon, when so many thousands of hours were lost through industrial disputation? No. What has been our record? Our record has been an average of 17,000 hours lost in Australia Post-20 times less than was achieved by the previous Government during its vintage years. A delicate industrial dispute cannot be resolved by simply going out and kicking heads. We have heard the call of Opposition members saying that we should implement the CE(EP) legislation. Interestingly enough, last Thursday when we were debating the private member's Bill put forward by the previous Opposition spokesperson on industrial relations, the present Opposition spokesperson, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), did not even bother to come in and support it. That is probably because he does not know what sort of industrial relations policy he is supposed to implement. He talks to some of his colleagues in the passageway one day and comes up with a Press release of what the new industrial relations policy is to be. He then walks around the corner and bumps into good old Honest John who gives him a lecture on how he has made a mistake. So he changes his mind again and comes out with another Press release the next day. It is no wonder that he is confused. He cannot speak on any of these disputes because he does not know what Opposition policy is. Interestingly enough the shadow spokesman for communications, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), started off yesterday with a question and talked in the House about sack, sack, sack. That is a change from his industrial relations policy when he was shadow spokesperson. But still I suppose it is understandable, given the absolutely abysmal performance of Honest John as Leader of the Opposition. The shadow spokesperson for communications is obviously making his move for the next challenge, which is inevitable at this stage. The matter of public importance refers to a reliable, cheap and efficient postal service. The reality is that in performance Australia Post measures up very well against any yardstick that can be used in any other postal service around the world. It has a performance which sees about 88 per cent of its standard articles delivered on target. That figure is comparable with those anywhere in the world. But, yes, there is a problem in New South Wales; yes, the management recognises it and, yes, it is a serious problem. There is a dispute of which we are all aware. But we on this side of the House know that one way to overcome that dispute is by proper management and proper discussion. The matter will be resolved in a way which will lead to industrial peace in New South Wales in the long term. One cannot resolve it simply by going in and using the solution of the Opposition, that is, by kicking a few heads or sacking a few people. Anybody who understands industrial relations knows that the reaction to that would be a widening of the dispute to cover not just the communications area. The fact that one would be reacting to a situation in which people are taking industrial action, and attacking their right to strike and take industrial action, would tend to bring in support, which at the moment does not exist, from other areas of the trade union movement. If one took that step and widened the dispute, one would almost inevitably lengthen the period of the dispute and complicate the resolution of it. If Opposition members had ever bothered to study industrial relations, they would realise that that would be the inevitable result of the sorts of measures for which they are arguing. If they look at what happened when the CE(EP) legislation was implemented, they will find that that was the result of each of their actions. The previous Government stood down hundreds and in some cases thousands of people. But that did not resolve the dispute. The disputes dragged on and on. Then, as part of the resolution, people had to be reinstated with full rights and conditions. That was always agreed to by the previous Government. What resulted was a worse dispute than had been the case at the beginning. Australia Post has been working very hard to overcome the problems of the centralised mailing system that was created in New South Wales. The reason performance is so high in other States is that this mistake was never repeated. Mail services in other States were decentralised which has resulted in very high performances-all of them in the region of 90 per cent and higher. Whilst Australia Post has been attempting to resolve this issue, it is not helped by people standing up in this chamber berating it and denigrating the performance that it has achieved. It has almost completed the decentralisation of the mail system in New South Wales. A small group of people who do not have the full support of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union, as a national organisation or even within their State, are embarking on industrial disputation. As I have said, those matters will be resolved before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and by negotiations between the union and the management of Australia Post. To try to resolve it by any heavy-handed method would simply worsen the dispute. The clear evidence of industrial disputation is simply that it can be resolved ultimately by negotiation. No dispute has been resolved by legal manoeuvering or by tactics which are intended only to provoke the disputation. We have heard spokespeople in this House say that we should go in heavy-handed. I do not believe that they are saying that because they think it would resolve the dispute. They are hoping that the Government will overstep the mark and over-react to a matter which is being contained in several of the mail centres in Sydney central. Such action would spark a much bigger dispute and give them something with which to continue their attack on the trade union movement and the public enterprises that exists today. As has been said, Australia Post is one of only two postal services in the world which operates without government subsidy and provides services which are cheaper than those available in any comparable country. Some of the figures mentioned by the honourable member for Gilmore indicate that we could give some of these services to private contractors who could perform them more cheaply. That is probably true. But the result for the supposed supporters of the National Party of Australia-the country people-would be that the cost of their services would rise astronomically. No private contractors would want to go into the middle of the bush and provide services at a cost of 33c a letter. In 1981-82, the previous Government's last full year in office, its record of management of Australia Post-it is a most damning record-indicates that 323,000 hours were lost through industrial disputation. Average man-hours lost in 1975- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routing administration. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more noteworthy changes included in this Bill. Amendments Incorporation Act 1905 Minor amendments to this Act allow the Government Printer to publish a reprinted Act containing all amendments up to a date specified in the reprint. This will avoid delays in reprinting Acts which at present are required to include amendments to the date of publication. Bankruptcy Act 1966 The insertion of a new section 17AA will contribute to administrative efficiency by allowing a registrar or a deputy registrar of the Federal Court of Australia to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a registrar in bankruptcy. The new section could apply, for example, during the short term absence of the Registrar in Bankruptcy or where he may have to stand aside in matters that may involve a conflict of interests. The amendment of section 41 removes an anomaly brought to light by the judgment in Re Ikin; Ex parte Ikin v. Lamborghini Tractors of Australia Pty Ltd-in the Federal Court of Australia before Pincus J., on 4 April 1985-where it was held that a valid bankruptcy notice could not be issued where the judgment debt was expressed in a foreign currency. The amendment enables a bankruptcy notice to require payment in a foreign currency or its equivalent in Australian dollars. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 The amendment provides for the continuation of a definition of `British subject' for the purpose of the franchise qualifications. This amendment is required because, when section 7 of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 is proclaimed, it will repeal `British subject' status provisions in that legislation. Crimes Act 1914 The amendments bring into immediate effect various provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 inserted by unproclaimed provisions of the Crimes Amendment Act 1982 and provide that other provisions are operative, except in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, only where an arrangment has been entered into with a participating State or Territory as defined. In the Australian Capital Territory these provisions will have full force and effect immediately. Crimes Amendment Act 1982 The original amendments introduced in 1982 to enable Federal offenders to participate in non-custodial sentencing have not been proclaimed because agreement has not been able to be reached with all States and Territories in relation to their participation in the implementation and administration of non-custodial sentences. The proposed amendments will enable the original provisions to be brought into operation in a State or Territory jurisdiction with effect from that State or Territory entering into the necessary arrangement with the Commonwealth. Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 The amendments are intended to exempt from criminal sanction under the Crimes (Currency) Act persons who are innocently holding counterfeit coins which, in the case of Australian coins, are of pre-decimal currency and, in the case of non-Australian coins, are no longer legal tender anywhere outside Australia. No mischief is involved in the holding of these counterfeit coins. Concerns that have been expressed about counterfeit items in collections being covered by the Act have delayed its coming into operation. The passage of these amendments will enable the Act to be brought into operation and, at the same time, give to persons innocently holding counterfeit coins within these categories exemption from criminal sanction and security of possession. Defence Act 1903 Existing provisions enable a witness before a court or board of inquiry to be required to answer a question notwithstanding that the answer may tend to incriminate the witness, provided that such evidence is not admissible against the witness in civil, criminal or service tribunal proceedings except on a charge of giving false testimony before the court or board of inquiry. The amendments extend the application of the protective provisions to a witness who gives evidence voluntarily. Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 The amendments redefine a crime for which Australia can grant extradition, by providing that such crimes must not only carry a penalty of at least 12 months imprisonment in the country seeking extradition, as is presently provided, but also, had the offence been committed in Australia, a penalty of at least 12 months imprisonment. The amendments also enable postponement of surrender to allow outstanding Australian charges against the fugitive to be dealt with or any sentence of imprisonment to be served. Provision is made permitting the grant of bail where surrender is postponed due to outsanding Australian charges. As habeas corpus is an inappropriate remedy for a person not in custody, a statutory review replaces the existing habeas corpus procedure. In effect, a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in Australia could be surrendered immediately upon completion of that sentence. At present the extradition proceedings could only commence at that time resulting in a further period of incarceration pending hearing and determination of the application. Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 The amendments to this Act are similar to those made in respect of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1968. Family Law Act 1975 The amendments make it clear that Registrars and Deputy Registrars may exercise powers of the Family Court of Australia as delegates of the Court since the present section 37A may have been open to constitutional challenge on the grounds that it may vest powers of the Court in these officials. Moreover, the Bill validates the exercise of powers of the Family Court of Australia by Registrars since the commencement of section 37A on 2 January 1985 and declares the rights and liabilities of persons to be the same as if those rights and liabilities were attributable to an order of a judge of the Court. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 The amendment enables the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to hear and determine any application in respect of a matter pending in the General Division of the Federal Courts of Australia that may be made to a judge of the Federal Court in chambers. The effect of the amendment will be to put the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on a similar footing to State Supreme Courts. The amendment is necessary because there is no resident Federal Court judge in the Northern Territory and a Federal Court judge may not be available to hear urgent interlocutory matters. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 Further to the amendments made in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985 this amendment increases the period of the operation of regulations relating to unzoned areas from three years to five years since the area became part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in August 1983. This will enable the Authority to grant permission for the operation of an activity in an unzoned area. At present any permission granted would expire in August 1986. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 The amendments enable a member or a Territory senator to continue to employ staff under the provisions of the Act following the calling of a general election. The problem that arose in the case of the election of 1 December 1984 is remedied in relation to that election. In relation to future elections the amendments provide that members and senators shall not cease to hold office while continuing to be entitled to a parliamentary allowance. Museum of Australia Act 1980 The amendments change the name of the Museum of Australia to the National Museum of Australia, conforming with the naming policy of other national cultural institutions such as the National Library of Australia, and will reduce confusion with the Australian Museum in New South Wales. Also, the amendments extend the application of the Act to include the continental shelf as well as present and former Australian external territories; provide a procedure for accession of material to form part of the national historical collection; and enable the Museum to stage travelling exhibitions, including materials from outside the national historical collection. Patents Act 1952 The Patents Act is to be amended so that the declaration of certain matters relating to `Convention countries' is made by regulations rather than by proclamation. The change will allow consolidated lists of Convention countries to be more readily available to practitioners and the public. Further amendments relating to the requirements of patent applications for inventions involving micro-organisms, and to abstracts of patent specifications, will make administrative procedures more straightforward and will correct minor omissions. Postal Services Act 1975 A number of amendments formalise the use by Australia Post of vending machines for the issue of postage stamps. The amendments also provide that where a criminal charge is amended, the suspension of the officer based on the original charge need not cease. They also protect the author of a report made in good faith on the work of an officer or employee of the Australian Postal Commission from legal action. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General)(3.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. The amendments arise from the experience of the operation of the Act since it came into effect on 5 March 1984. The amendments clarify certain functions and powers of the Director as well as provide amendments to the existing Act where the existing provisions have required review since the Act came into effect. Clause 3 of the Bill clarifies the circumstances in which the Director is authorised to present indictments in respect of offences not included in the committal order made by the magistrate. The amendments provide that, where a committal order is made in respect of one or more offences, the Director is authorised to present an indictment in respect of: (a) any other offence for which a person was examined-that is, the subject of the committal proceedings-but not committed for trial; or (b) any other offence founded on facts or evidence disclosed in the course of the committal proceedings. In addition, the amendments provide that the Director is authorised to present an indictment where no committal order has been made provided the defendant consents. However, except in the circumstances described, the Director is not authorised to present an indictment where no committal order was made at all or for an offence not included in the committal order. Accordingly, the effect of these amendments is that the Attorney-General will decide whether an indictment should be presented where no committal proceedings have been conducted, except where the defendant consents to an indictment being presented in such circumstances, or no committal order made. Pursuant to this clause, sub-section 6(3) of the principal Act is also amended to make it clear that the operation of an instrument referred to in sub-section 6(3) does not depend upon publication in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The amendment will also permit the delaying of gazettal where public gazettal in relation to a particular prson may prejudice the investigation of that person. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 9 of the principal Act to provide that the Director may act as counsel or solicitor for an authority of the Commonwealth where that authority is a party to a proceeding in respect of a matter: (a) that has arisen out of, or is connected with, the performance of any of the functions of the Director; or (b) that may result in the performance by the Director of such a function. This amendment will enable the Director to act on behalf of persons who may be the subject of civil proceedings in connection with matters in which the Director has advised or may advise. An example of such a situation is where the issue of a search warrant has been challenged. Clause 5 of the Bill inserts a new section 15A to the principal Act to permit police prosecutors to represent the Director in remote localities in proceedings for summary conviction of a person or in connection with formal matters related to committal proceedings. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid the cost and expense of sending the Director's legal staff to remote localities for relatively minor hearings. In relation to the amendment proposed in clause 6 of the Bill, provision was made in the civil remedies amendments to the Act, by virtue of the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Act 1985, for the prohibition of particular evidence or information in proceedings for civil remedies referred to in those amendments. The new sub-section 16A(1A) provides for a similar prohibition of publication of evidence or information in proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties. The purpose of the amendment referred to in clause 7 of the Bill is to enable the Director, with the approval of the Attorney-General or a person authorised in writing by the Attorney-General, to employ persons under term contracts. The terms and conditions of such persons are subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. The amendment provided for in clause 8 removes certain controls from the Director's capacity to engage consultants and other contractors for services. On 2 July 1984 the Public Service Board notified all departments and authorities that they should make decisions to engage consultants and other contractors for services without reference to the Board within the financial limits set out in the Budget process for such expenditure. Since the date of the notification departmental secretaries have been responsible for the engagement of consultants and other contractors for services without reference to the Board. The purpose of the amendments provided in this clause is to give the Director the same capacity and freedom to engage consultants and other contractors for services as are possessed by a departmental secretary. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes two reforms to the Evidence Act 1905. The first relates to the obtaining of evidence abroad for use in criminal or civil proceedings in Australia under Commonwealth law; the second to the class of persons who are competent to give ancillary evidence to prove business records. Deficiencies in the law in these areas have been brought to attention by, in particular, the former Special Prosecutor, Mr R. F. Redlich, QC, and by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC. Obtaining Evidence Abroad In relation to the first amendment, the Special Prosecutor drew attention to his 1982-83 and 1983-84 annual reports to the difficulty of obtaining evidence overseas for use in Commonwealth criminal proceedings. The problem was further highlighted in recent prosecutions in Western Australia for alleged breaches of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. The Federal Court of Australia held that the relevant court, which was a magistrates court, had no power to issue letters of request to an overseas court to have certain evidence taken abroad. The Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended that action be taken to remedy the situation. He comments that most of the heavy work with which his office is concerned has overseas aspects. He gives as examples drug prosecutions and revenue and other fraud cases. In most respects the law concerning evidence, practice and procedure in relation to Commonwealth civil and criminal proceedings is that applying in the State or Territory where the hearing is being conducted. The Evidence Act 1905 deals only with limited areas, and these do not include procedures for the taking of evidence overseas. The laws of evidence and procedure differ from State to State. The High Court of Australia, the Federal Court and Supreme Courts are able to order the obtaining of evidence overseas in civil matters before them. However, not all superior courts may order the taking of evidence in criminal matters. In no State or Territory does it seem possible for such evidence to be obtained in relation to criminal matters in inferior courts. The Bill will allow the obtaining of evidence overseas, both oral and documentary, for use in Federal and Territory courts or State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction in civil or criminal matters. This will fill gaps that exist in State laws. The central features of the Bill are: (i) In relation to proceedings before a superior court-the High Court, Federal Court, Family Court and State and Territory Supreme Courts-the legislation will empower the relevant court on the application of a party to the proceedings to issue letters of request to an overseas court, or to order the taking of evidence overseas by commission or by the appointment of an examiner. (ii) In relation to proceedings before an inferior court, such as a district court or a magistrates' court, a party to the proceedings who wishes to have evidence obtained overseas for the purpose of those proceedings may apply to the appropriate superior court for an order for the taking of such evidence. (iii) The use of evidence obtained overseas will be subject to the following safeguards, since it may not be obtained in the presence of the defendant, and in criminal jury trials will be obtained in the absence of the jury: (a) The issuing of the order will be at the discretion of the superior court. (b) The superior court may include special conditions or directions in the order; for example, that cross-examination of a witness be permitted as a special procedure where this would not otherwise take place. (c) Only evidence which answers the tests of admissibility in Australia will be admissible in Australian proceedings. Where the evidence is obtained for use in an inferior court, that court will determine the question of admissibility in its proceedings, and this determination will be subject to normal appeal processes. (d) The Australian court hearing the matter will have a discretion to exclude any of the material obtained overseas if it seems unfair to receive it, notwithstanding that the evidence satisfies Australian tests of admissibility. Business Records Turning now to business records, although the Evidence Act makes special provision for their admission into evidence in Federal and Australian Capital Territory courts, attention has been drawn to the difficulty in obtaining the admission into evidence of documents originating overseas where there is no witness in Australia, concerned with the making or keeping of the records, competent to give the necessary ancillary evidence to prove the documents. A provision has, therefore, been made in clause 3 to enable an `authorised person', including a person authorised by the Attorney-General or a member of the police force of or above the rank of sergeant, to give the necessary ancillary evidence on the basis of information and belief. This amendment is similar to provisions that have been introduced in New South Wales and Tasmania. Financial and Regulatory Impact The making of an order by a court of the taking of evidence overseas could result in increased costs for the parties since overseas representation at the examination could be necessary. In civil cases existing practice deals with this point. However, in criminal cases where the Commonwealth is the applicant for an order, it is reasonable for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to the defendant in cases of hardship, where in all the circumstances it is reasonable for such assistance to be granted. This will be done within the existing guidelines for financial assistance. The costs involved cannot be quantified but the occasions when such provision will be made are likely to be few. The Bill will have no regulatory impact. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill permits the waiving of crude oil excise liability where a State government introduces a resource rent royalty on petroleum developments within its jurisdiction, and where the State also enters into a revenue-sharing agreement with the Commonwealth. It should be read in conjunction with the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which I will be introducing immediately after this Bill. On 25 June 1985 the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Premier of Western Australia announced that the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments had agreed on the broad arrangements for the introduction of a resource rent royalty on income from petroleum production from Barrow Island. Barrow Island is an onshore development within the jurisdiction of Western Australia. The resource rent royalty-or RRR-is a State initiative, developed in consultation with the Commonwealth, to replace the existing State ad valorem royalty and the Commonwealth crude oil excise which currently apply to Barrow Island Petroleum Production. The RRR will be based on the Commonwealth's resource rent tax-or RRT-which was announced on 27 June 1984 to apply to offshore `greenfields' petroleum projects developed after 1 July 1984. The RRT has always been seen by the Commonwealth as a model for resource taxation generally, but will apply only in offshore areas, where Commonwealth jurisdiction applies. The Western Australian Government has had the taxation regime on Barrow Island under review for some time. Among other concerns that the Government shared with the producers was the concern that future investment on Barrow Island could be rendered uneconomic under the present levy regime. The reason for this concern was quite straightforward, and provides a good example of the advantages of the rent tax concept. Being a mature oil field, further investment on Barrow Island cannot be expected to be as productive in terms of the amount of oil produced per dollar invested when compared with the results from earlier investments there. Had the existing levy and royalty regime continued, economic production of oil could have been terminated prematurely, unless other complex concessions under the levy arrangements were devised. Under the RRR, the full value of the capital and operating costs can be written off in the year in which they are incurred. Major new investments are therefore encouraged and consequently this will assist in maintaining production which would otherwise decline. If, of course, the investments are sufficiently productive and profitable, the RRR takes a share for Government revenue. An example of the sort of major investment with marginal return that could occur on Barrow Island in the future could be the use of enhanced oil recovery techniques which could involve applying very recent and advanced technology. For both constitutional and general policy reasons, the Petroleum Revenue Bill is not limited to Barrow Island. The Commonwealth-Western Australian announcement on RRR of 25 June, to which I referred earlier, concluded with a general invitation to all States to approach the Commonwealth with proposals to apply a RRR to projects in their jurisdiction. The Bill is designed to allow the Commonwealth to waive excise in any situation where a relevant RRR is introduced and a relevant revenue-sharing agreement has been concluded. The first schedule to the Bill sets out in general terms a model agreement which a State would need to enter into with a producer to satisfy the Commonwealth that an acceptable rent royalty was being implemented. The main features of the first schedule-the model RRR agreement-are as follows: It will replace the Commonwealth crude oil excise and the State ad valorem royalty. The royalty rate will be 40 per cent. The threshold rate of return which a project must achieve before the RRR applies will be, at a maximum, the rate applying to the offshore RRT; that is, the long term bond rate plus 15 percentage points. The royalty will be payable on income from the recovery of all petroleum, including crude oil, condensate, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas and ethane. Current and capital expenditures will be written off as deductions for RRR purposes immediately in the year in which they are paid, with any excess of expenditures over receipts in a particular year being compounded forward at the threshold rate to the next year. Payments and receipts relating to the provision of debt and equity capital will not be allowable as deductions. Each member of a joint venture will be assessed for royalty on the basis of its actual expenditure on, and revenue from, the project. This requirement will apply in the case of Barrow Island as Western Australian Petroleum, the operator, is a joint venture of Shell Development (Australia) Pty Ltd, California Cal-Asiatic Oil Co., Texaco Overseas Petroleum, and Ampol Exploration Ltd. Overall liability for royalty will not be influenced by changes in ownership or implementation of farm-in agreements. The RRR will be levied prior to company income tax and will be a deduction for company tax purposes. The second schedule sets out a model revenue sharing agreement which any State introducing a RRR would need to conclude with the Commonwealth before the Commonwealth's crude oil excise was waived. This schedule of the Bill contains a formula to establish a revenue sharing ratio for any given project. The revenue share ratios have been based as far as possible on the concept of revenue neutrality, compared with the existing arrangements. Data relating to individual projects are considered to be commercial-in-confidence and therefore estimates of revenue under an RRR regime cannot be made public. As well, the schedule sets out certain auditing requirements which the Commonwealth required for accountability and to protect its share of the royalty revenue. When the criteria contained in these two schedules are satisfied, the Commonwealth will waive its excise. I believe that revenues of State and Commonwealth governments are protected satisfactorily by these arrangements while producers face a far more flexible tax regime that reduces significantly the interference of the tax regime in their investment planning. In the case of the Barrow Island field, the Western Australian Government is currently negotiating a detailed agreement with the operator, West Australian Petroleum Ltd-known as WAPET-along the lines contained in the Bill. The need for a revenue sharing agreement has also been foreshadowed, an agreement which, in accordance with the second schedule, will give 75 per cent of the revenue to the Commonwealth and 25 per cent to the State. If both the agreement with WAPET and the agreement with the Commonwealth satisfy the criteria contained in the two schedules, then the Commonwealth will proceed to waive its crude oil excise. Any overpayments of excise which could arise where the RRR applies retrospectively from the date of proclamation of the legislation to 1 July will be refunded. The Bill represents a major step forward in reform of resources taxation in Australia. The resource rent tax concept is now firmly established in the petroleum sector both off-shore and on-shore. I am sure that other States and the Northern Territory will see the merits in the Commonwealth's policy on rent taxes and take advantage of this important legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921. The move from the ad valorem royalty and excise regime to a resource rent royalty will require some transitional measures to apply. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 meets the more important transitional arrangements. It is essentially a machinery Bill. It will enable the Commonwealth to determine appropriate levels of excise on the residual crude oil and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas stocks held by producers at the date on which a resource rent royalty comes into effect. The measures provided for in the Bill will ensure that the Commonwealth's revenue raising position is protected. Data relating to individual projects are considered to be commercial-in-confidence and cannot be made public. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Government has been concerned for some time that Commonwealth programs can interact in a way that disadvantages the people they should help, by trapping them in poverty. It has been recognised that the most savage of these poverty traps occurs when tax and social security interact. An attack on poverty traps is an essential part of the Government's tax reform package. It was one of the nine principles in the Australian Labor Party's taxation policy in last year's election. It was also a commitment renewed as part of the renegotiated accord last month. This Bill deals with the extremely high marginal tax rates faced by people receiving social security payments when they try to earn some extra income for themselves and their families. The effective marginal tax rates faced by such people can be higher than the total facing the highest income earners. This is plainly inequitable. It keeps people in poverty and it provides a disincentive to people to care for themselves through, for example, part time work. The attack on poverty traps embodied in this Bill will have three results. First, it will leave more money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands of people on social security with some private income. Secondly, it will ease the transition from welfare to work for people, such as supporting parents, who are temporarily out of the permanent paid work force. Thirdly, it will provide an incentive to all people on social security to provide for themselves, either through part time work or investments. Poverty traps will be attacked on three fronts. First, the amount pensioners can earn privately before they are affected by the income test will be increased from $30 to $40 a week for single pensioners, and from $50 to $70 a week for couples. Secondly, the additional allowable income for pensioners with children will be doubled from $6 to $12 a week per child. Thirdly, the very strict separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished. Rent assistance will simply be added on to payments, and be subject to the normal income test. In particular, these reforms will concentrate on groups of special concern to the Government-the aged, children in poverty, particularly in sole parent families, and pensioners and the unemployed renting in the private market. Pension `Income-Test Free' areas From November 1986, the basic income test for pensions will be liberalised by an increase in the free areas from $30 a week to $40 a week for single pensioners and from $50 a week to $70 a week for a pensioner couple. This means that single pensioners with incomes above $40 a week will receive an increase in pension of $5 a week, and a pensioner couple with an income above $70 a week will receive an increase in pension of $10 a week-combined. Pensioners with incomes between the old and new free areas will receive slightly less. In addition, because the pension cut-out points will increase, some persons currently not entitled on income grounds will become entitled to part rate pensions. It should be noted that the free area increases apply only to pensioners. The benefit income test will not be affected by this Bill. However, as a result of changes in the 1985-86 Budget which are included in the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985, introduced into the Parliament on 9 October 1985, the benefit free area will be increased from $20 to $30 a week in May 1986. The assets test will be unaffected and will apply as it does now. The special income test applying to age pensioners 70 years of age and over will not be affected. The `Income Disregard' for Children From November 1986, the income disregard for children of pensioners will be increased from $6 a week to $12 a week per child. The income disregard for children is the reduction in the income of a pensioner for each child. This, plus the increase in the basic free areas, will mean that pensioners with children will have higher free areas than currently. For example, a sole parent pensioner with one child will be able to have a non-pension income of $52 a week and still receive a full pension. These amounts are to be increased by $12 a week for each additional child. There is to be no change to the treatment of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with children who will continue to have no income disregard. There will also be no change to the income disregard for children in the income test for concession cards and fringe benefits. Rent Assistance From November 1986, the separate income test for rent assistance will be abolished for both pensioners and beneficiaries. Currently, rent assistance is reduced by 50c for every dollar of non-pension or benefit income from the first dollar of private income. Private income will now be higher in the case of pensioners with children who currently benefit from the income disregard of $6 a week per child. From November 1986, rent assistance will be income tested like other additional payments, such as additional pension or benefit for children and mother's-guardian's allowance. The effect will be that people now receiving a part rate of rent assistance because of their private income will become eligible for the maximum rate, and other pensioners and beneficiaries renting in the private market who satisfy the rent test will also become eligible for the full or a part rate of rent assistance. This will mean that people renting in the private market will receive an increase in payment of up to $15 a week for sickness beneficiaries and pensioners, plus the gains from other initiatives, and of up to $10 a week for unemployment and special beneficiaries. The later groups will become eligible for rent assistance of up to $10 a week from 1 May 1986 as a result of changes in the 1985-86 Budget, which are included in the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985. There will be little change to other aspects of rent assistance. In particular, the rent test will remain as it is. Where a pensioner is being assessed under the assets test, the pensioner will now be eligible for rent assistance on the same basis as a pensioner assessed under the income test. Persons renting public housing will not be eligible for payments. However, the existing savings clause covering public housing tenants will remain. The categories of unemployment beneficiaries eligible for rent assistance from May 1986 will not alter. Some examples of what the new measures will mean are as follows: (a) A sole parent with one child and modest earnings of $80 a week will receive an increase in pension of $8 a week. If that sole parent pensioner is renting in the private market, his or her social security payment will be increased by $23 a week. (b) An unemployment beneficiary renting in the private market and with modest income from part time earnings will become eligible for additional rent assistance of up to $10 a week. (c) A single age or invalid pensioner with $100 a week in private income will receive an increase in pension of $5 a week. If the pensioner is renting in the private market, the increase in pension could be as much as $20 a week. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill contains the text of the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) concerning these matters, together with details of the financial impact of the measures. These measures mark a significant development in assistance to those members of our community who are in greatest need and who want the opportunity to break free of the social security system and become self-supporting. The measures will encourage their efforts in a positive way, and the reduction of poverty traps will assist those pensioners and beneficiaries, their children and the wider community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is to consolidate, rationalise and simplify the entitlements available to members of the veteran community. It represents the most important and comprehensive overhaul of the repatriation system since its establishment over 60 years ago. The need for an overhaul of repatriation legislation has been evident for decades. The Repatriation Act has been amended on 90 occasions since 1920. Supplementary legislation has been introduced to cover war-like conflicts in which Australia has been involved since World War II. This legislation, too, has been subject to considerable amendment. A a result of this legislative activity over the years, many difficulties have arisen. Outmoded and inconsistent language and concepts remain in the statutes; eligibility provisions vary between the wars and conflicts; entitlements for medical treatment and ancillary allowances and benefits are scattered haphazardly through the various repatriation Acts and associated regulations. As well, some well-established services have operated without a clear legislative basis. The Bill tackles these problems in a comprehensive and coherent way. Background Let me say at the outset that this Government fully acknowledges its continuing responsibility to the veteran community. The challenges of providing a continuing high standard of service to the veteran community throughout the remainder of the twentieth century and beyond are immense. While it is almost 40 years to the day since the end of the Second World War, there remain over 600,000 Australians actually or potentially entitled to repatriation benefits. As far as is known, we have two veterans of the Boer War, approximately 6,000 veterans of World War I, and about 480,000 veterans of World War II, together with survivors of later conflicts and members of the peacetime forces. Most veterans are now over the age of 65. On current projections, there will be more than 180,000 beneficiaries aged 75 years and over by the year 2000. As the veteran community ages, so the Australian community's responsibilities grow. People in this older age group need more treatment and greater care. The demand for improved services will come on all fronts-for pensions, treatment, pharmaceuticals and, most importantly, in our hospitals and through home and extended care. The Government is meeting these challenges not just with words, but with action. Changes made to the repatriation determining system in January 1985 are now leading to reductions in the previously unacceptable times taken to process claims. Backlogs are reducing. Further improvement will occur. In the past three years we have increassed spending on veterans' affairs by 40 per cent, or about 20 per cent in real terms. Substantial extra spending has been allocated to service pensions, as large numbers of veterans have reached retirement age, and to meet the increase in the numbers and success rate of claims for disability and war widows' pensions. There are also vital projects to update our hospitals by replacement of obsolete accommodation and equipment and to set up aged and extended care units. The Brand report on the Review of the Repatriation Hospital System has recommended further imporovements and these are now under consideration. There have also been increases in pensions and benefits, including significant non-indexation increases, and the introduction of computer technology to aid efficiency and improve service delivery. The VEB Consultative Process The introduction of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill in the Parliament marks the culminatin of one of the most extensive processes of consultation that this or any other government has ever undertaken. The Bill has been drafted around the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review which was constituted by representatives of the Returned Services League, Legacy, the War Widows' Guild and the Australian Veterans' and Defence Services Council. Ninety-five per cent of the Committee's 292 recommendations have been incorporated in the Bill. Since the Bill was tabled in the Parliament on 30 May 1985, material on the Bill has been circulated widely. Over 90 seminars have been held across the country. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has received submissions from many ex-service organisations and individual veterans. The changes made by legislation which came into effect on 6 June 1985 and which are carried through in the VEB have received some adverse reaction. In particular, there has been criticism of the standard of proof amendment which, as honourable members will recall, was amended in the Parliament to make it subject to a six-month sunset clause expiring on 5 December 1985. It is intended that the VEB should include a new standard of proof provision, and this should be in place by 5 December 1985. Some have suggested, in the course of the recently completed consultation process, that particular entitlements under the VEB should be more generously framed. I remind honourable members that when Senator Messner, the predecessor of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, set up the Advisory Comittee on Repatriation Legislation Review, its terms of reference were drawn so as not to emcompass amendments normally taken into account in the annual budgetary context. While some significant further concessions are to be made in the VEB, I make no secret of the fact that the Government has had to make some hard decisions about how generous particular entitlements available to veterans and their dependants should be, having regard to the expenditure implications. The Government must take into account not just the special interest of veterans but also the broader interest of the community in ensuring responsible economic management. Nevertheless, in the course of the VEB consultative process, the Government has endeavoured to accommodate the concerns expressed by the ex-service community. In particular, a new standard of proof provision which should have broad ex-service community support has been devised. The proposal to apply the less generous civil standard of proof in determining certain claims for war widow's pension when a husband died more than 40 years after service will not proceed. Arising from the consultative process, the Government has also reviewed its decision to remove repatriation coverage for all future Defence Force enlistees. Future Defence Force enlistees will now be eligible for repatriation coverage in respect of hazardous service. Further changes are also proposed to treatment entitlements and to disability pension eligibility. I wish to pay tribute to the valuable assistance, during the consultative process, of former Judge Paul Toose, who reviewed the repatriation system in the early 1970s. As a further indication of the Government's good faith in the consultative process, I am also pleased to announce that it has been decided to reverse decisions made by earlier governments so that repatriation coverage under the VEB is extended to some of the previously excluded groups of service personnel who served in the Vietnam war. This will be done by treating these personnel under the VEB as having been allotted for such service. This meets the long-standing concerns of some Defence Force personnel, such as those who made trips to Vietnam on HMAS Sydney, that they were being denied legitimate entitlements under the repatriation system. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill Before turning to the particular provisions of the VEB, there are two points I wish to make. The first is that the VEB and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill contain a number of improvements on existing repatriation entitlements. They include provisions to enable war widow pensioners who remarried or remarry after 29 May 1985 to retain their war widow's pension and other entitlements. There is provision to extend the $12-a-week domestic allowance to include a child who is dependent on the veteran but is not a natural or adopted child. The VEB also standardises the liability provisions for payment of pension on the more generous criteria applicable to World War II veterans. It formalises an extension in the range of medical treatment available to veterans to encompass social and domestic assistance. There are also minor extensions made to service pension eligibility. The second point is that under the VEB no person will lose a pension or benefit he or she now has. I shall now outline the main provisions made by the Bill. Compensation Pensions Part II of the VEB sets out the eligibility conditions for the grant of a disability to a veteran, a war widow's pension to the spouse of a veteran, and an orphan's pension to a dependent child. Eligibility will arise in respect of a veteran's incapacity from injury or disease, or his or her death, where that injury, disease or death is determined to be war-caused. In effect, the VEB maintains the eligiblity criteria applying under existing legislation. The automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension on the death of a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner is continued by the VEB. Disability pensions are payable on three scales-the general rate, the intermediate rate and the special TPI rate. This pension structure is maintained by the VEB. The extent of incapacity and the rate of pension payable are to be determined in accordance with a `Guide to Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions'. The guide is to apply to assessment of rates of pension after 1 July 1986, although it may be applied administratively before that date. The guide will be tabled in the Parliament. A draft of the guide has been prepared by the Repatriation Commission and copies are available from the office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to anyone interested. Part II of the VEB will also continue the effect of the recent legislative amendments to clarify eligiblity for payment of pension at the intermediate or special-TPI-rate. The 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 themselves 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 retired from work, possibly with whatever superannuation and other retirement benefits are available to the Australian work force. Under the TPI criteria in the VEB, a pension is not payable at that rate unless at the time of determination that veteran is receiving a 100 per cent general rate pension, is totally and permanently incapacitated, and would be continuing in remunerative work but for a war-caused disability and thereby suffers an economic loss. I would not expect many veterans over the normal retirement age to qualify for payment of pension at this rate as there would usually be reasons other than the effect of a war-caused incapacity which precluded continuing in employment. If a person has had the usual span of working life or has retired voluntarily or has left employment for reasons other than accepted disabilities, a TPI pension is not payable. Nonetheless, there is no strict age limit on entitlement to the special rate pension, although it must be clear that not many veterans over the age of 65 years will qualify. 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. The VEB will not reverse the Government's decision to abolish future grants of dependant's pension. Successive governments have refused to increase the small amount of this pension. There are greater priorities for expenditure in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio than on this anachronistic benefit. Provision for optional commutation of the existing dependant's pension is made in the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill a sum equivalent to three years pension will be payable if the dependant chooses this option. Service Pension Part III of the VEB makes provision for payment of service pension to eligible beneficiaries. Subject to the income and assets test, a veteran with qualifying war service would be eligible for payment of a service pension if permanently incapacitated for work, or at 55 years of age in the case of a female veteran or at 60 years of age in the case of a male veteran. Qualifying war service will involve service such as in a theatre of war. An extension of existing service pension eligibility is made by the VEB for those veterans involved in bomb or mine clearance work after World War II and for some veterans who served in Malaya after 1957. Part II also provides for the grant of rent assistance and remote area allowance to eligible beneficiaries. Defence Force or Peacekeeping Forces Part IV of the VEB continues repatriation coverage for existing members of the Defence Force and for members of peacekeeping forces. It had been the Government's intention that VEB coverage should not extend to future Defence Force enlistees. This would not have affected any other compensation entitlements that may be available such as under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government's Employees) Act. While it is considered that in general there is no basis for maintaining repatriation entitlements for peacetime service, the Government accepts that there is a case for continuing repatriation entitlements for new enlistees in respect of any hazardous defence service in which they have been engaged. The Government will also be considering further the development of a new Defence Force compensation package outside the repatriation system. Treatment Part V of the Bill enables the provision of medical and other treatment to entitled veterans and other beneficiaries. Part V in large part continues existing entitlements. However, one change that has been made is that all service pensioners with a 50 per cent disability pension-not just World War II veterans, as is the case under existing legislation-will now be entitled to full treatment. As I have already mentioned, the VEB will formalise the provision to eligible persons of social and domestic assistance in addition to medical treatment. Part V also provides for preparation by the Repatriation Commission of a guide to the provision of treatment and for it to be tabled in the Parliament. VEB Allowances Parts VI and VII of the VEB make provision in relation to allowances and other benefits and for a veterans' children's education scheme. Standard of Proof Part VIII of the VEB makes general provision for decision-making under repatriation legislation. As part of the consultative process of the VEB, the Government made a commitment to consult the veteran community on the future form the standard of proof should take after the expiration of the six-month sunset clause to which this aspect of the May 1985 amendments is subject. This has proved to be no easy task. Lengthy consultations have occurred on the standard of proof clause. I stress that the Government remains firm in its intention to overrule the O'Brien decision. I refer honourable members in that regard to the detailed reasons given in the second reading speech on the May 1985 legislation. The Government does not accept that a pension should be payable where there is no evidence to suggest a war service relationship to the claimed disability or death. While the ex-service community generally accepts that the O'Brien decision went too far, its view is that a provision should be developed that overturns the O'Brien decision while maintaining the effect of the earlier High Court decision in the Law case. It has been possible in preparing the revised draft of clause 119 of the VEB to reach a substantial measure of consensus. New sub-clause 119 (1) will now extend the generous criminal standard of proof to veterans in respect of any operational service they have had. This involves an extension on the June 1985 legislation as some veterans who served in the Northern Territory during World War II will now also receive the benefit of the criminal standard. Sub-clause 119(1) will require a favourable determination to be made in relation to a pension claim unless the Repatriation Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no sufficient ground for doing so. However, the Commission will be required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt where, after consideration of the whole of the material relevant to a pension claim, there is no reasonable hypothesis raised and, if raised, there does not remain a reasonable hypothesis of a service connection to a veteran's death or incapacity. Similar provision is made in clause 119 in respect of hazardous service of regular Defence Force personnel or peacekeeping service by members of a peacekeeping force. Clause 119 provides that all other decisions made under repatriation legislation are to be made on the civil standard of proof. To accommodate ex-service community concerns, the new clause 119 makes clear that there is no onus of proof on any person in relation to a claim or application. The process of determining disability and war widows' pension claims is intended to be inquisitorial. Clause 119 also overcomes any suggestion that there is a presumption of entitlement to a pension or other benefit. Having regard to the many strong representations about the alleged discrimination involved in maintaining a 40-year rule and applying the civil standard of proof to certain war widows' pension claims after that period, the Government has decided not to pursue this proposal. In the light of the flexible and responsible approach taken by the Government, I would expect there to be broad support in the ex-service community for clause 119. The intended effect of clause 119 is outlined in greater detail in the explanatory memorandum. Other Provisions Parts IX and X of the VEB relate to the administrative review machinery established by the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. No substantive change is made in these provisions. Part XI of the VEB continues the existence of the Repatriation Commission and sets out its membership, its powers and its functions. Part XII of the VEB makes provision for trusts, offences, overpayments, delegations and other machinery matters. Financial Impact The changes made by the Veterans' Entitlements Bill will cost $1.2m in 1985-86; $20.601m in 1986-87 and $4.389m in 1987-88. The increased cost in 1986-87 relates to the proposal for commutation of dependants' pensions which will provide for one-off lump sum payments from July 1986. These costs do not include those arising from the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985. The VEB is one aspect, though a critical aspect, of the Government's strategy to build a repatriation system that is geared to the challenge of providing optimum services to the veteran community as we approach the twenty-first century. Within the constraints in which any government must operate, I believe the VEB will make a substantial contribution to that task. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill sets out the transitional provisions consequent upon the repeal of existing repatriation legislation. It also deals with the consequential matters related to the enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Separate legislative provision has been made for these transitional matters so that the Veterans' Entitlements Act will be more straightforward and readable in respect of its future operations. The purpose of this Bill is to bring current repatriation administration and operations within VEB coverage. This includes pensions and other benefits in payment, claims not yet determined and other outstanding administrative action. The Bill will also bring all decision making in respect of repatriation entitlements immediately within the VEB. The only exception to this is the guide to assessment of rates of pension which is to apply from 1 July 1986, although it may be used administratively before that date. It is intended that under the transitional provisions there will be no loss or reduction in existing benefits except where there are changed circumstances or fraud. The Bill is also intended to ensure that no one is prejudiced because of procedural differences between the VEB and the repealed Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tim Fischer) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 States Grants (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill 1985 Grain Legumes Levy Bill 1985 Grain Legumes Levy Collection Bill 1985 Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1985 Petermann Aboriginal Land Trust (Boundaries) Bill 1985 Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1985 Consideration resumed from 14 October. Schedule 2. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $6,212,321,000. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $1,129,023,000. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(4.52) —In the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defence, I wish to look at what is happening to the ANZUS Treaty with the United States of America and New Zealand under the Labor Administration in Australia. As the Committee knows, the ANZUS Treaty is the keystone of Australia's defence relationships. Australia is part of the Western alliance. By `Western alliance' I mean those countries that share the values of freedom, democracy, institutions such as parliaments, free elections and, in fact, liberty itself. We join other countries in the Western alliance, such as Britain, the Western European countries, our Pacific neighbours and others in Asia and South East Asia, in sharing those values. As the keystone under the umbrella of the Western alliance we have the ANZUS Treaty and arrangements with the United States and New Zealand. There is the Treaty document itself, which is well known. Tied in with the ANZUS Treaty are a number of other agreements, understandings, interpretations and statements by Ministers and Secretaries of State on all sides that help understanding and extend the operation of the Treaty. Those arrangements, understandings and protocols, if you like, are also fundamental to an understanding and are part of the ANZUS alliance itself. I wish to look at the Government's position under ANZUS. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has described ANZUS as inoperative. I believe that ANZUS is in a state of crisis and is in fact in a vacuum. The policy of the Government of New Zealand and its proposed legislation on banning United States ship visits are a sell-out by New Zealand of its old Anzac partner, Australia. At the end of the debate on these estimates I want a clear statement from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) as to what exactly is the Government's position with regard to a review of the ANZUS Treaty. Why does this Government fail to tell the New Zealand Government where Australia stands and what is Australia's position? I believe that this Government has failed to grasp the fundamental issues and it needs to send a clear message and a clear signal to the New Zealand Government on what Australia believes and what it wants. Why is this Government not trying to dissuade New Zealand from its current actions, actions that are not in the best interests of Australia nor, I believe, in the best interests of New Zealand but that is a matter for New Zealanders. This is a matter of fundamental importance. New Zealanders clearly need to know that the present New Zealand Government has put at risk not only just its whole defence relationship with Australia but its whole series of relationships with Australia. It needs to be made clear to the New Zealand Government that its ban on the United States naval ships is a sell-out of its old friend and ally, Australia, going back to the days at Gallipoli. It ought to be made clear to the New Zealand Government that if it continues with its current policy the defence relationships and understandings not only are at risk but also need to be totally re-examined and, if need be, abandoned. The New Zealand Government's policy means that the traditional goodwill embodied in the history of co-operation-I have mentioned Gallipoli-in our defence relationships over a long time in two world wars and other wars since then is at risk. Either the New Zealand Government does not care about Australia or believes that in the long run the Australian Labor Party will adopt similar policies to those of New Zealand. All relationships with New Zealand need to be reviewed. One especially comes to mind. I refer to the $64m that is being paid by the Australian Government by way of unemployment benefits to some 11,000 jobless New Zealanders in Australia. Why should we in Australia have to bear that financial burden? I come to the influence on the Australian Government of the Socialist Left and the Left in the Government's determination of foreign policy. The Committee might remember, Mr Deputy Chairman, that some 27 Federal ALP members sent a telegram to Mr Lange prior to this Government's backdown on the MX missile issue. You would also know, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the Australian Government will not participate in strategic defence initiative research. There will be no electronic rail gun research to help the United States in its development of the strategic defence initiative. This Government proposes to enter into a treaty for a nuclear-free Pacific. This is part of the totality of measures influenced by the Left and the Socialist Left. Only in the last two days we have had a backdown by this Government on support for United States action in apprehending the Achille Lauro hijackers. That is the scene and it shows the influence the Socialist Left and the Left have on ALP foreign policy. There has been a new and, I think, more dangerous development in the Government's ranks. A new body has been formed with, I understand, some 41 members. So that is some considerable addition to those 27 members who sent the telegram to Mr Lange earlier this year. Some 41 parliamentarians, including four Federal Ministers of this Labor Government, are part of a group called Labor Parliamentarians for a Nuclear-Free Australia. This is an extension, creeping across factional lines, from the Socialist Left into the Left and maybe the Right. Perhaps the Minister for Defence can tell us more about this group. I understand that a blue book published by that group is being circulated today to members of the Labor Party. I would very much like to see a copy of it. The formation of this group provides a new dimension to ALP politics. It is a very significant move. It closes the noose on the Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister. The Minister for Defence is becoming more and more isolated. He has already had to admit, with his tongue in his cheek, that there would be fewer United States naval ship visits to his State. That is evidence of the influence that the Left has on him and his Party. I believe that this Government will be forced to back away more and more from our traditional relations with the United States. Obviously, the points that I have just enunciated to the Committee on the power of the Left and the new and growing power of Labor Parliamentarians for a Nuclear-Free Australia are a clear reason for the lack of action by this Government in sending clear signals to New Zealand of the dangers to ANZUS and the foolishness of that country's actions. The Hawke Government's actions in not pressing New Zealand and in allowing ANZUS to be inoperative can only encourage the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics into the region. Already, a fishing agreement has been reached with Kiribati in the aftermath of New Zealand's actions. A vacuum exists in relation not only to ANZUS but also the whole of the Oceania-Pacific area. Obviously, the Soviets are rubbing their hands together with glee. They want to see ANZUS abandoned. The New Zealand Government's actions and the failure of the Australian Government to send clear signals and messages to the New Zealand Government are undermining the stability of the whole Pacific region, and are weakening the ability of the United States to defend Australia and the region. Regrettably but understandably, the United States has proposed a review of ANZUS. With regard to that review, I ask the United States to remember the position of Australia, its traditional friend and ally. It is not in Australia's interests to have a new treaty negotiated. I believe that the new treaty, with the protocols, the understandings and the statements that are used in its interpretation, should be left intact as far as Australian-United States relations are concerned. In a review of the treaty before the United States Congress, Australia could lose the benefits of some of those broader understandings. I believe that the ANZUS Treaty, as interpreted with those agreements, arrangements, what I have called protocols and understandings, as operate between Australia and the United States, should be the arrangements that exist between Australia and the United States if New Zealand does not come to its senses, which regrettably it does not appear to be doing. We can hope only for the return ultimately of a sensible government in New Zealand so that ANZUS can again become the cornerstone of the defence relationships between the three countries. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(5.02) —As the Committee is considering the 1985-86 estimates for the Department of Defence, I wish to take the opportunity this afternoon to correct the misconception which the Opposition attempts to create in the minds of people that this Government does not take a serious and genuine interest in the needs of our armed services. In a variety of ways, Opposition spokesmen continually strive to create the impression that their parties have an exclusive interest in caring for the needs of those Australian people who are engaged in one of the three arms of our defence forces. The fact is that it is this Labor Government that has shown a genuine concern for the needs of our service personnel. That concern is in stark contrast with the record of the former Government parties during their most recent seven years in office. I have no reason to believe that their attitude during that period was any different from what it was during their earlier years in government. Their main aim in providing Budget funds for defence was always to direct spending towards those areas which were most obvious and visible to the general public, while consistently neglecting to provide in any real way for all of the needs of the defence forces in the very necessary but often unseen facilities at defence force establishments or the housing needs of defence personnel and their families either on defence establishments or in any of the numerous areas of private housing provided in the general communities adjacent to those defence establishments. My impressions as a member of the Joint Committee on Public Works since the Hawke Government was elected in March 1983 are that the history of the former Government in the provision of facilities for serving personnel in the categories I have mentioned has been absolutely appalling. The litany of neglect which can be directly related to the previous Government's failure to provide funding for living and working facilities has been corrected only by the concerted efforts of the Labor Government in our first two Budgets and again in this 1985-86 Budget. Time and again the Public Works Committee visited defence establishments and inspected existing facilities which were the subject of specific references it was considering. We found repeatedly antiquated buildings badly in need of maintenance and repair, inadequate areas of work space, obsolete equipment, dilapidated, white ant and borer infested houses and general working conditions which constituted a serious threat to occupational health and safety standards. Those former Government Ministers responsible for such a situation have absolutely no conscience when they have the colossal hide to come into this House and level criticism at the present Government on matters associated with the de- fence of this country. The story of defence housing is starkly told in the forty-eighth general report of the Public Works Committee. Page 5 of that report states: In February the Committee inspected on-base housing at RAAF Base Darwin as part of its inquiry into a proposal for refurbishment of the houses. The Committee was unimpressed by the standard of the houses and the level of maintenance. On a number of occasions in 1983 and 1984 the Committee observed similar deficiencies in housing at Defence establishments, but certainly not on the scale of RAAF Base Darwin. As a consequence of the Darwin inspection the Committee took the unusual step of requesting the Department of Defence, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Construction to present a briefing on Defence Housing. . . . At the briefing the Committee was told that the current Defence housing situation is as follows: (a) 14,300 (63%) of the total Defence stock of nearly 23,000 dwellings are below 1972 scales and standards of accommodation; (b) about 12,000 of these below standard dwellings cannot be economically upgraded and should be replaced; While time will not permit me to elaborate in any detail, a few examples of the many problems encountered by the Public Works Committee during the last two and a half years will starkly illustrate the truth in the claims I have made. In some 14 references that the Committee considered in relation to projects on defence establishments, it is difficult to single out just one or two which might be termed the worst examples of neglect by the former Government. However, I will mention a few of these examples. The first is the redevelopment of the seventh camp hospital at Kapooka, New South Wales, where a new building was proposed to serve the medical needs of the Kapooka army camp. The Committee found the hospital housed in a Second World War building, the condition of which was utterly deplorable with white ant infestation, leaking roofs, bad ventilation and most unhygienic facilities. The waiting area for recruits required to undergo tests on entering the camp comprised an old army tent with plastic sheeting on the otherwise bare ground of the floor. Similarly, when the Committee inspected the munitons factory at St Marys, New South Wales, where reconstruction of sections of the factory was being considered, we found Second World War buildings refurbished in the 1955-57 era wherein factory workers laboured in absolutely intolerable conditions which were obviously a serious health and occupational safety hazard. In early 1983 the Committee considered the need to air condition the main inspection building at the School of Transport and Catering at Puckapunyal where the original building had been constructed in about 1976 without adequate light or ventilation. Air conditioning was proposed at the time the building was constructed but was deleted to save money. This has been referred to in some detail by my colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) earlier in this debate. The area is in his electorate and naturally he showed his grave concern for that situation, which has been corrected by a decision of this Government. Probably the worst example of neglect that the Committee encountered was at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, where in 1984 the Committee considered the need for a new 36-bed hospital, extension and renovation of the existing cadet mess, refurbishing of instruction blocks and construction of buildings for cadet accommodation and a new physical fitness facility. Once again, I must point out that in general most of the facilities the Committee considered for replacement at Duntroon were antiquated and generally in appalling condition. Once again, this was due to the irresponsible neglect of the former Government. In fact, on each occasion when the Public Works Committee has considered the need for new facilities, the evidence available on inspection has meant that there could be absolutely no other decision but to recommend in favour of the proposals being proceeded with urgently. This particular 36-bed hospital at Duntroon has been the subject of recent criticism by the Liberal senator for Queensland, Senator MacGibbon, who saw fit to suggest that the $4.1m facility was unnecessary due to the already adequate provision of hospital facilities in the Canberra area. If the senator had shown only a small measure of responsibility before he launched into such unfounded criticism, he would have taken the opportunity to read the third report of 1984 of the Public Works Committee which addressed the consideration of that hospital in the light of the existing facilities in Canberra and agreed with the evidence given to the Committee by Major-Generals Gration and James, who more than adequately justified the need for that hospital. In explanation and justification of the Committee's decision that the hospital should be constructed, I submit to the House the following brief quote from that report: The Committee was concerned to ensure that the possibility of making increased use of ACT health care facilities had been given consideration by Defence in developing the 5th Camp Hospital proposal. The Committee therefore sought to establish the reasons why increased reliance on ACT health care facilities, and as a result the need for a 36-bed Camp Hospital, was considered to be inappropriate. 77. The Capital Territory Health Commission advised the Committee that in its view the present RMC hospital is a sick bay, post operative care and outpatients facility and that most patients requiring surgery are referred to another hospital in the ACT for treatment. The Commission stated that from 1 February 1984 Service personnel would be admitted to its recognised hospitals as private patients. The Commission would also provide pathology services without charge to Defence. The Commission indicated that unless the present RMC hospital facilities were augmented the increase in personnel when ADFA is established would bring about an increased demand on ACT hospitals. This could not be handled by existing hospital facilities in Canberra. The report continues: 78. The Committee sought the views of Defence of the practicalities of leasing an appropriate sized wing of an existing hospital. This was ruled out by evidence that was given to the Committee. Based on the information and assessment-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(5.12) —I wish to say a few words about the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1985-86. One of the predominant features of those estimates is that there is expected to be an overall increase in expenditure in that Department of 4.1 per cent which, in real terms, is a decline of about 4 per cent. I will come back to those figures a little later. But I note for the record that there is to be an 18.9 per cent increase in general administration, a 32.9 per cent increase in expenditure on the Overseas Property Office, a 29.9 per cent increase in expenditure on postage and telephones and a 22.3 per cent increase in expenditure on aid administration. Honourable members could well ask: Why are administrative costs in that Department rising so rapidly? The Budget Papers give some indication as to why they are. It is argued in the first place that the depreciation of the Australian dollar led to increased expenditure in that Department. I understand that that would most certainly be the case. But as far as the increase in expenditure on aid administration is concerned, the Budget Papers state that this is due largely to `management upgrading' and `an increase in staff numbers'-an increase of around 68. I fail to understand why the Department of Foreign Affairs Aid Bureau should need an increase in staff numbers of 68 for aid administration when real spending on aid has declined so savagely. I think a more fundamental question needs to be asked. Why is so much money being pumped into administration in the Department of Foreign Affairs when so little attention appears to have been given to the general direction of Australia's foreign policy? Obviously, all Australians want a foreign policy which has a clear sense of direction, which is balanced in terms of our naional interest and which identifies very clearly our priorities. I think members of the general public could be excused for being somewhat confused about the general direction of Australian foreign policy. Our foreign policy has all the coherence of a Nunawading how-to-vote card. Certainly it is a foreign policy which is a little hard to identify. The priorities of our foreign policy should be fairly clear. We should be looking towards building and retaining our close alliances, particularly with the United States of America and other nations of the Western alliance. We should be building bridges with nations in our own region. We should be making a constructive contribution to improved international economic relations and we should, of course, be playing a constructive role in the search for global peace. When we look at the breakdown of the way those various policy areas are being handled by the Government, we see that they are really being handled with nothing more than confusion. I want to give just a couple of examples to demonstrate that point. I do not wish to reiterate the points made by others in relation to ANZUS, although I certainly associate myself with the remarks made by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). A very good example of the way Australia treats its allies was given on 25 September when the Australian Ambassador to the United States, Mr Rawdon Dalrymple, made a speech, on the instructions of the Government, of really quite staggering proportions. It was a most extraordinary speech and, in saying that, I am not criticising Mr Dalrymple-I know the gentleman quite well-because I believe he is a very capable and excellent ambassador who will do very well in that post. But I criticise the Government for instructing him to make the speech. Honourable members will remember that the Australian Ambassador, in this speech, exhorted the United States of America to attack the French Government on French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Honourable members should not get me wrong. I am not, of course, supporting French nuclear testing in the Pacific; quite the contrary. It is most regrettable that those tests are continuing to take place. But why did the Australian Government choose the 25 September to call on the US to act against the French when it has had nearly three years since its election to do precisely that. The Government chose a particularly critical moment in a relationship between the United States and France-a moment when the United States was least likely to act on the advice of the Australian Government. Obviously, the relationship with France is vastly important to the United States. France plays a central role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation alliance-it is a member of NATO-and it plays a central role in the whole network of the Western alliance. That relationship has clearly been strained by the Rainbow Warrior affair. It has clearly been strained by trade relations between the European Economic Community and the United States of America. At that time it was also a somewhat sensitive relationship, given the imminent visit to France of Mr Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. One can only wonder why the Australian Government would have chosen a moment like that to make that sort of request. I assume that it was a rather thoughtless administrative mistake. One assumes that the Australian Government did not have any malintent in making that decision of timing. The Australian Government drove a wedge through the Western alliance-a wedge which, fortunately on this occasion, was somewhat ignored by both the French and the Americans. The Australian Government tried to drive a wedge between the Americans and the French-if you like, between the Americans and the Europeans-which is precisely the objective of Soviet policy and has been for many years. So what the Australian Government was doing was destabilising the Western alliance as a result of certain actions, in particular by the French Government, when that alliance was in a somewhat tentative position. There were further aspects of this ill-timed speech which added some strain in the relationship between the United States of America and the various Pacific nations. I cannot see that that is particularly to our advantage bearing in mind that, not only are those nations of the Pacific very important to Australia-the Government continually reminds us of that-but also we, as a nation, believe in an American presence in that part of the world. That did strike me as being a most extraordinary and quite appallingly timed speech. Fortunately for Australia, it is a speech which, on the other side of the Pacific, appears to have been ignored if not completely forgotten. The second aspect of the estimates that I would like to look at relates to Australia's aid budget and the way that has changed, particularly this year, but certainly during the period of the Hawke Administration. The Government's talk about the problem of developing countries and its professed concern for the economic plight of that part of the world seem to me to be slightly hollow when, in the first place, as part of its package it introduces a full foreign tax credits system which discourages Australian firms from investing and establishing themselves in developing countries, when the long term solution to the problems of developing countries will rest in the very strong private sector growth and investment. They cannot get the investment; that is one of their problems. The foreign tax credits system is only making that more cifficult. But let us look at the aid vote itself. Before 1983 the Australian Labor Party was promising with great passion that it would bring up Australia's aid vote as a proportion of gross domestic product to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. That particular target has been reiterated not only from time to time by the Opposition but also in the report of the Jackson Committee on Overseas Aid. It states: Australia should continue to aspire to the goal of providing 0.7 per cent of national income as aid and advance toward it as the economy grows-- The Government claims that the economy is growing. I cannot quite see why we are not advancing towards the target. When we look at the figures, the aid vote seems to be moving in the opposite direction. In 1984 it was 0.51 per cent of gross domestic product, in 1985 it was 0.5 per cent, and in 1986 it will be 0.45 per cent. Indeed, for the 1985-86 financial year there will be a 4.9 per cent decline in real terms in aid funds. There are those who argue that even the figure of 0.45 per cent of GDP for 1985-86 is a little phoney because in the aid budget the special subsidy for private overseas students was added, both this year and last year. If one were to take away that subsidy, since it did not exist in the aid vote before 1984, one would see that our aid as a proportion of GDP is 0.41 per cent, which is the lowest level of aid contribution for 20 years. I understand that the Government wants to reduce expenditure-nobody is a greater advocate of that policy than I am-but the Government has behaved both deceptively and hypocritically on this issue in raising false expectations about its commitment to developing countries and moving in precisely the reverse direction. The Government and many members of the Australian Labor Party are great critics of the United States of America, but I point out that in recent months the United States has announced a further additional contribution to aid finance of $29 billion. The Australian Government appears to be moving in the other direction, in spite of its rhetoric. It is clear that the Australian Government has given up on developing countries. It is clear that its rhetoric is empty and that it no longer has the sort of commitment the Fraser Government had to an improved international economic climate, particularly for those developing countries. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.22) —I should like to speak briefly to Australia's international aid program and particularly to that part of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs relating to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which appears under the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. The particular item I wish to mention is the estimate of $4,700,000 for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, an increase of over $600,000 this year. On reading that item, along with the general comment offered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in relation to the aid program, one would think that this was a particularly generous contribution in the light of Australia's acceptance over a long period of its international obligations, particularly in relation to refugees. The fact is that that is not the case. We have a situation where, over a period, the High Commissioner has received significantly less funds and this is the first occasion on which there has been a rather meagre effort to restore the program to the level of support that has previously been offered by Australia. I for one want it put on the public record that no matter how much emphasis I place from time to time on the cutting back of government expenditure I do recognise that these budgets and estimates are about priorities. If we have to establish any priorities at all, I believe it is in Australia's own interests that we continue to support the High Commissioner and that we accept the responsibilities for supporting refugees. I say that in the context that Australia at present is reducing its contribution to resettling refugees within Australia. That means that there is a continuing and increasing obligation to provide for the needs of refugees in our region, in countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, countries to which Indo-Chinese refugees in particular have fled and, at this stage, are fleeing in increasing numbers. We recently had the tenth anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the loss of Vietnam. Associated with that, significant additional numbers of people have been fleeing to refugee camps in that part of the world. I was recently in Malaysia and saw an Indo-Chinese refugee camp. One of the things that struck me as I moved around the camp was the number of people who had recently fled to Malaysia from Vietnam. One man in particular had been held in a re-education camp for some 10 years and had only just been released. He had previously been a military intelligence officer and had family in the United States of America, but he had been held in a re-education camp for all that time. Another case was that of a Roman Catholic priest who had left Vietnam because he was asked to spy on his clerical colleagues. He was not prepared to do that, so he was put into a re-education camp. Those are the sorts of people we find in these situations. We are not bringing them into Australia in increasing numbers; in fact we are reducing the numbers we are resettling, and at the same time we have significantly decreased Australia's support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I was alarmed when recently I was informed that the support given by Australia, according to the figures produced by the United Nations High Commissioner, as our contribution both to general programs and special programs for his 1984 year, was $9,154,621. Speaking of the 1985 contributions as at 9 August 1985-the amounts at that time were not complete, according to the Commissioner's figures but I am sure as against our appropriations they would have been complete-for both general and special programs Australia's contribution was $4,776,953. Studying earlier estimates, I realised that in 1983 we indicated that we were going to change the basis upon which the funding for the UNHCR occurred. During a hearing of the Senate Estimates Committee this year Senator Teague asked some questions about the funding of multilateral programs and the UNHCR in particular. In answer, Dr Manning stated: I could only say that there has been in fact, selectively, some increse this year in . . . those votes. The reduction that the senator refers to was regrettably beyond the resources of government in the two years under question. When we go back through the earlier years we see that the Government was changing the basis upon which funding was to be given to the UNHCR. It was to be funded for one half of the year in 1983-84 and to be made up in the following year 1984-85. When we came to 1984-85 that increase did not occur. It was still funded on the half-year funding of the previous year. I think the changes that have occurred need to be measured against the Government's rhetoric in this area. The Minister for Foreign Affairs recently issued statements in his own name speaking glowingly about Australia's increased humanitarian assistance-in this case it was about $1m to the UNHCR. He recorded in that case that there were contributions to assist a Cambodian returnee project, amongst other matters. It also involved the allocation of 100 tonnes of rice for feeding programs for Kampuchean refugees. I am not saying that they are not important-they are-but I think the amounts of money we are making available, in comparison to the support we have given previously, are severely wanting. I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in an advertisement for Austcare, asking the Australian public further to support that organisation and the refugees throughout the world. The advertisement is appearing regularly on television in Sydney. When I listen to it I feel quite remorseful to hear the Prime Minister asking the public to offer its support when I know that government support has been reduced as significantly as it has over recent years. The UNHCR cannot go pleading on its own behalf, but in its journal Refugees, which it circulates, the Commissioner makes this plea about the organisation's funding: In 1985, UNHCR requires some US$500m to meet the needs both of regular refugee programmes throughout the world, and of the critical emergency programmes in Africa. UNHCR's programmes are not luxurious-if the necessary funds are not found, refugees will suffer. The situation for 1986 looks just as serious. While it is part of UNHCR's duty and practice to be as economical as possible while giving refugees adequate assistance, only a renewed effort of support from the international community can provide the resources UNHCR needs to carry out its task. I note that in an article appearing in the Far East Economic Review published most recently, the section on foreign relations refers to those refugees. It refers to compassion fatigue, which Asia suggests Australia is suffering from because of its unwillingness to take refugees. The consequence of the reduction overall in the UNHCR budget has been that programs, particularly in Indonesia, but I gather equally elsewhere throughout Asia, including Thailand and Malaysia, have been cut back. The Far East Economic Review refers to the successive UNHCR directors in Jakarta who have been paring back expenses. It refers to running costs for the Indonesian operations having been cut to less than $US1 per refugee per day for food and medicine. That is put in the context of a comparison with Australia's performance. I ask this simple question: Why is it that we have made these significant reductions in the UNHCR budget over time? Is it a reflection on the confidence that Australia has in the UNHCR as a world agency or is it because we really lack some commitment to assist refugees throughout the world? Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for De- fence)(5.32) —I begin by thanking the honourable members for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), Isaacs (Mr Charles), Bowman (Mr Keogh), Mayo (Mr Downer), Higgins (Mr Shipton) and Dundas (Mr Ruddock), the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) for participating in the debate. I think that they all, except perhaps the honourable member for Dundas, at some point of time touched on matters relating to my portfolio, and I will attempt to answer the points made. I thank particularly the honourable members for McEwen, Isaacs and Bowman, who put very well the perspective of this Government on the requirements for upgrading the living conditions and facilities available to service personnel in this country. That is an enormously important aspect of their morale and an enormously important sign of the regard in which the community holds the people who have decided that they wish to devote a considerable portion of their lives to the service of this country. Their remarks were appreciated in that regard. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to thank the Leader of the National Party on the previous night the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) was debated, but the debate ended early and before I had a chance to reply. I thank him for the very kind and appropriate remarks he made about the seamen aboard HMAS Perth and HMAS Adelaide in regard to the efforts they undertook to rescue the crew of the ship Hoelien and also to ensure a successful salvage of the ship. Unfortunately, ultimately, that attempt was unsuccessful. Over the past week or so the community has had an opportunity to see at first hand one of the aspects of the real value of the Royal Australian Navy in the activities of the crew of those two ships and the activities of those aboard the ship Curlewe and associated Fleet Air Arm activities, with the efforts for the search for the Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd aircraft that went into the sea off Botany Bay. Many of the remarks made by honourable gentlemen went to aspects of our strategic situation. I am fortunate to have here the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who came back from overseas especially for this debate. He is well primed and will make all things absolutely clear in this area when he speaks following my contribution. I will not canvass at great length the matters that were put forward generally in relation to our principal alliance commitments and a number of other related foreign policy areas, although I will deal with certain defence aspects of that. I will try to deal in a little detail with some of the points that were raised about various aspects of the defence appropriation and attempt to answer the questions that were raised. The Leader of the National Party asked about the rate of progress on Paul Dibb's review and when we can expect a response to it. From my conversations with Mr Dibb and what he has shown me so far, the review is progressing very well. I anticipate that he will meet his timetable of next March and I would anticipate a public release of what it is possible to release publicly in that report fairly shortly thereafter, with the initial Government response and a more substantial Government response probably five or six months after that. Naturally, decisions taken in this interim period in relation to equipment will have very much in mind the sorts of points that Mr Dibb will make to us. The Leader of the National Party also made a point about the Pacific patrol boat. He went quickly across that point and indicated that he wanted me to say something about it, without fully expressing reservations that he felt ought to be expressed about it. The Pacific patrol boat program has been something of an education for my Department. It has gone through the process of sitting down with a large number of Pacific countries and negotiating with them what they felt to be an appropriate design for a boat for maritime surveillance in their region; a design which they could readily maintain and live with and which would be genuinely useful to them. It has not been a program which we have pursued with any form of arrogant intent and I do not think that we have displayed arrogance in relation to it. Naturally, we have come across problems, when talking with so many nations, about meeting all the points raised by them. After a very lengthy consultative process, in which the design was approved in writing by Papua New Guinea and several of the other partners, we sent a design for tender. It is in the nature of these negotiations, when dealing with such a large number of countries with different priorities, that the views of governments change from time to time. Some views will gladden our hearts; others will cause us pain at different times. Nevertheless, it is an activity that has to be pursued because we are very mindful of the requirement on us to take a greater level of responsibility in the south Pacific area than we have been willing to do hitherto. I note from comments made from both sides of the House that evidently such an intention has bipartisan support. As we do that we will find ourselves in a situation where we will have to be diplomatically sensitive. Those who may find themselves in opposition at times and those in government will have to take a little on trust that we are pursuing an appropriate diplomatic strategy in that regard and that we will in our defence co-operation programs and all its aspects, both in this and other areas, pursue that sensitively. On occasions we will need a bit of diplomatic backing because we will not always be in agreement with those with whom we are dealing. Nevertheless, there needs to be bipartisan support for a sustained Australian effort in that area. The Leader of the National Party also dealt with the question of the perception of a threat in this region and related it to defence expenditures. I must say that I agree largely with his assessment of the strategic environment in which Australia finds itself from that point of view. He conceded that he did not see any immediate threats to our national integrity, which is unquestionably the case, and he pointed out areas of instability in the region, which he identified correctly. The Government is alert to that. The fact that we believe that we ought to be able to confront those problems, largely without our own resources, as the most appropriate addition or contribution we could make to the general position in the Western alliance motivates a substantial proportion of our defence policy. Our strategy of defence self-reliance is not a strategy of continental defence in terms of either doctrines to be espoused by the military or ultimately its effect on the relationship with the region. It is a strategy which at least has in part as its motivation the recognition that Australia has to move out of an essential immaturity which I think has afflicted its foreign and defence policies in the past, whereby we anticipate that outside our immediate confines we expect an ally to perform those functions, with occasional supporting noises from us. Our allies, over a period now, have made quite clear to us that they expect us to perform those functions, and whether or not they will come alongside will be dependent upon the extent to which they judge this area to be of strategic significance to them at that point of time. I think that that is a very reasonable position for our alliance partners to adopt. I can only say that as far as we are concerned we are prepared in the Defence portfolio to take on the obligations that that entails. Comment was made on the size of the defence forces and Defence Force strength, and particularly on a reduction in numbers in regard to the Navy and the Army. As far as I am concerned, there is no question but that in this environment, which is relatively benign at present, the expenditure priorities of this Government go to capital equipment and to facilities. We believe that this is an area which must be addressed systematically for some considerable period if we are to have appropriately modernised defence forces at a period in which we may confront a somewhat less benign environment than we do at present. We are also required to maintain within our defence forces personnel of adequate skills, and that means that they will need to be properly remunerated. So it is to those two areas, the conditions of service personel and capital equipment, that our priorities go. To a certain extent, therefore, priorities elsewhere will not be as heavily emphasised. One of those areas-I think appropriately so-is manpower levels. As was pointed out, it is true that over this Budget and the two previous Budgets we shall reduce the Navy by some 1,600 personnel. This is simply a realisation of the savings flowing from the decision not to purchase a carrier. This reduction has been phased over five years to permit achievement through normal wastage. On the question of civilians in the Department, putting aside the complications of functional changes over recent years, the number of civilians in what was Defence until December 1984 fell by some 1,500 over the 10 years to June 1985. This year there will be a reduction of 419 from what was in last year's Budget. So it is not just in the area of service personnel that there are reductions; they are also taking place on the civilian side. On the question of reductions in the Army, the Chief of the General Staff recently announced where those reductions lay. I must congratulate him on keeping firmly in place what might be called the sharp end of the Army, and on taking the reductions in the logistics area and in areas which could be fulfilled either by contract or by civilian personnel at a cheaper rate and keeping an emphasis in the armed forces, at least at the level of their personnel, on the business end of their activities. That displays an appropriate priority from him. Contrary to that, in moving towards targets and not reducing targets, we are increasing the number of reserves. I think that over time some of our general intention in this regard was evident in that announcement by the Chief of the General Staff. We want to see the reserves play a more significant role by being integrated into the activities of the regulars and, in particular, into the business end about which I was talking earlier. As a result of that, I think that there will be two developments, one of which we would welcome, I think, and another of which, as Defence Minister, I shall have to watch. One of those developments is that I think that the members of the reserves can be confident that they will be highly valued as part of the defence forces, and that is a useful consequence. The second development or element that I shall have to watch very carefully is the legislative position of the reserves to ensure that they are able to do that. I am not fully convinced that the appropriate legislative position is in place. That is something that we shall be reviewing. The Leader of the National Party also wanted advice from me on the F18 program and what was happening with that. I put out a very lengthy Press release. I know that the right honourable gentleman does not like me putting out such announcements in Press releases, but I think that he would have found this one comprehensive in answering most of the questions that I could conceive he would have in this regard. As I have just received a note from the Leader of the House (Mr Young) saying that I have spoken for too long and have been extremely boring, I shall not go into the Press release in any detail, except to draw honourable members' attention to it. The right honourable gentleman also asked for our views on Project Waler. I make just two quick comments on that. Project Waler will not proceed at this time because reviews have concluded that there is insufficient justification for costly unique to Australia developments. Instead, like other nations-for example, the United States of America-Australia will seek to modify its current fleet of M113s. I think that a point of importance in regard to that, at least to me as Minister, is that I have also initiated a study of light armoured fighting vehicles, to consider the relative priority to be given to armoured fighting vehicles like the M113 and to vehicles which are considerably lighter and cheaper than the M113 which might provide the necessary mobility and fire-power but not quite the level of armour, which has very considerable constraints on it if we are looking at the air mobility of our ground forces. The question whether we were providing adequately for housing was raised. All that I can say on that matter is that in the three years under this Government we have provided 25 per cent more housing commencements than were provided during the last three years of the coalition-1,416 versus 1,127. Some assurances were sought about the basic trainer. I take on board the points made about that. We expect to reach a decision over the next three to four weeks or so-perhaps a little longer on that program. The comments made about it were very pertinent. The process through which we have gone-I cannot go into detail about what is essentially a tender process-has across the board dramatically reduced the likely cost to the Australian Government from what it would have been had we not proceeded down that course. I want to cover one or two points on more general aspects of our defence policy in relation to our alliance. The point was made by the honourable member for Higgins that under left wing pressure I was reducing port visits to Western Australia. That is a total misreading of the motives of that particular proposal. As I indicated in the House the other day, but it does not seem to have sunk into the head of the honourable member for Higgins, that proposal is based on an assumption that, particularly in the current environment, we cannot have it regarded or believed by either nations in our region or a substantial proportion of the Australian population that we have a two-coast policy on port visits-port visits to one side of Australia, but not port visits to the other side because we have run away from the political consequences of that. As far as I am concerned, that is not an acceptable position, particularly in the current environment. For that reason, I took up what has been a standing interest of the United States in additional port visits to the eastern States. Whether or not that produces a reduction in visits to Western Australia will depend very much on the extent to which the United States increases or reduces its deployment in the Indian Ocean. That has fluctuated quite substantially over the last three to four years and is largely responsible for fluctuations in the number of ships that visit here. If the United States increases its presence and its activity in the Indian Ocean next year as it did this year, I think, over the figures for last year, from memory it probably will not result in any reduction of visits to Western Australia. If, however, the United States goes back to lower levels of participation, it might do so. The point is that it will be decisions that are taken on deployment patterns in that area that will have the dominant influence on what subsequently emerges. Finally, on the question of ANZUS, as far as the defence relationship is concerned, I make just two points. First, we have a different approach to ANZUS from that of our predecessors. We have an approach which I think is appropriate to the developments in United States foreign policy in particular since the early 1970s and which has been substantially maintained. We believe that we are not an adequate participant in that unless we can at least move towards a substantial position of defence self-reliance if we are to play any substantial role in this region and not be constantly placing the United States in a position in which, if some problem occurs here, the Americans automatically have to regard what they are going to do for Australia, or whatever, as the only factor that will play in their foreign policy position or attitude that they develop towards that. That is likely, over time, to be of some embarrassment to them. Secondly, an alliance relationship reflects shared values and also involves exchange. It is a relationship in which it is expected that both sides will gain benefits. In the process of working that out, there is likely to be disagreement between partners. Thirdly, like any proper alliance between partners that ought to at least regard themselves as equal, and approach the relationship as equals, even if that manifestly is not the case when one looks at the military realities, there is, as a minimum position consonant with our national dignity, the fact that we should at least address every foreign policy and defence concern that we have, firstly, from the point of view of the Australian interest and, subsequently, in an attempt to get our allies to address our interest. That is the only approach that, I believe, will produce a satisfactory result in the ANZUS relationship in the long term. It is also the only approach that will keep a reasonably bipartisan level of support in the community for the maintenance of the ANZUS alliance. We are jealous of our relationship with the United States as far as this Government is concerned. We are aware of the massive contribution Australia makes, particularly to the global central balance through the joint facilities. We are aware that, in that regard, we can approach the American alliance from the point of being a country with something useful to say to the United States and we will not shrink from opportunities to do so when the occasion arises. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(5.52) —Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to reply to some of the comments which have been made in the course of these estimates debates which affect my Department as much as the Department of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). In passing, I also thank the Minister very much for his acknowledgement, when he rose earlier, that my opportunity to speak would be an opportunity for me to go into considerable detail on complex issues related to some of the matters which have been raised. I thank him for persuading me to believe that there was a clear advantage for me in speaking after him. It is a favour I look forward to reciprocating on some occasion. Madam Chair, if you contemplate the matters which were raised in the course of this debate on the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, it seems to me that they fall clearly into two areas. One area substantially concerns the ANZUS relationship and some of the problems which quite evidently have arisen in that area. The other area is fairly limited-our aid budget. This encourages me to arrive at a conclusion, which is simply this: The silence on so many other areas where we are active in foreign affairs is an eloquent testimony of their approval by honourable members. Given that silence, there seems to be an extraordinarily bipartisan level of support for the things we are doing. For instance, one would have thought that if there were any contention in regard to our initiatives in arms control and disarmament, it would have been brought well to the fore and a very sharp edge developed. There has been no comment-ergo, approval. We have been active in developing a central American policy, although, I freely acknowledge, not without some contention. But we have done it honestly and according to principles. I believe that we have reflected the great values that go to make up Australian society: A fair go, fair dealing, respecting people and respecting countries' rights. Again, there has been no dispute. We have been notable for our initiatives in our immediate region. In regard to Indo-China, for instance, I am heartened to see some evidence of an easing of the conflicting expressions which have, from time to time, been characteristic of presentation from some quarters. However, I hasten to add that one should not draw too much of an optimistic conclusion about that. There is still a long way to go. What has happened could easily fall into reverse, as happens in so many of these areas of grave dispute. The most notable such area, of course, is the Middle East. There again, as is the case with our own region, we have expressed views even-handedly and have been persistent with our concerns. As was the case with Indo-China, there has been no opposition to our initiatives. In regard to our relationships throughout East Asia and South East Asia, some initiatives were taken in South Asia. Again, looking to the South Pacific or the Indian Ocean, there was no evidence of a debate or of difference. There is no matter of substance so serious as to cause concern between respective parts of the House on any of these great issues. I can say only how much I appreciate the silent but nonetheless eloquent and persuasive bipartisan support for what we have been doing. I come to the areas where some critical observation has been made by some honourable members who have spoken in this debate. I will put to one side the ANZUS issue as a particular issue and deal with it last. I start with some of the comments made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). I compliment him on his tight, well thought out, cogent presentation. I disagree with the conclusions he has made, but some of the facts he has presented are indisputable. It gives me no comfort to have to confess that it is true that there has been a notable reduction in real terms in the aid budget for this year. However, it must be seen in the context not only of how generous we feel as a result of humanitarian inspirations, which we all share in this House, but also of how these things fit together in terms of our budgetary obligations and, in turn, our responsibilities in economic management. The Government has been phenomenally successful in economic management in the last three years, including the current year. Our real growth has been the envy of the developed world. We are bringing down unemployment. Retail sales, car sales and activity generally in the economy are increasing. We have been very successful in getting down inflation. Of course, there are pressures in that area as a result of the pressure on the Australian exchange rate. Nonetheless, if one takes it on balance, ours is overwhelmingly a sustained record of success. In that respect, it is dramatically different from what occurred in the seven years of the preceding conservative government administration of this country. We have to be careful to try to keep the economy on track. That is no easy task in a world which is fraught with all sorts of economic difficulties. A country with an economy such as ours, as exposed as it is, and as involved as it quite evidently is in international trade, cannot immunise itself from international pressures. One of these areas is the external account. We inherited an Australian dollar that was artificially valued for reasons which were quite spurious and damaging to the economy of this country in the medium to longer haul. Nonetheless, that is a fact of life. To artificially contrive it, certain pressures were put on the domestic economy. We have a floating exchange rate. Accordingly, domestic management, where it affects the external account, can affect the value of the dollar one way or the other. Things we do which flow through the external account will affect the value of the dollar one way or the other. Our aid bill is paid for on our external account. If we are writing money on our external account for our aid bill, indifferent to the state of our trade account, our current account, in certain circumstances we could run into problems. Therefore, we have to be prudent. Some of those circumstances apply at present. I repeat: Our position gave me no satisfaction or comfort at all, as one who freely acknowledges his deep commitment to the principles of democratic socialism. Democratic socialists have a very strong feeling about their obligations to developing countries. I am not saying that we have a monopoly on it. It is to the credit of this country and the Parliament that very largely there has been a high level of bipartisanship about the commitment to aid. However, the point I make is that I received no joy in being in the position I was in. I was not one who fought my presentation at the altar on this issue. I recognised, as a matter of economic responsibility, that I had to take my medicine with everyone else. There were cuts. That is the simple fact. It would have been irresponsible to this community if we had not faced up to that decision, if I had not faced up to that decision, if I had merely pursued my own conceited ambitions and aspirations to get the best I could in every nook and cranny out of the Budget, because that would not serve the best interests of this country. More than that, if it became evident that what we were doing in particular areas affecting the external accounts, like our aid budget, was detrimental to the domestic interests of this country, two things follow: First, the longer term resilience of our economy to sustain genuine and growing commitments in aid would be seriously undermined; and secondly, community consensus would be eroded badly. All these are things which I just have to face. If members of the Opposition wish to make points of that, I understand why they do it. Political point-scoring is part and parcel of the processes here. I will be unapologetic in explaining why we had to do it. If one addresses oneself to the economic forecasts which hop up in Statement No. 2 of the Budget, one sees that there are reasonable prospects for the future. Part of the benefit of those reasonable prospects I see is a progressive restoration of our aid commitment. That is the long and the short of the situation. I move away from that general set of propositions to more particular ones and respond to the views which were put quite forcefully and quite thoughtfully by the honourable member for Mayo. He referred to increasing staffing numbers and costs in the Foreign Affairs area. I have to say as a matter of melancholy admission that it occurs within one section of my ministerial responsibility, that is, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. It has not occurred within the Department of Foreign Affairs itself. There is a clear and overwhelming justification for those increases. We are spending something like $1,000m a year on aid. By any measure, that is a lot of money and it has to be spent in an accountable way. We have to monitor it. First of all, we have to make sure that the programs are soundly based and that, according to criteria we set-economic, social and sometimes political-the results we have been setting ourselves in these programs are going to be met. Having decided that, we monitor to make sure that they will be met. If we do not have adequate staff we will not have good quality preparation and operation in these programs. I have never sought to embarrass previous conservative governments for some serious shortcomings in the area of aid, of which there are quite a number and which would fill up a very interesting matter of public importance debate in this House on some occasion. I have not done it because the Australian Development Assistance Bureau has done its best. It has very fine officers. I am sure that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) will agree with me that they are very competent people. But the facts are that there have been some rather large duds in development programs during the period in which the conservative government was in office, and I guess that there are going to be some more. The thing is to try to make sure that the duds are minimised and that, as much as possible, it is not the fault of either ADAB or the government of the day. The reason this happened was that ADAB just has not had enough staff. That has been a fact declared by a succession of reports from the Senate, the Public Accounts Committee and, most recently, the Jackson Committee of Review of Australia's Overseas Aid Program. In 1985-86 aid administration costs will be 1.54 per cent of the aid program. That is the second lowest of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Only New Zealand has a lower proportion. It is expected to rise to 1.7 per cent of the program as management changes occur. It will still be one of the lowest proportions of all aid agencies. I make no apologies at all about this. It is my aim to try to increase the numbers of people we have working on staff in ADAB, particularly professional people, and in that regard people who will be out in the field supervising projects. Then we will not have some of the embarrassing duds which have shown up in the Auditor-General's reports over the past several years, nor will we go into a major program like northern Samar. When I looked at that project and called for the papers on it, I said: `Is this economic? Where is the justification for it?' I discovered not only that it was not economic but the Department of Finance had advised against undertaking it on economic grounds because the return was not there. We are talking not about peanuts but about a program on which tens of millions of dollars is going to be spent. That was approved by the honourable member for Kooyong when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs and was only one of several such programs. So I suggest to the honourable member for Mayo that we do not go too far down that track. I have not sought to embarrass the Opposition on these matters. I can recognise some of its difficulties, although they were self-inflicted. It should have responded to the reports from various parliamentary committees. It should have provided more staff. We are seeking to rectify its neglect. If the Opposition wants to make that an issue, let us make it an issue of contention during debate in this Parliament at some time in the future. Another matter the honourable member for Mayo raised was the speech by Ambassador Dalrymple less than a fortnight ago in Washington. The views Ambassador Dalrymple put forward, I think, are perfectly respectable and justifiable views. I endorse them. The points have been registered. There is no need for me to labour those points any further. The honourable member for Mayo then moved on to some concern about foreign tax credits. Reflecting I think more the self-interested concern of certain sections of the corporate sector than worries of developing countries, he argued that this was in its own way an undermining of aid support for developing countries. I am not too sure where the major benefits for developing countries go as a result of the tax credit arrangements. It is a purely subjective impression, but I have to say that I think the bulk of them go to Hong Kong and Singapore, which are not quite the paradigms of the struggling developing countries in the world. If we are going to provide aid for developing countries I think there are far more effective ways of doing it than in that indiscriminate manner. For all its shortcomings, the development import financing facility is a better mechanism for providing that sort of assistance. It is only one of many but it is one whose budgetary allocations have increased from about $2.5m, when we came into office, to more than $16m in this year's Budget. So I think that if one focuses on the global picture rather than one particular aspect of it one finds not only that there are better ways of doing things but that they are in fact being done. The honourable member for Mayo then expressed criticism of the Government on the issue of private overseas students. The circumstances surrounding private overseas students created a great deal of concern for me when I became Foreign Minister. Certain matters were put to me about the program, as though it was going to trundle along in the way in which it had always trundled along. There was no analysis of the momentum behind it, of the direction from which that momentum was coming, of the implicit costs, or whatever. I demanded certain things. I demanded to know what the implicit cost was for the Australian taxpayer. I will tell the House what the implicit cost is this year. It is $97m. By any measure, that is a lot of money. The questions I wanted answered were: Is this a priority ahead of other priorities? What are the other priorities? That seemed to me to be a reasonable discipline that anyone with public sector responsibility handling taxpayers' cash should ask. Who is getting the benefit of this money? How has this program developed? In what way is it regulated? What are the objectives? What are the directions? In a word, it was directionless, and I discovered that about 56 per cent, in round figures, of the total number of students coming here came from one country. How did that happen? Why did it seem to be a very large proportion from one area and very small proportions from many other countries which are of considerable importance to us? One country which I have in mind, which has a large proportion, is extremely important to us. We have very good relations with that country and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding at all about that, but it seems to me that these things had not been addressed. When I inquired it was clear that like Topsy the thing just grew in its own direction because of the attitude of preceding Ministers. I do not need any lectures about how to handle these sorts of programs where public funds are concerned. The thing that strikes me about any area in which we are spending taxpayers' money is that we receive a lot of advice gratuitously from the Opposition about the need for small government in ways that seem to imply that if one is a moderate or low income earner the chances of sending one's child to university or on to higher education or giving him or her a whole range of things that are pretty important will be diminished and the prospects of one having self-respect in one's retirement will be reduced. That is what small government seems to be to members of the Opposition. Yet the same people never once looked at this particular area with any sense of fiscal discipline or any awareness of the priorities in policy management. That has changed. It has changed because I addressed myself to it, and I make no apologies about that program. Large numbers of people are still coming here and they will continue to come here. We are providing a hefty subsidy for that program, but there must be a limit to what one can do with aid money and very properly that is in the aid budget. I am not sure about the comparisons, but I would have thought that looking at our figure, relative to the size of this country's economy, it is not a bad performance and it stands up pretty healthily against those of other developed countries. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) raised some questions about our support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He made some telling criticisms. I acknowledge them; they are soundly based in fact. But once again, it is a matter of where we are in economic management. All I can say is that as much as I find it disconcerting to acknowledge that the honourable member is right in pointing to a reduction, I remind him that our highest priority is to try to get our economy back in shape and to keep it in shape. We want to get this country on course so that we have continuing economic growth which will generate more wealth and more opportunities for Australians to have better prospects in the future, a greater sense of security and confidence and to allow us to do things on the external account where we have this large humanitarian commitment. The Opposition has the large humanitarian commitment but it does not have the nous about how it will pay its way. We have the nous and the commitment and as we get things progressively in better shape-it is indisputable that we have been doing that-we can move progressively to restore some of these commitments and move into other areas which I am very keen to do. Having said all those things, I come to the question of the ANZUS alliance. This is an area in which I find myself rather perplexed by the behaviour of the Opposition. Opposition members seem to regard New Zealand as some sort of small outlying tributary state which should be subject to the dictates of this country. It seems to me that that is national megalomania running rampant. I can assure honourable members now that if they go to New Zealand displaying that attitude-presuming they are in a position where they can be taken seriously, and that is quite distant-they would very quickly get short shrift from the New Zealanders because, like us, they have great national self-respect and they justifiably have great pride in what their country is, what it has done and the contributions that it has made. I would also like to remind honourable members, particularly Opposition members, of this simple set of facts. Of course the ANZUS alliance is extremely important to us. Our association with the United States is indisputably of great value and importance to us. That is a principle that has been repeatedly upheld in proclamations by honourable members opposite. Let me also say this: Our relationship with New Zealand is equally important to us for a series of reasons that are quite distinctive. The role of New Zealand should never be written down nor should the right of New Zealand to self-respect as a sovereign territory be demeaned in debate in this Parliament. I shall deal now with those two matters. First, our relationship with the United States. The ANZUS Treaty gives certain undertakings. However, these are not the sorts of undertakings which absolutely guarantee, regardless of whatever circumstances arise, that ample numbers of people will always be on our doorstep with ample equipment and ample commitment to do what we perhaps should have been doing ourselves. That point was eloquently made by the Minister for Defence. There are obligations on us to look after ourselves, and to be prepared to do so. As a self-respecting Australian and an unapologetic nationalist, I find that a highly desirable principle for us to constantly recognise. Nonetheless there are those undertakings and they are very important. One of the great virtues that I find among the pre-eminent virtues of our association with the United States is the privileged access that we have to advanced military technology. Quality helps to make up for the shortage of numbers in this country. That is a very important asset for us. It is an advantage that not a lot of countries in the world have. We should value it and look after it. We certainly do. The other asset is access to intelligence in its various forms. We play our role in collecting intelligence in certain ways, as does the United States on a far bigger scale because of the resources that are available to it, and we exchange information. For a small country like ours, eyes and ears are very handy to let us know what is happening in the world. There are benefits there. However, there is no reason why we should not be confident in this relationship. There is no reason for docility or servility. I sometimes suspect that, in the cloying manner in which some conservatives on the Opposition benches talk about this relationship, servility and docility are dominant in their approach to this matter. It is a relationship in which there is room for mutual respect which properly should be practised. That is the way in which we proceed in this relationship. One could look at ANZUS as an insurance policy in which one pays one's premiums. We pay up our premiums regularly and we pay them well. We host facilities in this country with the United States and the Australian Labor Party, particularly in government, has cogently and convincingly argued the case for the presence of those facilities. It has argued that case in the face of considerable hostility and objection to the presence of those facilities in Australia. I believe that we won that argument. The fact is that they are extremely important for a range of reasons. They are particularly important to the United States. We justify that, but the fact that we host them shows beyond any doubt that we are paying our premiums. We are paying them on moral grounds as well as practical grounds. In my view those facilities-if we take Soviet nuclear targeting doctrines at face value, and I believe we must do so-would be high priority nuclear targets in the event of a major exchange of nuclear weaponry. I said that when I was Leader of the Opposition after carefully considering the functions and purposes of those facilities, and I restate it today without any defensiveness at all because there is a powerful moral reason why we should be involved with those facilities. It is related to deterrence and to arms verification. So we are paying up there. We have American vessels using our harbour facilities and B52s using our airstrips. This country, by its position in the world, is strategically very importantly placed. It is stable, culturally it has many commonalities with the United States and there is a deep and vast friendship between the two countries. In relation to South East Asia and East Asia, Australia is very well placed in the event of any serious problems occurring in the Indian Ocean, particularly the north-western sector of that ocean. It has an important position and these are extremely valuable collateral attributes that we have available to us. So there is no justification for docility or self-abnegating deference in relation to the United States. We pay our way in the supply of strategic resources and in hosting large and profitable investments from the United States. I do not have to make the point any further, it is a two-way business. I do not have to explore the reasons why strategically-for defence reasons and security reasons-it is important for us to have that association. Let me now deal with New Zealand and how important it is. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that, in the most unlikely event that this country were to run into trouble one day, New Zealand would be one of the first countries in the world to come to our aid. New Zealand has an enviable record that stands up against that of any other country in the world when it comes to defending what we would loosely call freedoms. Its commitment in the First World War proportionate to its population stands up better than that of any other country in the world. Even more than Australia, per capita it suffered the greatest casualty rate fighting on the Continent in defence of the Western allies. In the Second World War, New Zealanders fought their way up the spine of the Italian Alps inch by inch in one of the bloodiest commitments of any group of troops from any country in the world. In the Second World War throughout the Pacific region, in Korea and in Vietnam it had a great record. I do not think that we should be gratuitously offensive to the New Zealanders at a time of difficulty like this. We have differences with the New Zealanders. The Opposition says it has differences with them; so do we. We have a different approach on these matters. But we can have differences and still respect people, and I have a great respect for them. They play an extremely valuable role in the South Pacific. That is something I do not want to go into in detail right now because time is running along and I have taken much longer than I intended in dealing with these matters. The South Pacific is changing rapidly. The island states of the South Pacific are not the island states of 1944 when we entered into the Australia-New Zealand pact, a rather archaic set of provisions in some respects and in some areas. The island states are largely independent and they are now starting to go their own way. Some contact has been made with some countries-I am not just thinking of the Soviet Union; I am thinking of Libya, for instance, but not just Libya-which over the longer term might not be wholesome in our view in terms of what we would like to see as a sort of stable environment for our region. That is something which would worry Australians and it will take careful diplomatic handling. One of the important countries in the handling of all of these issues is New Zealand. I think that we do a very good job. The contribution of the honourable member for Kooyong as Foreign Minister to events in the South Pacific, as in many other areas, was extremely valuable for this country. We have to continue to maintain the value of that commitment. New Zealand probably does it better in a number of areas in the South Pacific because it has concentrated-not exclusively, but dominantly-to a much greater degree than we have in that region. It will be important to keep that commitment intact. Having put that sort of gloss on the overview or the connections as I see them, I come to the obvious next point. For us the challenge is much more complex and difficult than it is for New Zealand in dealing with the United States or for the United States in dealing with New Zealand or with us. We have to work out our destiny with the United States and we have to work it out with New Zealand. We have to try to keep New Zealand and the United States, even with their differences, maintaining some important level of harmony, while at the same time having a very good working relationship with both. It is not easy. We have a fundamental difference of policy view with New Zealand. We allow and will continue to allow United States vessels to use our port facilities. We allow and will continue to allow B52s to use our military airport facilities under circumstances which were laid down by a previous conservative government and which we have maintained. We believe that that is necessary for reasons related to our commitment to the ANZUS Treaty. We do not believe that we can make distinctions about the naval vessels of the United States fleet, because we cannot expect, in any practical sense, the United States to have a series of different fleets-some conventional for this part of the world, some not nuclear-capable for another part of the world and so on. That is not a practical proposition as we see the situation. So we have differences with New Zealand. But we have to manage those differences and we have to manage them successfully. Huffing and puffing in a blowhard sort of fashion in this Parliament is just fine, I guess, if honourable members think it is influencing the electorate. It is fine so long as no one outside this country is taking it seriously and the electorate is not taking it too seriously either. To this point, we have been quite fortunate. The situation which has developed is not one that we care for. We are doing our best in damage control. I was in Washington on Wednesday and Thursday of last week speaking with United States officials, including Mr Weinberger, the Defense Secretary, and Mr Shultz, the Secretary of State. They applaud the role we have been fulfilling. They look to us quite literally for advice on how we collectively can continue to handle this situation, because it is one fraught with some difficulties for them; not the least being understanding the nature of policies in the antipodes. I am not sure that many people in this country or in New Zealand always understand the nature of politics in the antipodes. It has a distinctive flavour about it, as the honourable member for Kooyong and I well understand for personal reasons. But we help the United States in that regard. Secretary of State Shultz was kind enough to describe our bilateral relationship as excellent. I spoke in New York with Geoffrey Palmer, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, about the situation, and his description of our role was `immaculate'. The New Zealanders are appreciative of what we are doing. There has been quite a deal of activity by us. It has not always been high key, because that is not always appropriate. I have spoken on this subject with United States officials, especially George Schultz, in places such as New York, Washington, Jakarta, Canberra, Kuala Lumpur and Wellington. The Minister for Defence has been to New Zealand to speak with officials there and he has spoken with them here. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has been to New Zealand to talk on this topic in detail. We have been quite active. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has discussed the matter on a number of occasions with Prime Minister Lange. Incidentally, I think that it was quite unfair and uncharacteristic of the honourable member for Kooyong to say that the Prime Minister had written a letter to Prime Minister Lange from which, when it became public, he sought to scuttle. That is not true. He stood firmly by it and, in fact, released the full details of that letter. We have been quite open. All I can say is that those are the circumstances and the ingredients. They are the interests that we have and the things that we have to weigh up. They are not helped by the Opposition trying to score cheap points, but we persevere. If the Opposition thinks that our tactics are wrong and that our general approach is tardy and subject to condemnation, it should bear in mind that the United States does not agree. It prefers to go along the course which, frankly, we have largely plotted. We have largely set this course. I repeat that the United States is frequently in contact with us for advice on those matters. All I have to say is that the situation seems to have reached something of an impasse at this point. When New Zealand introduces legislation which it has forecast it will introduce, we will have to look quite rigorously at what that legislation implies and where it is likely to take us. I know that the United States shares that sort of view. It is quite premature for me to be saying anything more than that at this time. I conclude by saying that we have been doing the best we can by the alliance, by each of the members of the alliance and by this country. While I acknowledge the right of the Opposition to try to score a few points for its benefit in the domestic electorate, I ask it to keep it within reasonable and responsible bounds because what we are handling is the national interest. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure, $176,363,000. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $443,734,000. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(8.00) —At Question Time today the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) gave a mysterious answer to what was obviously a dorothy dix question that one of the directors of Qantas Airways Ltd had misused his or her privileges as a director; presumably that person had used his or her travel privileges incorrectly. The Minister, by giving this mysterious answer, was presumably indicating that he was aware of the situation, that he was on top of the job and that he was going to do something about it. I suggest very strongly to the Minister that he has condemned every Qantas director. Every Qantas director is now under suspicion for abusing his or her position as a director of that company. The Minister has a responsibility-he will have an opportunity when winding up this debate on the appropriations for the Department of Transport and the Department of Aviation-to give a complete story as to who that director is, what abuse of directors' privileges has occurred and what action he is taking, otherwise he is condemning, by this implied accusation, every director of Qantas. These are significant people in our society, very responsible people, who are carrying out a most responsible job with our international airline. I say again to the Minister that it is not good enough for him to answer in the way he did this afternoon. He must say who the director is who is being investigated, what those investigations are and what action is being taken so that every other director of Qantas is clear of that general accusation. In the few minutes available to me I will direct most of my comments to the Department of Aviation because aviation is that part of the total transport area that is receiving most attention at present. That is understandable because of the publicity that has been given to the submissions to the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation-in other words, the two-airline inquiry. I want to restate the coalition policy of the 1984 election which remains the coalition policy at this stage. We believe in the progressive deregulation of the domestic airline industry-in other words, the two-airline policy. This will be done in consultation with the industry in a sensible, gradual and progressive manner and it carries with it the sale of Trans Australia Airlines. Before we lost office legislation had been enacted to turn TAA into a company. That obviously is the first step and that is followed by the sale of shares to the Australian public with special preference being given to TAA employees. I commend the Minister, the Bureau of Transport Economics and the Department of Aviation for the part that they have played in organising the recent seminar on airline regulation and deregulation. I attended that seminar and listened to all the comments for two days. As a result, it has confirmed in my mind the correctness of the coalition policy. One other aviation matter that has been receiving publicity at present is the increasing competition on domestic routes as East-West Airlines Ltd takes advantage of two areas of flexibility in the coalition Government's 1981 legislation. I am referring to the `no-frills' or special services and also to services outside the specified trunk routes. I refer to a question that I asked the Minister in Parliament recently concerning the very long delay in his making a decision on East-West Airlines' application to import an additional F28 aircraft to augment these services. The Minister said in reply: In respect of the application to import the F28, on 26 July I discussed that matter with the Managing Director of East-West Airlines. In the matter of that discussion I drew to his attention and that of his colleague present that, in differing items of correspondence provided to me by the airline, it had provided conflicting claims. On the one hand, it said that it had excess capacity. On the other hand, it sought additional capacity. Obviously both versions could not be correct. On that date I asked the airline to clarify the situation. As of this time, this afternoon, I have not received a response. That was on 19 September and the Minister said that he had heard nothing since 26 July. The following day, East-West Airlines issued a Press release. After making that point about the Minister and his comments it stated in this release: East-West Airlines has had correspondence or discussions on the matter with the Minister or his Department since the July 26 meeting. The airline went on in that Press release to detail four separate occasions when there had been correspondence or discussions with the Minister or the Department. I quote the conclusion of that Press release: Yesterday, September 19, East-West received from the Department of Aviation a six page telex seeking replies to a large number of matters relating to the importation request. An initial examination by the airline shows the requests are largely for the information supplied to the Department on June 12. We have here a second very serious situation. According to the Press release issued by East-West Airlines, either the Minister was misinformed by his Department as to the contacts that had been made and, in turn, had inadvertently misled Parliament, or he was misleading Parliament because he had said quite clearly in his response to my question that he had heard nothing since 26 July and accused me and the airline of misinformation. I throw the accusation back at the Minister and I ask: Who has been responsible for misinformation? In the light of this very clear and direct indication of contacts and correspondence between the airline and the Department and/or the Minister, someone is not being completely honest and accurate. I suggest to the Minister that, along with replying to my first request that he should come clean on the matter of the Qantas director, there is a second request for him to come clean and say who is misinforming whom. I also suggest to the Minister that he has still not made a decision in relation to an application for an aircraft which was made more than six months ago. It is high time that such a decision was made and I hope that the application is approved. I wish to deal in the last couple of minutes available to me with the question concerning the six-month investigation into what should be done to upgrade the Darwin Airport terminal. The time for a decision has now expired. As Darwin is one of the international gateways to Australia-it is the international airport of the Northern Territory-I hope, on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, that the Minister and his Department are about to make a decision. I hope that that decision will include something better than just the refurbishing of the Second World War hangar. No matter what degree of refurbishing is done that hangar does not provide an adequate gateway to northern Australia in the 1980s. The final point I want to make concerns roads. The Minister has been complimenting himself that the $1,245m available federally this year for road construction and maintenance in this country is a record-the most generous we have ever seen. In current dollar terms it is the same as last year. In real terms it is a reduction of about 6 per cent on last year's figure which, in turn, was a reduction of 3 per cent on the previous year's figure. Contrary to what the Minister has been claiming in relation to roads there is about an 8 to 9 per cent reduction in real terms in the two Budgets that this Labor Government has introduced in relation to the road needs of this country. In conclusion, I once again say to the Minister that he has some serious answers to give in relation to Qantas directors and to the comment he made concerning East-West Airlines and the information needed to make a decision on the F28 aircraft. An appropriate time to answer both those questions would be at the conclusion of this debate. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(8.10) —I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 as it relates to the Transport portfolio. The very size and diversity of Australia means that transport will play a significant role in this country. Transport over the years has undergone significant changes. For example, the past 20 years have seen revolutionary changes in shipping arrangements and technology. Likewise, there have been sweeping changes in the ways the waterside is organised and managed. Australia's ability to compete in international trade on terms which will maintain and improve our standard of living depends a good deal on workers in the transport field and their response to change. Recent studies have clearly shown that every additional $100m in exports generates 5,000 jobs in Australia. Until a few years ago it seemed sufficient to rely for our standard of living on our enormous reserves of natural resources, largely agricultural and mineral. This complacency was reinforced by conservative political parties, which did little in office but now talk big in opposition. Now other countries with plenty of similar raw materials are eating away at some of our traditional markets. We need to improve our efficiency, competitiveness and entrepreneurial skills in our traditional and newer markets. The simple fact is that Australia has to earn its way in an increasingly tough world, and it has been our Labor Government that has developed successful policies aimed at growth, the development of jobs and greater equity. There is much to be done in the related areas of trade and transport. Our share of world trade has fallen by 25 per cent since 1972, and Australia has dropped from twelfth to seventeenth in ranking among Western exporters since 1970. The transport industry can help us develop, create jobs and sustain our standard of living. The inescapable answer is simply that by becoming more efficient and enterprising the transport industry can be improved. This calls for efforts by governments, management, unions and employees. The Hawke Government has done more than any previous administration to improve our national transport system, and this improvement will continue. We have placed a wide range of industries, in particular the transport industry, under intense scrutiny. The Government has acted to improve the viability and efficiency of our shipping industry. It has taken special measures to help the Australian National Line overcome past neglect. We have established a task force to report on our overseas liner shipping with the participation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government has also established a task force to report on shore-based shipping costs. We want to encourage industry to re-assess the efficiency of its own operations. We have made a lot of progress and there are visible signs of improvement, including a more robust and competitive Austalian National Line. The ANL is a valuable national asset that had been allowed to go to waste. This could not be tolerated. It would be hard to see us achieving long term stable growth in Australian shipping without a revitalised ANL. But there is no bottomless pit of money which would allow it to continue to lose money simply because it is the national line. Government enterprises have to count money in the same way as do private enterprises. Yet to turn around in a few short years, as this Government has, an organisation left virtually bankrupt by the economic incompetents who now propose privatisation as the answer can create tensions. Whatever tensions may be created, they would be nothing compared to the tensions and confrontation if those opposite ever had the opportunity to impose their privatisation policies. I am pleased also that in this appropriation funds are provided for road safety program promotion and research. Too many lives are lost needlessly on Australian roads, but all the promotion in the world will be worthless if in many cases the attitudes of road users are not changed. I am very pleased to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety, which has in the past contributed and will continue to contribute significantly to transport safety. I note also that over $1m has been allocated for maritime search and rescue. No one can put a cost on human life and no one would argue with the need for an adequate maritime search service, but I must say that too many people treat the sea far too carelessly. Inexperienced people often put to sea in ill-equipped boats that should never go to sea. In a week or so we will have Sea Safety Week. I welcome this and hope that all interested will take this opportunity to better acquaint themselves with sea safety. I turn to the importance of the road transport industry in Australia. This importance cannot be overemphasised. Some 70 per cent of all freight is moved at some stage by this industry, but despite the industry's role and importance it has lacked clear national direction. Previous governments have all but ignored pleas for help from the industry. It was not until the Hawke Labor Government came to power that a Federal government was prepared to take a comprehensive look at the industry and implement measures not the least of which was the commissioning of the May National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The May Inquiry was given a big task. It had to consider questions of road safety, trucking efficiency, financing and the effects of government regulation and competition from rail. A year after appointment, in September 1984, it had met the task with a mammoth 509-page report to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The report has been the basis for a number of legislative changes already announced by the Minister. Last month he introduced the new `fast track' legislation based on the May Inquiry recommendation. The legislation involves the introduction of Federal registration of interstate trucks and licensing of interstate operators. The Australian Road Freight Transport Advisory Committee, including governments, industries, unions and users, will be established within the Transport Industries Advisory Council. As the Minister said in this House, it is landmark legislation making the trucking industry more equitable and more secure. It is imperative that the industry be reformed because, as I said, 70 per cent of all freight is moved at some stage on roads. I add that trucking has had one of the highest rates of bankruptcies in Australia. I support the Government's road policies. In my electorate of Throsby work is proceeding on the Berrima-Mittagong by-pass of the Federal Highway. One area to which I would like the Minister to give particular attention is a new road linking the southern highlands to the coast. With recent and planned developments at Port Kembla, including the building of a grain handling facility, it is imperative that an adequate road should link this major port with the southern highlands of New South Wales. A committee of the Illawarra regional organisation of councils is examining the feasibility of a new link at Johnsons Spur. I trust that the Minister will listen sympathetically to my representations for this to be an export development road. Without an adequate infrastructure the port of Kembla will not reach its full potential as a major export port, and the key to this must be a new road linking the port and the southern highlands. As I said before, this road will carry export grain and wool and it is imperative that it become an export development road. My final point refers to the Australian National Railways Commission. I strongly support the Australian National Railways. I must say that my admiration increased recently when I travelled on the Ghan from Adelaide to Alice Springs, but I do believe- Mr Steele Hall —Pity you didn't go all the way to Darwin. Mr HOLLIS —No, there is no rail link to Darwin. We will have a good road to Darwin under this Government, which is more than we would ever have had under the previous Government. The Opposition screams about the rail link. The folly of the Liberals talking about a rail link! They had their choice. They are going to have an improved road link. They have got an excellent rail link to Alice Springs, and they will have a good road link too, so they must not talk nonsense about a rail link to Darwin. As I said, my admiration increased recently when I travelled on the Ghan from Adelaide to Alice Springs. I believe that much more could be done to promote the tourist potential of the ANR. Mr SMITH(Bass)(8.20) —It is appropriate that a Tasmanian should rise to speak on these estimates of expenditure and receipts because Tasmania is affected by the decisions of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) who in a sense controls the destiny of the economy of Tasmania to a very large degree. The estimates of expenditure receipts show airport concessions to be the second largest amount of income that comes into the Department of Transport; it was just over $43m for 1985-86. The report of the Auditor-General drew attention to significant administrative deficiencies within the Victorian and Tasmanian regional offices of the Department of Aviation. We have had the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, so it is interesting to see how the Auditor-General treats the Department in the Tasmanian and Victorian regions. The Auditor-General said that one of the major deficiencies was that `the regional office was not reconciling the monthly financial statements with the audited annual financial statements and there was uncertainty as to which section in the region was responsible for this section'. The Auditor considered, as do all the people on this side of the Chamber, that this reconciliation is important. Omission of the reconciliation could result in lost revenue. It is interesting to note that the regional office has accepted the criticisms levelled at it in this regard. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether the failure of the regional office to conduct such reconciliations on a monthly basis results in losses being incurred. I hope that the Minister will address that in his summing up. The report of the Auditor-General highlights another accounting deficiency in the Victorian and Tasmanian regional offices. Cost investigations were not performed for all concessions on a regular basis. Amazing as it seems, some concessions have never been investigated, while many others have not been investigated for two years. Once again, the office has accepted the recommendations of the Auditor-General in this regard and, once again, the question must be asked whether the failure of the regional office to investigate adequately the concessions on a regular basis resulted in any lost revenue. The Minister must come clean and inform the Chamber whether the accounting procedures of the Department of Aviation have been updated and streamlined in order to avoid potential financial losses. The Minister has spoken in support of the Bosch report. Considering that the amount of $43m is the second largest item in the Department of Aviation accounts, perhaps the Minister ought to be addressing more attention to this point. One of the other interesting items in the last Budget was the amount of money to be spent for the upgrading of the Launceston airport. We have just heard about Darwin being the gateway to the north of Australia; Launceston airport is the gateway to Tasmania. It relies heavily on its tourist traffic. Mr Lloyd —Which airport is that? Mr SMITH —Launceston. Honourable members might be aware also that Launceston airport is the third largest air freight terminal in this nation. Mr McGauran —Launceston? Mr SMITH —Launceston. The budgetary allocation for work in the Launceston airport upgrading was $80,000. On 7 October the regional director for Victoria and Tasmania announced a further $350,000 to be allocated to the Launceston airport for upgrading of the runways. Mr Lloyd —Your pressure achieved that? Mr SMITH —Undoubtedly so. That announcement was made in an unorthodox manner. I have written to the Minister and I am still waiting for his reply to confirm that those funds will be applied, because we are very concerned with what are called alligator cracks in the runway. If those cracks are left unattended concrete pieces or bits of pavement can be injected into jet engines. That can be a safety concern, and I know that the Department of Aviation is very concerned with safety. The simple fact remains that the Launceston airport still requires some $2m to be spent on the upgrading of the runway. This estimate was made by the Department of Housing and Construction, from which the Department of Aviation seeks engineering advice. I would like to know from the Minister when this will be done, because our community has an airport action committee which has been crying out for attention for some two years. We are now finding that the Minister is finally agreeing with us, but he is doing it in such a way as not to admit that he was wrong and is letting his departmental advisers carry the can for him. I do not think that that is a very good situation at all. I refer to the Independent Air Fares Committee. The estimates show an allocation of $60,000 for the purchase of a new computer. I find this interesting because also in the allocation for that Committee are consultancy fees. Given that the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation is inquiring into the two airline agreement and the whole of the airline industry-the Independent Air Fares Committee could be vitally affected by its outcome-I would have thought that an allocation of $60,000 for a computer at this stage would be unnecessary. I would like to hear some explanation as to why it is necessary for that money to be expended at this stage. I note that the cost allocation review conducted by the Committee was done by consultants. Surely, the need for computer services could also be contracted out. Some comment was made about the two-airline agreement by the shadow spokesman. Launceston and Tasmania are suffering at the moment from the cold shoulder that the Minister is applying to East-West Airlines. Whilst this is not the time to talk at length about that, I will say to the Minister that Tasmanians are very concerned about his neglect of their need to be able to have other operators operating on trunk routes, whether they be providing trunk route services or special services which would be possible under the provisions of the two-airline agreement. Reference is also made on page 72 of the explanatory notes to compensation and legal expenses, which in 1985-86 is $1,850,000. It is interesting to note in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) that the total for all departments for compensation and legal expenses is $64.5m; a massive amount of money. I did not have the opportu- nity to speak on the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department, but that is an exceptionally large amount which deserves some closer scrutiny. Page 76 refers to the air fare subsidies paid for western Queensland having been cut out. Of course, the air fare subsidies to Tasmania, which were just short of $6m, have been cut out also. The question may be asked: Why is it that this Government hates Tasmania so much? Page 58 shows that the item for incidental and other expenditure is up by 14.1 per cent to almost $2.5m. Public relations expenses amount to $240,000 and it is stated, in brackets, that this is for a film unit. I wonder why this is necessary. I thought that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism was in charge of all of these sorts of things. Why is it necessary for the Department of Aviation to have a film unit? Another interesting item is the occupational health and safety item, which last year was $10,000 and this year is $100,000. There is no explanation as to why that is so. The item that really caught my attention was the $35,000 for chaplaincy services. I know that the Department from time to time may need some terrestrial activity or support and I know that when Dick Smith spoke to us last week there was some concern that the Department might need some guidance from on high, but can the Minister explain why it is that $35,000 is allocated for chaplaincy services? Page 49 shows the allocation for meteorological services to be almost $16m. It is proposed by the Department to cut back the meteorological services in Hobart and Launceston within a four year period, so there will be no meteorological interpretation services anywhere in Tasmania. I find this totally unacceptable, and I have been waiting for the Minister to give me details of exactly what is happening. I am aware that meetings were held recently. Some community interest considerations ought to be looked at before that decision is made final. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to making details known to us tonight as to exactly what is happening. I note that the Qantas Airways Ltd dividend has gone up from just under $7m to $20m this year, which is laudable. I wonder why the Qantas dividend flows through the accounts of the Department of Aviation. I would have thought that that would be inappropriate and in some senses is inflating the Department of Aviation's accounts to a degree that it ought not to be. Some comment ought to be made quickly about the Tasmanian freight compensation scheme. Of course, we are pleased that that scheme has been approved by Mr Justice Everett and put into place. I have some examples which I do not have time to cover now, but the Minister said that he thought that this scheme would be good because it would allow medium to small operators to continue. However, I have two examples, which I might have another opportunity to enlarge upon, of where it is clearly shown, especially in the case of producers of onions and the residents of Flinders Island, that people are suffering under the changes. I have also written to the Minister about that matter, on which I should like some explanation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.30) —Later this month in Canberra there will be a forum dealing with the problems that we face in our national infrastructure. It has been claimed by the organisers of the forum that total government investment in infrastructure has dropped from 27 per cent to 21 per cent over the past 15 years. Of course, Labor governments have been in power for only 5 1/2 of those 15 years-indeed, 5 1/2 of the last 35 years-and even those opposite will not quibble with my assertion that the Whitlam Government was not miserly when it came to urban and regional development and infrastructure in general, and it can be clearly demonstrated that the Hawke Labor Government has also been doing its share to redevelop our infrastructure. Therefore, if we face a backlog in our national infrastructure-and we do-it is very easy to demonstrate where the cause and fault lie. They lie clearly with the Liberal Party and the National Party, which held power, as distinct from government, for about 30 of the past 35 years. I raise this issue tonight in this debate because sea, land and air transport are major components of our national infrastructure. The present Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris), has done a very fine job in the portfolio since March 1983, a mere 31 months ago. I say that in very sincere appreciation of his role and his tenacity and commitment to Australian transport. We can see the fruits of that commitment in the Australian land transport program. The ALTP is a major component of the budget of the Department of Transport, and so it should be. Roads and railways are vital to our economy, whether it be in the development of internal and external trade, communication, or even defence. They are also vital in employment development. As in all infrastructure areas, the employment multiplier in roads is usually ignored by the small government dries sitting opposite. For every $1m spent on roads, it is estimated that 50 jobs are created directly or indirectly. That is a fairly sizable number in view of the amount that we spend on transport. An efficient and extensive road transport system provides construction and maintenance jobs, jobs in materials and machinery industries, jobs in towns and jobs in other areas such as tourism, fuel, communications, and the automobile industry. About $1 in every $7 spent in this country is in some way spent on transport. This Government's transport program is a key generator of jobs in our economy. In a couple of weeks time we shall see this Government having created half a million jobs since its election to office. That is a very proud record. But when the dries and the big noises in big business and the two-bob capitalists complain about government spending, they always manage to forget that their extreme wealth and their industries depend upon expenditure in areas such as transport and roads, and especially in the industries that I have just mentioned. Let us look at road programs under this Budget and, for comparison, in earlier years. The major change this year has been the introduction of the ALTP. There are very significant differences between the ALTP and road funding under the old Roads Grants Act. The ALTP is a very comprehensive road and rail program which will integrate land surface transport in Australia for the first time in our 200 years. That is something to think about. In particular, one important factor is that it guarantees an earmarked share of fuel excise to road funding. The ALTP excise will be paid into a trust fund. This program of funding is guaranteed as a minimum for five years, and, on top of that, the program's budget is and will be linked to the consumer price index. There is the guarantee to municipal councils and State governments in this Australian Labor Party Government's commitment and determination to rebuild our land transport system. It is a very gutsy step which former Liberal-National Party governments would never take. In fact, they backed away from it continually. This program really hits the ball fairly and squarely into the court of the States and local government, to back up their words with similar action and similar funds. The ALTP will give councils and State governments the confidence that they have long sought to plan, to borrow and to invest in order to do their share of transport funding. While we are talking about State governments doing their share, I think it is about time that those State governments which come to Canberra every year demanding money started to take some of the hard economic and fiscal decisions themselves, such as this Government has had to do. The Australian Labor Party Government would like to bring in surplus or zero sum Bud- gets, but we realise only too well that in winding back and repairing the economic ineptitude of the Budget barbarians of the former Liberal-National Party Government, we cannot further compound the damage already done to our road transport system and infrastructure. It is about time that the State governments, some more so than others, got their acts together and accepted the hard decisions that the Australian Labor Party Government has had to make. It is about time they spent all the money that is appropriated to them in any one year. There is no excuse for not spending road funds in Australia. Yet some State and municipal governments cannot organise themselves sufficiently to do so. Then they turn around and complain when they do not get every dollar they ask for. State and municipal governments have revenue raising powers of their own, yet they continue to complain that Canberra does not give them enough money. They expect the Federal Government to raise taxes and revenue and commit itself to a responsible deficit, yet clearly they are not prepared either to go into deficit themselves or to raise their own taxes and charges. In other words, if the other two spheres of government want to be treated as equals, as they deserve to be, they will have to be prepared to accept the odium that often goes with it. In the seven years of Liberal-National Party government, road funding was cut in real terms by 23 per cent, while the motorist was progressively bled at the petrol bowser. Some honest members of the Opposition will now acknowledge that in many rural areas especially, bitumen roads were ripped up and returned to gravel roads during the latter years of the Fraser Government because bitumen roads could not be maintained to a safe standard because of a lack of funds. That is further evidence of the Budget barbarians. This Government is not in the business of bitumen band-aids. We are determined to tackle the road and transport infrastructure problems as reconstructive surgery. We are doing the job properly and State and municipal governments should have the grace to admit it. State politicians claim record amounts of funding for roads but forget to mention that a record $805m was provided this year under the ALTP by this Government. When they protest about not having enough money under the ALTP, they conveniently forget the $23m increase in Australian bicentennial road development funding from $417m in 1984-85 to $440m in 1985-86. Therefore, in 1985-86 the Federal Government will provide $1,245m to the States and Territories for the building and maintenance of roads. This is a record high in dollar terms and returns us to the 1977 level. Almost half of this funding has been directed towards the construction and maintenance of the 16,000-kilometre national highway system which links all mainland capitals. It links Darwin to Adelaide, Brisbane to Cairns and Burnie to Hobart. Mr Hollis —It goes through my electorate. Mr STAPLES —It is a good electorate and it has a good member serving it. By 1988, the Australian Government will have spent over $5 billion-not $5m-to bring the national highway system to a high quality all-weather standard. The 1985-86 road budget is 82 per cent more than was provided in the last full year of the Fraser Government. In Victoria, for example, from 1981-82, the last full year of the Fraser Government, to 1985-86, total funding for the national road system has increased by 81 per cent. For arterial roads the figure is even better; it has increased by 102 per cent. For local roads it has increased by 60 per cent. That makes an overall increase of 84 per cent in only four years. That does not include the great increases for road safety and transport research in this period. The charge is often levelled at the Federal Government that so many billions of dollars are collected in fuel levies and excises and so little is returned, especially to States such as New South Wales and Victoria which are the most populous. It is true that as the most populous States Victoria and New South Wales contribute more revenue in most ways than less populous States. It is reasonable and generally recognised by Victoria and New South Wales that this cannot lead to a dollar for dollar return. I close by saying that if life and government were so simple, and if we expected to get that full return, we would not need Ministers and government. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.40) —I wish to say a few words about the bicentennial road development grants program. However, first I say that the speech by the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), who has just resumed his seat, was most insulting as far as my State is concerned. From the position of receiving an unjust allocation of road funds, South Australia has fought to get justice in that allocation for a great number of years. The allocation we are considering tonight does nothing to justify the bias in funding against South Australia. It is insulting to say to my State that we have not done our part in providing funds for South Australian roads. In fact, work on national highways in prior years has proceeded solely from South Australian funds, so deficient have Federal funds been to build national highways in my State. I say to the honourable member who has just resumed his seat and who used such florid language in praising the allocation of the funds we are considering tonight that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has indicated that this year these funds have been reduced substantially compared with last year. In the introductory remarks of the document I have before me, which provides information on funds for the Department of Transport in the Budget, the Minister says that gross outlays in 1985-86, including recoverable expenditure, will be $1,463.5m. In overall terms this is a decrease of $135.3m, or 8.5 per cent, on expenditure in 1984-85. On other occasions the Government and this Minister have been pleased to point to the economic factors indicating an increase in economic activity. Yet, the Minister comes to this House and says, as he did earlier in May as he says in this confirmatory document, that the allocation is down significantly by 8.5 per cent at a time when inflation is running at about the reverse of that figure. So, in real terms, one is talking about a reduction in the road program of something like 17 per cent. Yet the honourable member has the audacity to refer to previous figures and indicate that this is something of an advantage to Australia. It is significant to refer to taxation on petroleum in Australia. The figures I have been given show that in the last financial year $4,202m was collected from the crude oil levy. This year it is estimated that $4,368m will be collected from the crude oil levy. The amount collected from the excise on fuel last year was $2,207m. This year it is expected to be $2,343m. One finds that the percentage allocation to the program this year, involving $1,463m from the total collection of the crude oil levy and excise on fuel of $6,711m, is 21.8 per cent. This represents a return to the users of roads in this community of 21.8 per cent. Last year, when expenditure on the program was $135m greater, the sum collected was $6,409m and the percentage allocated for this purpose was 24.9 per cent. Based on those percentage collections from excises, which perhaps the Minister might like to think of as more finite to the purpose of a reallocation of excise, one finds that this year there is an allocation of 62.4 per cent of excise on petroleum products, whereas last year there was a 72.4 per cent allocation. So there has been a very significant reduction in relation to capacity. The Minister may argue that the South Australian allocation has to bear the economic pruning which the Government went through in this exercise earlier in the year. But why does it have to bear such an inordinately large share of that pruning? Why cannot it take its ordinary share along with other expenditures in the community? Why should transport be expendable in this way? I referred earlier to the bad deal South Australia gets-the very raw deal indeed-under the bicentennial program. On a previous occasion in this Chamber I said that the bicentennial program was entered into with a great deal of patriotism, and that on our 200th birthday we would see in Australia a refurbished road system-a system we could be proud of, which would be an economic base and that we would have something substantial to show for our 200th birthday. I have always agreed vehemently with that concept. It was a program that was put in place by the former coalition Government. In regard to my State inherently we had a bad allocation of funds-a bias against my State. I reiterate the figures which I have upgraded for tonight's short debate. South Australia had 8.7 per cent of the Australian population as at December last year. We get 8.6 per cent of the distribution of the ordinary road grants, and I suppose one could say that at least that has a relationship to something in our South Australian community's population. Although I would argue on historical and developmental grounds that it ought to be greater, at least one can say that there is that connection. But when one comes to the allocation of bicentennial road funds, one finds that South Australia gets 7.2 per cent. Now, however, there is a more significant figure with which to compare that, and that is the fuel consumption in South Australia is just in excess of 9 per cent of Australia's fuel consumption. Although the collection from South Australia is made on 9 per cent of Australia's fuel, we in South Australia get back 7.2 per cent. Therefore, simply in relation to population, 7.2 per cent allocation to 8.7 per cent of population, we shall lose $37m over the entire program, but in relation to what we provide we lose just under $50m. I put it to the Committee that, under the Commonwealth Grants Commission consideration and adjudication in Australia, South Australia is not considered to be one of the strongest economic communities in Australia. This is why we get the subventions we do under the financial assistance grants. There is no earthly reason why the State of South Australia should be subject to this continued deprivation of its rightful return in relation to the collection of excise in South Australia on a 2 per cent basis on every litre of fuel used. There is one major aspect that is absent from Government programs, and that is its refusal to take up the policy of the coalition parties, which were previously put clearly in government, to build the Alice Springs-Northern Territory rail line. This is a project which must proceed, and should have proceeded long ago, on the basis of the promise made to my State when the Northern Territory became an Australian Territory-a promise which was made then in the early years soon after Federation. But it is a promise that should be fulfilled now not simply because of the promise to South Australia but because of the promise to the Australian people to defend its interests and to defend our northern perimeters. Recently an expert study has been conducted by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University which gives cogent and overwhelming reasons as to why this project should be proceeded with. It says quite clearly in its findings that the Hill Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, on which this Government negated its obligations to the Northern Territory and to the defence of Australia in building that line, did not take into account a proper appreciation of the defence needs of this country. We have a denial on three points-first, the defence needs; secondly, the failure of that inquiry to deal with the fiscal drawbacks that would have come out of the construction of that railway; and, thirdly, it accepted, as the study showed, an inordinately low figure for road maintenance costs which it uses as a comparative figure. Therefore, I say in my brief remarks that under this Labor Government South Australia continues to be disadvantaged. The Bannon Government subserviently accepts that low-grade position, and South Australia is simply subsidising the other States of Australia in this program by something like $50m, and it ought not to continue. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(8.50) —I thank those honourable members who participated in the debate this evening for their contributions and I apologise to the Committee for my absence earlier on urgent matters pertaining to my responsibilities. The concluding words of the last speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), highlight the dissension within the Opposition ranks. Here this evening he was saying that we should be spending a billion dollars on a railway that cannot possibly fund itself, while the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is hectoring us on spending less. It does not do the honourable member for Boothby or his Party any service to be posturing on that issue when they had years and years to construct that project had they thought it was one of merit. They did not, and that is the reason they did not proceed with it themselves. The simple fact is that there is no point in trying to debase the Hill Independent Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory. It showed that the construction of that line would be a major misallocation of resources. It is a fact that the defence implications were taken into account on advice of the Minister for Defence. That advice still stands. The bottom line is this: If it is a project that is going to be as remunerative as some quarters of the Opposition suggest, certainly under its policy of privatisation it is a project that the private sector will want to build. This Government will not participate in the absurdity being put forward by the honourable member for Boothby. It does not warrant public investment. Let us again put it in perspective. We are told that from South Australia's viewpoint there is a major steel production involvement. The amount of steel to be used in the project would be equivalent to 2.5 per cent of one year's production at Whyalla. It will do a lot for Whyalla! It will do very little, but it will cost the taxpayer an enormous amount. Most of the employees involved in the construction would be from the Northern Territory. The service would be provided, were construction of it to be commenced, several years later than the date of completion of the national highway link between Adelaide and Darwin. With the proposal being followed by this Government, the South Australian economy will have access to the Northern Territory and to the Top End markets earlier than it would under the project which is the subject of the posturing from some sectors of the Opposition. I have heard before from the honourable member for Boothby that speech of his about road shares, road relativities and the amount of money being given to South Australia for roads. I think that was about edition No. 5. Mr Steele Hall —You take no notice though. Mr PETER MORRIS —I take no notice of it because the honourable member's colleagues took no notice of it. He had seven years to convince members of his own Government that there was some substance in that assertion and they did not believe him. Surely he does not expect me now to believe him when his colleagues did not believe him. Another point is that the existing system of relativities between the States for distribution of road funds, as I understand it, was last determined under the honourable member's Government in 1977. We are just continuing the shares that his Government determined, but looking to the future. Currently four of the six States believe that they should get a greater share of Federal road funds. None of the States is offering to take a lesser share of the existing road funds. The only way through that is for us to set up-we are in the process of selecting people for it now-an independent review of State road relativities for the sharing of road funds. Honourable members will recall that in the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act there is provision for the making of a determination arising from the review before March 1987. To try to relate the collection of fuel levies and fuel excises to the actual distribution of road funds to a State is a nonsense. It does not work out that way, and the honourable member is well aware of that. I turn quickly to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the matter he raised of chaplain services expenditure. The amount of $35,000 is in line with an agreement reached with the various capital city airport management committees that the Department assist in the provision of chaplain services. Their services are recognised as important to the welfare of employees of all aviation industry groups at airports. That service is being provided as an essential humanitarian service. I hope the honourable member is not suggesting that the service be withdrawn. The other matter he raised was in respect of Launceston Airport and the expenditure of $330,000 on the maintenance upgrading of the strip. He did ask me about this matter personally. He drew my attention to the $80,000 announcement I had made earlier. I am pleased to tell him that the $330,000 incorporates the $80,000 and arises from the undertaking I had given on several previous occasions. That undertaking was that there would be regular inspections of the runway and if maintenance was required that maintenance would be carried out. We are doing exactly that. Later inspections have shown that additional maintenance is required. That work will be undertaken in furtherance of the promise I gave and will be carried out before the end of the year. The honourable member for Bass also raised the matter of business concessions, whether they are investigated regularly and whether there has been a loss in revenue. They are investigated on a regular basis. The honourable member will be aware that, with the coming development of the Federal Airports Corporation and the much higher emphasis on commerciality in the management of airports, certainly that area will be looked at again more closely to try to ensure that, in line with government policy, we put greater emphasis upon passenger service, passenger convenience and maximising the quality of service that we provide to the travelling public. Within that comes the provision of commercial services and the opportunity to ensure that airports are managed in a commercial fashion, that the return to taxpayers is maximised and the best value for money is obtained for taxpayers. The other matter he mentioned was in respect of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. I say to him that that new scheme is the result of a comprehensive, exhaustive and impartial inquiry carried out over the course of many months. The scheme is now in operation. There will be a review of the rates of assistance before 1 July next year, in time for next year's Budget, to see how the system is working and what the effect of changes in the freight rates will be. But separately from that I have also established a review authority as a means by which appeals against some provisions of the scheme can be examined. That is also under way. He also mentioned the matter of the Bureau of Meteorology services. I will deal with that matter in writing. I turn quickly to the matters raised by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). He said that Federal Government funding is required for the new road linking the southern highlands to Port Kembla. The honourable member has been assiduous in his representations on this issue. Mr McGauran —What about us? Don't we ever write to you? Mr PETER MORRIS —When does the honourable member stop writing to me? Does he ever stop writing to me? The problem is that the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), says this Government must reduce expenditure. When he says `reduce expenditure' he means reduce road expenditure as he did when he was Treasurer. Honourable members should remember that when he was Treasurer Federal road expenditure was reduced by more than half a billion dollars. That was the performance of the present Leader of the Opposition. We are not going to have a bar of that, not a bar of it. We have reversed that. We now have a massive increase in Federal expenditure, the greatest road construction and road building program ever seen in the history of this nation. We are not going to be thwarted by the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say to my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Throsby is that I am very much aware of the needs of that region of the State and of the electorate he refers to, but he knows that that road is an arterial road. We do not have power to initiate expenditure in respect of that road. That road is an arterial road for Federal funding purposes and if it is placed on the schedule for consideration of approvals by the New South Wales Minister it will get prompt consideration. We do not have the power to initiate projects for arterial roads under our Federal funding arrangements. It is an important road and there is trouble with it. I am very much aware of the conditions to which the honourable member refers. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) referred to my answer to a question in the House this afternoon in respect of the Board of Qantas Airways Ltd. That matter is under consideration. It is obvious once again that the left hand of the Opposition is not talking to the right hand because the information he accused me of not providing was provided by one of his colleagues in the Senate earlier today. I do not propose to say any more about it at this stage, regardless of the interjections. The roads expenditure of $1,245m was mentioned by the honourable member for Murray who complains that it is not a record. I cannot count for him, but $1,245m is more than $1,242m. Beyond that I cannot say any more. The amount being spent by this Government is the greatest in history and roads will continue to be a major priority of this Government. If the honourable member wishes to join with the Leader of the Opposition in his campaign to reduce road expenditure, he can go ahead and do so. He will get absolute opposition from every organisation in this country that sees roads as a priority and he will also get opposition from his own colleagues in the National Party of Australia because they keep writing me letters and asking me to spend more on roads. In the interests of road expenditure in this country, I suggest, with the best will in the world, that he sit down with the Leader of the Opposition and reach agreement to support expenditure on roads. I also suggest that he ask him to cease his campaign for cuts in expenditure on roads. If the honourable member will do that I will have something very complimentary to say about him, but if he does not I hope he will not come in here whingeing to me about what has not been done for roads. We are giving roads top priority and they will stay that way. The other matter that was raised by the honourable member for Murray was that of Darwin airport. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the Burke and Wills Highway? Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, ask the honourable member for Murray about the Burke and Wills Highway. He is a National Party member, so why not ask him? Why ask me? Why did he not ask his own shadow Minister? There is no point in asking me about the Opposition's responsibilities. All I can tell the honourable member is that he had a National Party Minister who was responsible for roads for year after year and all the problems that we now have with roads are his responsibility. Honourable members can thank the Opposition. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) is one of the guilty men. Honourable members can thank him for the situation. Honourable members should call a special meeting of the National Party-- Mr Hunt —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: I take great exception to the Minister pointing at a member of this Chamber. He should speak through the Chair. While I am on my feet I might add that it was I, as a member of the National Party, who introduced the bicentennial road program. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Gwydir will resume his seat. The Committee will come to order. The debate is now in the winding-up stage. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am winding up, Mr Deputy Chairman. I believe that roads are one of the most important priorities in the transport system of this country. I wish that the National Party members of the Opposition would call a special meeting at which they could sit down together and work out a considered concord. It is very difficult when I have to meet councils and tell them the priority for roads and admit that back in the Parliament the National and Liberal parties want to cut expenditure, including expenditure on roads. Mr Lloyd —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. That is an untrue statement. We have not made any such statement. All we have said is that the Minister is not being accurate in his statement that this is the highest expenditure ever on roads. In real terms it is a reduction in expenditure. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honour- able member for Murray knows that that is not a point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member for Murray has said publicly that the policies of the Opposition are those that were put in the 1984 election campaign and that they will continue until there is a revision. That policy provided for the abolition of specific purpose Federal funding for arterial roads and local roads. No amount of points of order or denials will get away from that fact. We will not have a bar of that policy. We will continue with the program we have under way-the greatest program ever seen in this country to improve our roads system. The Darwin Airport matter is proceeding. It is under consideration and review, as I have said. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the railway line? Mr PETER MORRIS —I would be interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition express his support for the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. To date he has not supported it but when he does it will be a very interesting situation. I again remind honourable members that it is no good their appealing to me in this way because I know that they are not telling me the truth. The Leader of the Opposition says that the real policy is to cut expenditure, so I suggest that honourable members sort it out. The last matter that I want to mention was raised by the honourable member for Murray. It was in respect of East-West Airlines Ltd and the answers I gave to questions he asked a few weeks ago. Those answers were accurate. If he wishes to continue to believe some of the misinformation provided to him, that is his option; but the answers that were provided were accurate. They stand. Subsequent to the answer being given in respect of East-West's application to import a fifth F28 aircraft, the information East-West was asked to provide on 26 July has been provided. It is now being assessed and the matter is under consideration. That is the position. The answer I gave then is correct. I commend honourable members for their participation in this debate. I reiterate that under this Government we have seen the greatest improvements in national transport services since Federation. That improvement will continue and transport will continue to be a major priority of this Government. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $222,687,000. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $171,530,000. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $213,276,000. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(9.09) —At first glance the figures for primary industry look quite good but on closer analysis we come to the conclusion that the Hawke Labor Government has continued to discriminate against farmers and their families. When we deduct the $104.6m rebate of wheat growers' levies-I will explain that; it is the repayment of moneys that should have been repaid to wheat growers last year-we find that primary industry outlays amount overall to only $338m, which is 26 per cent less in dollar terms than the figure for 1974-75, 26 per cent less than it was 10 years ago. When one compares that with increases over the same period of 414 per cent for social welfare, 560 per cent for labour and employment and 658 per cent for public debt interest repayments, one can see that government policies are contributing to the great decline of farm incomes and farm welfare and the ability of farmers generally to withstand the enormous crash for so many of our commodities that has occurred on world markets. One of the really critical things that this Government did was hold up last year the repayment of $104.6m that was owing to the wheat growers-it was their money-to reduce its Budget deficit for presentational purposes. It did that despite the heavy indebtedness of wheat growers. They were funds on which interest could well have been earned and saved. Against that background, some 130 farms which were surveyed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics showed an average debt load at the end of June 1984-over 12 months ago-of $53,700 per farm business. The average wheat farm business owed over $91,000 at the end of June 1984, and the situation would be far worse today. Western Australian wheat growers, on average, are in debt for about $147,000. The Wheat Finance Fund repayments could have been made much earlier, but the Government chose to bleed the wheat growers to solve some of its budgetary problems. When we exclude the repayment of those levies, the total outlays to rural industries are up by a token $12.2m, or 3.8 per cent. However, the total Federal outlays for this financial year will rise by $5.33 billion, or 8.4 per cent. Outlays to manufacturing are up by 33.1 per cent. Mining outlays are up by 26.5 per cent, but for agriculture they will go up by just 3.8 per cent-about half the rate of inflation. On any analysis, there is a case for positive discrimination in favour of the rural industries. All Australians benefit from the export earnings of our farmers, which represent between 40 and 50 per cent of our total export income. Never has there been a time when Australia has needed more exports or foreign exchange to help overcome some of its balance of payments problems and the problems of meeting the interest repayments on a gross foreign debt of about $70 billion. No sector of the economy receives less effective assistance from the Government; yet time and again our farmers are squeezed. The latest tax package discriminates against them and small business people more than it discriminates against anyone else. The current level of net farm income is totally inadequate to service the $6 billion of accumulated debt resulting largely from the extended drought, government financial management and low world prices. Farmers are being slugged with the highest real interest rates in the Western world. These rates bear no relationship to world trends. Last month the commercial banks' prime rate stood at 18.5 per cent in Australia. When we add on the loan administration costs and all other costs, it would have been 20 per cent. The prime rate stood at 12.5 per cent in the United Kingdom, 9.5 per cent in the United States of America, 10 per cent in Canada, 7.5 per cent in West Germany, Holland and Switzerland, and 5.5 per cent in Japan. How on earth can the farmers and the small business sector of this country continue to compete on world markets with a burden of that magnitude? I see two main reasons why interest rates are out of kilter with the world economy. First, the Hawke Government's Budget deficits and monetary policies are forcing up interest rates and thus attracting foreign capital-much of it for speculative purposes-and easing some of the pressures on the balance of payments deficit. This latest cunning Government strategy is propping up the dollar, which has been so badly undermined by flagging world confidence due to a number of factors including this Government's crazy wages policy. Secondly, the prices and incomes accord is preventing adequate discounting of wages and salaries despite the falling exchange rate and our falling production of wealth. Our whole system today is being propped up by borrowings. Our children are going to pay an enormous price. We sit here in a great deal of comfort because we happen to have inherited a golden opportunity from our fathers and grandfathers. But what sort of legacy will we leave our children? We will leave them debt, and a lot of it. Wage increases forming part of the increase in gross domestic product are giving an artificial boost to the national measure of economic growth. Australia's poor overall trading performance, mining and agriculture excluded, and the increasing balance of trade deficit mean that our fully indexed wage increases are not being funded by net increases in real wealth. They are being funded by increased borrowings, both here and abroad. Nobody can deny that. So, to put it in simple terms, we are living on our children's future. It will be our young who will have to pay for our wanton undisciplined greed. The only solution will be a massive increase in export earnings and the production of our farms and mines offer the best hope, especially our farms. I see that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is in the chamber. I know that he has fought a courageous battle for high technology. I know that the Department of Trade had all sorts of great schemes to try to encourage this development. However, the danger in that approach, of course, is that such development would take place at the expense of those established industries that have the capacity, so long as the macro-economics are right, to increase export earnings. There is a case for discrimination in favour of agriculture. Instead, it is being discriminated against. We are heaping intolerable interest rate pressures onto a highly capital intensive sector with returns to capital of less than 2 per cent. The agricultural industries cannot be expected to cope with Labor's anti-rural discrimination. I do not particularly blame the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I think he is doing his best. I do not know that he has fought as hard as he could have. But he is fighting against an attitude. There has been an accumulated ripoff from farmers of $442m in three Budgets. Too many Budgets have introduced savage anti-farmer tax changes, creating an adverse macro-economic environment for farmers. The main feature of the appropriations to agriculture and the pastoral industries is the degree to which the industries fund their own research and development programs. The wool industry has gained enormous benefit from its 8 per cent contribution of gross returns to the market support research promotion and floor price schemes. I must say that I think the Minister has endeavoured to focus attention on this important area of research and promotion. I give him full marks for it because these activities are absolutely fundamental to the long term future of our agricultural industries. Other industries are commendably raising their input to such research programs but this should be not only to their benefit but also to the benefit of Australians generally as these industries are largely export oriented. I am sorry that there is no provision in these estimates for the sugar industry. I hope that the Minister will succeed next week in his negotiations with the industry and the Queensland Government and at least reach some agreement in order to try to help that industry through a very difficult time. I also hope that he will succeed in getting agreement with the dairy industry in the not too distant future. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(9.19) —I wish to address my remarks in this debate to the appropriations of the Department of Primary Industry. In recent months the nation has witnessed an almost unprecedented upsurge of militancy among farmers. It began in Victoria among dairy farmers and, as honourable members would be very much aware, spread to other centres including Canberra. I do not think anyone would deny that very serious problems are affecting the primary sector. In fact, it would be correct to say that there are more uncertainties facing farmers today than at any time since the Great Depression. Those uncertainties are multiple in character and they relate to markets, foreign country pricing policies, internal cost pressures, climatic conditions, overproduction and a lack of price flexibility. I guess that in Australia at any time there is a drought. In fact, my own area around Ballarat is drying out very quickly. The situation is becoming quite desperate in areas of the Mallee to the north-west. All these factors are recognised and they generate a great deal of frustration and anger. They have also led farmers to look for scapegoats rather than the underlying causes. Because of this, they have chosen a convenient scapegoat in the Government. It is unfortunate that many of their leaders who have their own political agendas, namely party political at that, have grasped the opportunity to divert the attention of farmers from the real problems and direct their energies towards attacks upon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). It is not long ago that farmers were proclaiming this Minister for Primary Industry as the most effective Minister for Primary Industry in memory. What has changed? Certainly not the Minister. He is working just as hard and just as effectively as he has ever done. He is striving to help the various commodity areas to become more market conscious and cost effective. He knows the story of cost pressures and he also knows that measures that are aimed at short term goals will not help the industry in the long term. The growth in demand for short term palliatives rather than the development of procedures for ensuring long term stability in the industry is of little assistance to that industry. I suppose that short term palliatives and ad hoc decisions have characterised the response of previous governments to problems facing primary industry. Today we are witnessing the result. Some commodity areas are just not prepared to deal with the extremely difficult circumstances that they are facing. This is particularly evident where unfair market pressures from the European Economic Community and the United States of America are felt. For so long the conservative governments of this country have failed to grasp the significance of the realities of our geo-political position to economic development in this country. They stood flat-footed instead of taking aggressive action to develop new markets in the Asian region. Therefore, while we have some markets in that region they should have been far more developed than they are. No one in this country should be unaware of the marketing problems facing Australian farmers. Our farmers are further hard pressed by the policies of the EEC and the United States of America because of the domestic market disparities. The EEC has a domestic market of 300 million people and the United States has a domestic market of 240 million. Australia has a domestic market of only 15 1/2 million, yet our production potential far outstrips Australia's capacity to absorb any further significant output. This places the Australian farmer in most sectors at a serious disadvantage because he has become export dependent, whereas the European farmer is more protected by the domestic markets and, of course, the iniquitous production subsidies that result in the dumping of residual produce. Honourable members would know that this has most seriously affected the markets of smaller nations as well as those in the Third World. Australia's farmers, as producers, have no peers in the world. They are generally ready to adapt to new and improved technology, new crop varieties and improved farming methods, but they suffer from the problems that I have outlined. They also suffer from a number of other cost-producing factors. In recent years, there have been high levels of world production in a number of commodity areas, such as dairy products and sugar. This world glut has added to the downward pressure on prices. So while farmers face cost increases, they face also a decline in real terms in returns. Between 1983-84 and 1984-85 the decline was 17 per cent in real terms. To be sure, this was not evenly distributed but it has been affecting all sectors. This year, it will be higher. Many farmers have found that their farms have become too small for an economic return and they have been faced with the further problem of having to increase their capital investment requiring long term borrowing. Others have had the added burden of short term borrowing just to keep going. In recent days, it has become clear that the pressure of debt repayments has become too great for a number of these farmers. The prospect of failure and bankruptcy is looming for many farmers. These are critical issues facing our farmers. Solutions are just not in sight and they will not be easy to find. The Government believes that primary industry can be assisted in a number of ways. It believes that the farm sector must be seen to be an integral part of the Australian economy. This must be a prima facie position. Unless this is done, it will result in a distortion in the relationship between the various sectors of the economy-a greater distortion than that which exists. In many respects, this is what has happened over the years. In some instances, this has tended to assist primary industry in the short term only because the benefits have receded over time as measures taken in an ad hoc fashion by previous governments have tended to work against the interest of primary industry. It must also be stated that primary industry has tended to suffer from the action taken by other industries. The legacy of this lack of economic planning is distortion, inertia and resistance to structural change in the industry. The Government had to try to get the economy moving and this it has done very effectively. At the same time, both in the context of interest peculiar to primary industry and interests derived from the inter-relationship of all sectors of the economy, the Government has aimed at ensuring that each sector has a future. As the Minister has said, the costs to farmers are crippling. This is largely because farmers are price takers and not price makers. Other sectors are able to pass on the effects of rising costs through rising prices, but farmers cannot do that. The Government has taken certain action to help farmers cut their costs. Honourable members will be aware of the return of the full rebate on the diesel fuel excise for fuel used for primary production and also the replacement of tariffs on wheat harvesters with a bounty. The Minister also announced an increase of $10.2m for rural industry research, bringing the total to $68.6m, and the government contribution for wool promotion has been increased to $29.6m, an increase of $3.6m. The reduction in meat inspection costs to farmers because of cost absorption and new inspection arrangements will total $24m for 1985-86. The Government has also recognised that part of the problem facing primary industry has been overproduction and in many cases non-viable farms; so the Government has provided $16.83m for rural adjustment and an extra $6m for the dried fruits and wine grape industries and the northern prawn fishery. The Government is concerned to ensure that we gain maximum opportunity to develop markets. For this reason an agricultural attache is to be appointed to Tokyo, a particularly important region for the development of markets. The Government has also decided to take certain budgetary measures for new forward projecting programs and to increase funding for existing measures now. The allocation of $40,000 for the study of agriculture to the year 2000 is one such measure. I want to indicate what the Minister has said about this measure, for it bears out what I have said about the Government's long term commitment to primary industry. He said: The Report will assess major issues and their implications for the development of Australia's rural sector and canvass appropriate policy responses by Government and industry. The production of the Report will be instrumental in providing a longer term perspective within which to frame future agricultural policy. Likewise he has established a Rural and Provincial Affairs Unit within the Department of Primary Industry in recognition of the fact that outside the metropolitan area problems exist that do not have parallels in the metropolitan area and that issues that affect the nation are manifested in different ways outside the cities. This unit will provide information for government consideration of the broad range of issues affecting Australians living outside the capital cities. The national soil conservation program is to be increased by $652,000, to $4,652,000 in 1985-86. This is a far cry from the lack of interest shown by our predecessors. While saying that, I cannot help but suggest that those who are using farmers for their own party political purposes, and they include those who organise the various marches and demonstrations, ought to recognise that the farmers are hardly well served by the Opposition parties. Mr Simmons —There are no marches in Queensland. Mr MILDREN —That is true. Not only that, but also there is little evidence that they would help farmers in the difficult times that lie ahead. I want to make it quite clear that this Government is firmly committed to the interests of primary industry. It has to be because primary industry is such an important sector of Australian life and it contributes such a major component of our import revenue. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(9.29) —This is another Budget and Appropriation Bill that consider it expedient to reward those who contribute little real wealth to Austalia's export income and penalises those still involved in productive activities. The principle of reward for effort has just taken another beating. With this Budget and Appropriation Bill the Government has pushed the cake firmly in the direction of the city and city based industries and away from the country and rural based industries. Since March 1983 the Labor Government's policies have shifted. One can argue about the figure; I think our spokesman for primary industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), suggested some $442m. If we want a quantitative figure, some $648m has been taken away from the rural sector, the rural areas, of Australia. We must realise that our export industries form the basis of our standard of living. Last year agricultural and mining exports contributed 75.2 per cent of our total export earnings, and this legislation is the reward they have had from this Government. It is not good enough for a government to allow services, allowances and infrastructure to be reduced in the highly productive rural and mining areas of Australia. I am not against reductions, but these reductions have been made to our primary producers at a critical period in our export markets. If it were not for the fact that the value of the Australian dollar has fallen by over 20 per cent on a trade weighted basis, the Government would have seen much more than peaceful rallies outside Parliament House. We all know that devaluation has been essential to maintain our competitiveness on export markets, but that competitiveness does not show up too well with the release of the trade deficit for the month of September, which was recorded at something like $216m, up $122m from August; nor does the Budget Papers projection of a trade deficit of something like $10 billion plus for the year give us much comfort. The occurrence of the devaluation is nothing of which the Government should be proud. If it had managed to improve the cost effectiveness of its own infrastructure, reduce the overall level of spending, reduce assistance to favoured secondary industries, and reform the wage fixing system, devaluation would never have reached these levels. Despite the immediate benefits of devaluation, farmers and primary producers are now feeling the delayed impact reflected in rising farm costs. Devaluation has been a double-edged sword. It gives with one hand and takes away with the other. It should never have been used as an excuse for not addressing the real costs this Government has allowed to be put on to the average farmer. The reduction of input costs for our farmers is crucial in maintaining our export markets. It is against this background of the Government's negative priority for rural matters that I want to explore the changing export outlook for Australia's produce. The damage that the European Economic Community and the United States of America are doing to world markets and themselves, through their internal agricultural policies, is common knowledge. We have specifically felt the impact on our sugar, wheat, dairy and meat industries. Both the EEC and the USA are up to their necks in farming subsidies and they are finding it very difficult politically to reverse that direction. It is estimated that this year the United States Government will spend the staggering figure of $20 billion on subsidies, price support and other agricultural programs. The EEC spends around $55.5 billion all up on its farmers. The average effective rate of protection for a wide range of agricultural products in the EEC is almost 160 per cent. In comparison, at the height of the recent drought crisis, the effective rate of support for Australia's agricultural products was 16 per cent. Subsidisation has the effect of unrealistically maintaining land values by isolating the farmer against market prices. The EEC and the US have unwittingly promoted inefficiencies and overproduction. If this Government had slightly more foresight it would realise that its recent tax package will create the same circumstances in Australia that have led the US and the EEC down the path of subsidisation. The Government will force the farming community into an intolerable situation. When the predictable occurs these measures will structurally change capital investment throughout Australia. As private investment dries up in rural Australia, so will the ability of our farmers to remain viable. Against this background, the Appropriation Bills we are debating tonight must be seen in the context of the proposed changes in the taxation system. All hounourable members appreciate that about 23 per cent of Australian farmers require off-farm income to sustain their farming enterprises. Most other sections of business can offset income ensuring that unprofitable business may be supported by profitable business in the same group of companies. In the past, we have benefited from the enthusiasm and long term economic view of the so-called Pitt Street farmers. I assure honourable members that we owe much of the excellence of the Western Australian wine industry to this very group, which has had the financial resources to develop long term farming enterprises. At the same time, it has provided an influx of funds to rural areas. It is also important that we consider the cost of farm labour. Since 1972, when the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam declared that the Government should be a model employer, the Government has generally paid a higher wage than private enterprise could afford. To redress this imbalance private enterprise has generally offered fringe benefits to employees. To tax these fringe benefits at the employer level will place an impossible burden on business and farmers to maintain their employee's remuneration packages. It will have little effect on government as the employers will adjust their accounting practices accordingly. As an example, the Western Australian State award for a farm worker with a trade certificate is $240.70 per week, based on a six-day week. If the farmer did not provide a house and subsidised food and petrol how would he attract workers? The farmer cannot pay any more. His average net weekly earnings are only about $135 per week. In what sort of predicament do these arbitrary changes to the status quo place the farmer? It is important in this debate that we understand what motivates a farmer in trying to improve his situation. Traditionally, an individual might start work on a farm, become a share farmer or dealer in rural produce, purchase a small farm, upgrade it and sell it to purchase another farm and so on until a viable property has been purchased. At one stroke this Government has stopped this method of becoming a farmer. It has destroyed incentive at each turn, and the attitude which ferments new ideas and creates new business opportunities will wither under its new capital gains tax. All these changes work in the opposite direction to what is needed if our farm exports are to remain competitive during the difficult times ahead. During the shake-out between the European Economic Community and the United States, Australian farmers will suffer unless their input costs are substantially reduced. The United States again has recently developed, as we all know, a special export enhancement scheme as a direct consequence of the EEC's common agricultural policy. Middle Eastern countries, such as Algeria and Egypt, will derive much of the benefit of this scheme. About a third of our wheat exports go to the Middle East. We are quite vulnerable in this type of confrontation between those two great trading groups. The significant conclusion which can be arrived at from all this is that it is in Australia's interest to demonstrate to the EEC that we can develop policies which are less costly. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has undertaken a study of the effect of the common agricultural policy on some key indicators within the EEC. The policy has the effect of lowering wages, reducing manufacturing exports and, in net terms, contributing to unemployment. The United States is experiencing similar problems although its political system will ensure that the reality of its policies are faced much sooner. From all accounts, a bumper crop has been predicted by the United States Government, which will result in lower commodity prices. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(9.39) —I am pleased to join this debate and to have a few words to say about the importance of the primary industry sector in this Budget. I begin by making my contribution in terms of the reactions from certain sections of the community, both before and after the Budget was delivered. The Four Corners program which went to air the night before the Budget featured an interesting debate between the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) facing a group of farmers. During that program the reporter asked Mr Ian McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation, what the Budget must contain in order to satsify the needs of the rural sector. Mr McLachlan said: The budget must get rid of some taxes on fuel and here I'd like to reiterate that we're not interested in a subsidy because the removal of the tax by no definition amounts to the subsidy and some tariffs and taxes on agricultural chemicals and on agricultural equipment. He went on to make a comment about the fact that he would be absolutely horrified if the Government were able to sneak a capital gains tax into this Budget, and concluded by saying: . . . quite frankly, all we would like to see from the budget is to get rid of some of the impositions on us. I will turn to the capital gains tax in a moment. I refer to the key points mentioned by Mr McLachlan, representing the farming sector, and the responses to them in the Budget. First of all, honourable members would be aware that the Budget provided for a full rebate for the diesel fuel excise for fuel used in primary production, which is an extra saving to producers of about $35m for a full year and reduces the price by about 2.4 cents a litre. The tariff on imported harvesters was replaced with a bounty, at a cost to the Government of $14m a year. I might add that the tariff was put on by the previous Government. The Government is awaiting a report, to be delivered in February, from the Industries Assistance Commission on chemicals and plastics, which is likely to lead to a reduction in the price of agricultural chemicals through the removal of tariffs on imported agro-chemicals. So the farmers have been given another year's reprieve from the threat to remove fertiliser subsidies-contrary to the interim findings of the IAC-at a cost of $55.6m in 1985-86. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) mentioned capital gains taxation. I do not pretend for one moment that there is a great enthusiasm in the bush for the imposition of capital gains taxation, but I put to the House that by and large the reaction in the bush has been somewhat muted to the decision of the Government as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this House. In fact, some of the reaction, particularly from some of the more conservative elements in this House, can be described quite fairly as selective indignation. The tax was indeed modest and it applied from a prospective level only, rather than retrospectively. The real concern in rural Australia was with retrospectivity on capital taxation. If honourable members talk to farmers within their electorates, they will find that that is the issue about which they were really concerned. One of the more important initiatives announced in the Budget was that the Government had initiated moves aimed at marketing Australia's primary products in a more effective manner. There is a $7m program for the meat and livestock industry to encourage the use of objective meat export trade descriptions, longer term export market studies and national reports on product descriptions. There is a $3.6m increase in the Government's contribution overall to the wool industry, taking that level of promotion to $29.6m. Outlays on rural industry research funding, as mentioned by my colleague the honour- able member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), were up significantly by $10.2m to $68.6m. I refer briefly to some of the editorial responses to the Budget after it was delivered in this House on 19 August. The comment was made in the Australian Financial Review of 21 August that the Government has increased its overall assistance to the farming sector by 37 per cent, or $116m, and spending on specific assistance programs for farmers has almost doubled under the Budget, making the farmers the most assisted sector of the economy. No one in this Government is trying to pretend that that is not an important area which needs help because it is a very important aspect of our overall economy. As so many people here have commented, the importance of the agricultural sector to Australia's national wealth is certainly not disputed in any way. While assistance given to farmers grew by 37 per cent, total industry assistance funding increased by only 5 per cent. I think that indicates some level of support by this Government for the rural sector. Some other comments were made in various editorials throughout the nation following the Budget. The schemes to market and promote Australia's meat and wool will attempt to arrest the downward trend in prices that farmers receive. Everyone is aware of the tremendous cost-price squeeze that exists in the rural sector. But, again, this is nothing new for the agricultural sector. Ten or 20 years ago people were concerned about farm costs and the relatively small income that was coming off the farm. I remind honourable members, in contrasting farm costs under this Government with those under the previous Government, that whilst under the Fraser Government between 1976 and 1983 farm costs rose, on average, by about 10 or 11 per cent, under this Government those costs have been severely restricted and the rise is down to 6 per cent. Yet some of the comments we hear from the other side of the chamber indicate that those opposite are certainly not prepared to acknowledge this support. The Minister for Primary Industry gave a rather interesting speech to the National Press Club a week after the Budget. I think it is worth while reflecting on some of the points that he made. These points have often been overlooked by the political opponents of this Government and people who, for one reason or another, refuse to acknowledge the Government's positive contribution to primary industry. The Minister said that the 1985-86 Budget is good news for three main reasons. The first reason that he gave was that it sets the right macro-economic policy to encourage growth and minimise costs, including farm costs. We cannot have it both ways. There has been a tremendous call in the community for the Government to reduce the size of its spending. Yet, on the other hand, as soon as any attempts are made to reduce government spending in a responsible way there is immediate criticism, because every single industry and interest group can put up a special case as to why it should be quarantined from such a restriction. The second reason that the Minister gave concerned the provision of a set of initiatives designed to help those primary industries most squeezed by reduced returns. The Government has made some very genuine attempts to assist some industries in Australia that are in absolutely dire straits. The sugar industry is one significant industry that is in a tremendous amount of trouble at present, yet we have seen up north the political opportunism of the Queensland Premier in playing cheap politics with the lives of sugar farmers in that area, thereby jeopardising any genuine assistance that can be provided to those people. The third reason that the Minister gave was that the Budget continues the Government's institutional reforms and support for the basic resources needed for farming. This is a fact that is certainly not disputed in any way. This Government's decision to float the Australian dollar was an important one. The fact that during 1984-85 it meant something like an extra $500m to the farm sector is very often neglected in some of the comments that are made by farm leaders throughout the community. It seems to me in light of some of the criticism that is made of the Budget by members of the agrarian socialist party who occupy the benches opposite, and indeed by some of the farmer leaders in Australia, that their memories are indeed short. They are not prepared to give credit where credit is due and to be selectively indignant about any reasonable decisions that are made by this Government in response to the genuine problems facing primary industry in Australia. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.49) —This Committee debate is on the appropriations for the Department of Trade, the Department of Resources and Energy and the Department of Primary Industry. I want tonight to focus my remarks on the appropriations for the Department of Primary Industry. Before doing so, I turn briefly to the Department of Resources and Energy. I remind the House that on 7 May 1985 I placed on notice question No. 934, which still remains unanswered and which was aimed at getting some information out of the Government about the direction it was taking on the question of resources and energy, particularly in the area of water resources. I asked the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, which water resources projects had been initiated in 1984-85. I asked for some details about them and then I asked which water resource projects were in progress in 1984-85 and I sought some information about those projects. That question, as I said, remains unanswered, and it remains unanswered, I suggest, largely because in the area of resources and energy-particularly in the area of water resources-there has been not just too little action, but no action from this Government. Some community employment program projects have been directed to the area of water resources. The Forward Estimates from the 1984-85 Budget to the 1987-88 Budget reflect a fall in the money allocated for water resource projects. The fall would be even more rapid if the figures were considered in real terms and some allowance was made for information. I remind the House that when Senate Estimates Committee E was considering the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy, Senator Sir John Carrick asked Mr Manderson, with regard to the River Murray Commission: Could we have some brief indication of the nature of the works involved? If this cannot be done verbally, a written statement would suffice. Mr Manderson said: The main item- the main item, if you please- involves remedial work at Hume Dam and the installation of a post-tensioning system . . . estimated to cost $11.1m. A little later Senator Sir John Carrick asked: And the remainder of the estimate? Mr Manderson said: The remainder of the estimates for capital works refer to the replacement of cranes used in the operation of the Commission's locks and weirs. I am not underrating the importance of that replacement work. I merely make the point that in the area of resources and energy, far from there being new projects, we have projects which involve nothing more than the replacement of existing facilities. The Government cannot afford to pretend that the good water that is currently available to the majority of Australians as the result of a series of good seasons will continue. Unless this series of good seasons is used to equip us for the sad inevitability of a coming drought, we will be even less able to survive the next dry spell than we were the disastrous drought of 1982-83. I turn to the Department of Primary Industry. Much has been made tonight of the beleaguered state of Australia's primary producers. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has already eloquently revealed the fact that the average debt on a wheat farm is $90,000. I make the point that that debt has been accumulated not by a wheat farmer who was keen to be acquisitive-as would be portrayed by Government members-but by a wheat farmer who was forced to go into debt in order to survive. The other point that has been made by the honourable member for Gwydir and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) is that no one receives less from the Government than farmers, the rural people of Australia. I reinforce that point by quoting the mouth of the President of the National Farmers Federation-that the farmers of Australia would be prepared to forgo even the little that they receive from this Government if they could be relieved of the enormous burden they carry on behalf of the rest of Australia in the form of tariffs and our centralised wage fixing system and in the form of the in-built costs that they cannot escape. I invite honourable members to find another group which is prepared to forgo what the Government offers. The members of this group have made that offer, if they could be relieved of the burden they carry on behalf of the rest of Australia. I gladly concede to the Minister for Primary Industry that it is difficult to be precise when referring to the figures for the primary industry allocation because, as we all realise, the allocation under the Primary Industry portfolio is a complex one. I want to use the figures that Senator Walsh used when he was addressing the Senate Estimates Committee. Senator Walsh said-- Mr Kerin —They would be right. Mr ANDREW —I am pleased that the Minister sees these as accurate figures. Senator Walsh said that the Department of Primary Industry's expenditure for this year would be $765.3m, but on the figures that he gave, levies paid by farmers will earn the industry $455.4m and the export inspection charge will generate a further $121.9m, making the effective appropriation $213.3m. Does the House realise that the clients-those who receive the services of the DPI-pay 72 per cent of its expenditure? What other group in Australia picks up that proportion of the cost of the service given it? More than that, this group picks it up on top of the tax burden that its members already pay as citizens of the Commonwealth. Those people, of course, are not the so-called filthy rich. In fact, in 1985 both the ratio of prices received to prices paid and the real value of prices received by farmers in the Australian community will be the lowest since 1965. Mr Hawker —Since when? Mr ANDREW —Since 1965. In spite of that, they are picking up this enormous proportion of the allocation that the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) have made so much of this evening. In the brief time I have tonight I turn to what is a mystery to me-the Export Inspection Service. The Budget Papers reveal that in 1982-83 the Export Inspection Service cost $67.9m to administer. In 1985-86 it will cost $102.5m, an increase of 50 per cent in four years. Of that Export Inspection Service, 90 per cent is for meat inspection. Over that period in which the cost of export inspection has risen by 50 per cent, the amount of meat exported has decreased by one third. The Minister may well say that there are complications there because the States administer some of the funds, and I accept that, but the point is that that cost is still being borne 50 per cent by the farmers of Australia and the other 50 per cent by taxpayers, many of whom, of course, are farmers. When he was in Opposition, the Minister rightly demanded, and got, prompt action to the meat subsitution scandal. The action was decisive in order for the Parliament to protect the overseas image of Australia's primary producers. Mr Hawker —He didn't do the same at Mudginberri. Mr ANDREW —Today we face a dithering approach to, as the honourable member for Wannon has said, the disastrous Mudginberri dispute, the ongoing dispute of meat inspectors, wharf stoppages, airport stoppages, and now the threat of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to reclaim the fines which it has been ordered to pay by the court. In fact, the AMIEU is treating those court fines with contempt and emulating that BLF character, Norm Gallagher. As recently as this week on the question of meat inspection charges Mr Bill Bodman, Acting President of the Cattle Council of Australia, urged the Minister to stand firm. Mr Bodman said: The producers, who pay 50 percent of the cost of operating the Export Inspection Service will not have a bar of paying one cent to those inspectors for the period during which they refused to obey the Minister's directions. The honourable member for Calare has made much of the fact that this Budget was an appropriation for farmers. Too little has been made of the simple uncomfortable truth that farm income has fallen by 22 per cent, according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(9.59) —This debate, on the estimates for the Departments of Trade, Resources and Energy and Primary Industry, has revealed many of the very important weaknesses in the effective administration of these departments, and of the important roles that they play, by the present Government. I want to devote just a few moments to the trade aspect. It has such severe implications for our economy, our prospects in terms of realisations on the important products that we must market overseas, and the consequential effect on primary producers and other sections of the community-not the least being manufacturing industry-flowing right back to the whole gamut of employment and the virtual structure of our economy. The present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) seems to have been, since his appointment to that office, almost obscure in that role. In fact, there have been fewer statements, there has been less activity, and undoubtedly there has been less interest on the part of the Minister in his important role as Minister for Trade than in other activities. One finds him making statements on education and on youth affairs as though this was the dominant part of his responsibility-and this in the face of the disastrous figures we find in respect of our terms of trade. Figures just released show us that the long awaited turn-around in Australia's trade performance expected from devaluation of the dollar has again failed to materialise. The September figures show a balance of trade deficit of $216m-an increase of $122m on the previous month's figure. What does this reflect? The figures tell us that there is a fall of 7 per cent in imports, and that it is offset by an 11 per cent drop in exports. Seasonally adjusted, exports fell by 7 per cent while imports actually increased by 3 per cent. This spells disaster, a disaster of the kind that this country just cannot face. It is urgent and imperative that the Minister for Trade and the Government take a stronger role and that they recognise that passing the buck from one Minister to another is just not good enough. In primary industry matters concerning important trade issues, we find that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is the front runner, and yet it is not his direct responsibility. The responsibility of the Minister for Trade is to be out there leading in terms of the negotiations and the day-to-day activities that are necessary to promote the trade of this country. Mr Barry Jones —Where do you think he is now? Mr IAN ROBINSON —That interjection is very interesting, because the Minister for Trade has devoted less time to the task that he is undertaking now than any of his predecessors in the last two or three decades. It is lamentable that we just do not get responses from the Minister, in terms of statements in this House, public statements or anything else that adequately equip us for what we are observing at present. Let us just take for a moment the consequences of this. We now owe about $70 billion, and that figure looks like soaring to $103 billion by 1988. Of course, the cost of servicing that debt is enormous. It is soaking up about a third of all our export earnings, and taking away any prospects of a growth factor in response to our trading success as it reflects back into the overall economy. Interest payments gobble up the combined export earnings from coal, non-ferrous metals, iron ore and so on. But when we think of the contribution that primary industry makes to our export earnings, it is clear, of course, that it is in that area in particular that a greater effort is required. I turn to what is occurring in respect of the European Economic Community. I believe that the Minister for Trade accompanied the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry on their last mission to Brussels; but there was no real initiative, no positive action and no response on his return to this country. In fact, in the main the response was left to the Minister for Primary Industry. Apparently he is expected to shoulder a dual role and, in the process, he is expected to try to explain away the lack of success in promoting exports in all of the fields that are so vital and important. The remarks by those who have spoken this evening reflect very clearly the fall not only in the level of exports themselves but also in the actual financial return. This is not good enough if we are to maintain a growth factor in this country, which is imperative if we are to avoid real disaster in the months ahead, and certainly in the next two or three years, in the face of the economic climate that we see on the horizon. It is important for another reason. Perhaps the Minister for Primary Industry is engaging in some of the responsibilities in this field at the moment, but I refer to the battle that is coming up in terms of the EEC and the United States of America on what has been announced by the United States on the very vexed question of the trade problems that confront countries such as Australia and the United States regarding the realisation of important primary industry products and so many of the vital areas that concern us. I refer to the sugar, beef, dairy produce and the fat lamb industries and the smaller industries which are of great consequence to those engaged in them. Unless we see a turnaround in the attitude that is being adopted by the present Government in this respect there is no doubt at all that we will face very serious consequences. There is one matter that is very pertinent in this respect and I believe it is relevant in terms of the debate tonight. I refer to what is nothing short of abdication of responsibility by the Minister. But let us look at another aspect. If we are to promote trade it must be done by those who are equipped to do the job. Just a few months ago the Minister for Trade announced the appointment of David Combe as Trade Commissioner in Vancouver. The Press release stated: Mr Dawkins said that the Trade Commissioner Service needed people with good promotional and representational skills such as Mr Combe possesses. The Government reached the conclusion that Mr Combe's widely recognised talents and experience would be an asset and that he should not be barred from such an appointment for reasons that have been the subject of public inquiry and have been satisfactorily dealt with. I have no dispute with the fact that that was the outcome of the inquiry, but what I do take issue with is the fact that this appointment was made at a crucial time in the promotion of our Trade Commissioner Service around the world. It impinges upon the important aspects of recognition of that Trade Commissioner Service. I believe that it was a very unwise appointment, a very inappropriate appointment, at that time and remains so. If we have lack of confidence in the Trade Commissioner Service, it means that along the line there is lack of confidence in Australia's export effort. I conclude by saying that our responsibility in trade is second to none, yet we find this very poor record in the last six or nine months as far as the Government is concerned. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry, who I suppose is the only hope on the horizon, will have some influence in persuading his colleague to shoulder more of the responsibility. Certainly, it is lamentable to find the situation which exists today in this very important field. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.09) —I wish to say a few words about the Australian water resources program. It concerns me that more Commonwealth expenditure is not going towards this important developmental area. Not long ago the report of the Department of Resources and Energy entitled `Water 2000' envisaged a program that would take water development in Australia to the year 2000 and beyond. It appears from the estimates we are discussing that there is no possibility we will complete that program and be able to incorporate the new works that it is so necessary to undertake in Australia. Only this morning I read the 1983-84 report of the Australian Water Resources Council, which indicated that the only works that could possibly be completed before the turn of the century were the works that are presently being undertaken. The Commonwealth has a very important role to play so far as water resources are concerned. Under the Constitution, the States have certain resources and the administration available to carry out not only development works but also maintenance works, that is, works relating to water resources and the application of water on the farm and in other ways. The Commonwealth has the funds and the ability to encourage the undertaking of national schemes. Referring to the Burdekin Dam and other national schemes, I am delighted to see that $20m is being allocated for water resources in that area. However, under the estimates before the House not a penny is allocated for urban and domestic water and sewerage works. Mr Holding —What? Mr COWAN —For urban works, domestic works. I might be wrong and, if I am, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) may be able to point out where. It is important for the sake of primary industry that we continue to have a very virile water resources program. Our continent is particularly dry; we are subject to droughts and floods. I believe that the great bulk of Australian people want to see more of their taxpayers' money go into productive works that are for the benefit of the nation. Too much of our funds is being diverted from important development issues to non-productive works and schemes. I could mention various departments, but because of the time factor I will not do so. I appeal to the Government. When we were on the treasury bench I do not believe that we measured up to our responsibility in regard to water resources. It is essential that these works be undertaken. I know that environmental questions are asked about them. That is natural, and I agree with it. There are people who say that, because of environmental factors, water resources works should not be undertaken, that they might be a waste of taxpayers' money. But for the economic development and growth of this country it is essential that more national development works be undertaken and that we give the States every possible support. If there had been a natural economist on the Endeavour when Captain Cook came to Australia, this country would never have been founded. We cannot afford to adopt that attitude. We must continue with practical water resources schemes. That is the background to the measure that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) and others have spoken about this evening. Primary industry will make demands. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics maintains that by the turn of the century there will be a need for 25 per cent more water conservation in Australia to meet the demands of agriculture. At our present rate of water resources growth, only 8 per cent or 9 per cent more water conservation will be available. We do not want to see a diversion of the resources we have from one essential form of agriculture to another important form of agriculture; so this issue becomes very important. I was very disappointed, as I am sure was every honourable member on this side of the House, that our bicentennial national water resources program, which envisaged an expenditure of $640m, has been scrapped by the Labor Government. Where would one find a better way to celebrate the Bicentenary of Australia than by spending it on water? Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Mr COWAN —I am pleased that the honourable member for Charlton agrees with me, because it affects his area in regard to not only the agricultural scene but also the domestic supply of water. A few years ago the Commonwealth said that it would assist the States with domestic supplies and sewerage. We talk about privatisation. In the United States of America one finds large water resource schemes being carried out by private enterprise. Mr Holding —Where? Mr COWAN —California. One sees them there and in other parts of America. There people and companies are induced to come into the agricultural area to develop water schemes themselves and to sell water. If a government cannot carry out these schemes in an advancing and developing country like Australia, why can we not have the foresight to attract other people to develop the water resources of this nation? The trouble is that Labor members think too much of other socialised issues that will not assist the productivity of this great country. In common with the honourable member for Wakefield, I want to stress the great importance of water resources to Australia. Water is like blood in one's body. If we do not have the water, we will not be able to meet our commitments to agriculture in the decades ahead. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.17) —In speaking briefly on estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy, I want to relate the sphere of interest of that Department to the major change in basic economic strategy in Australia that has occurred in the last two years. It was discussed recently in the journal Syntec. In the latter 1970s a strategy for development and growth in the 1980s was constructed based on investment in commodity mining and processing. The rising price of oil would lift the value of Australia's abundant supply of oil substitutes, especially coal and natural gas. The prices of the commodities that we exported would grow faster than the prices of imports, so a steady improvement in our terms of trade and increasing real incomes could be confidently anticipated. On this basis the country could run for a period larger and larger current account deficits associated with maximising borrowing from abroad, both for the new development projects as such and for the infrastructure-roads, power, harbours and so on-necessary to support them. The cost of such borrowing would be more than met in the accelerating export returns that would accrue from the array of developments. It was this, the so-called resources investment boom, which provided the main thrust to development, the engine of growth in the economy under the previous Government. I submit that it was a very effective one-until in 1982 the onset of world recession and the deepening drought in this country, as well as the significant wage push of 1981-82, brought on the deep recession of 1982-83. What I want to draw the attention of the Chamber to is the fact that from the date of accession of the Fraser Government at the end of 1975 to the cyclical peak in economic activity around September 1981 the number of jobs generated in the economy was upwards of 530,000. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief table prepared by the Parliamentary Library that sets out these figures. Leave granted. The table read as follows: EMPLOYED PERSONS-AUSTRALIA Unit-Thousand Persons Seasonally Adjusted Feb. Mar. May Aug. Sep. Nov. 1975 5,827.7 n.a. 5,836.3 5,870.5 n.a. 5,931.2 1976 5,949.9 n.a. 5,964.6 5,926.7 n.a. 5,942.5 1977 5,987.4 n.a. 6,005.8 6,022.9 n.a. 5,984.1 1978 *6,000.7 6,011.0 6,036.3 6,042.9 5,997.7 6,034.5 1979 6,066.9 6,064.9 6,074.0 6,116.1 6,128.3 6,187.3 1980 6,225.8 6,243.6 6,272.1 6,320.3 6,325.6 6,336.1 1981 6,378.0 6,388.7 6,409.7 6,433.0 6,463.9 6,423.9 1982 6,457.2 6,457.0 6,438.6 6,417.7 6,402.2 6,351.8 1983 6,297.0 6,271.5 6,270.1 6,276.9 6,316.6 6,357.8 1984 6,401.2 6,464.5 6,487.8 6,500.2 6,530.5 6,542.2 1985 6,614.5 6,594.1 6,629.3 6,684.9 6,741.4 . . * Changes in timing and length of survey period. Quarterly to Feb. 1978, monthly thereafter. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The process of this growth in jobs was a bit slow over the years from 1976 to 1979, when the primary task of the Fraser Government was to bend the economy back into shape after the destructive Whitlam years. Thereafter, it accelerated and, as is clearly seen from the figures, over that period of the Fraser Government from its inception to the cyclical peak around September 1981, some 530,000 jobs were generated in the economy-and the unemployment rate at that latter time was 5.6 per cent compared with the unemployment rate of 8 per cent today. Mr Robert Brown —What was the period ? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The table has been incorporated. The honourable member can take his time and have a look at it. Turning to the Hawke Government, the same table shows that the increase in jobs from March 1983 to September 1985, which includes the recent surge, is in the order of 470,000. That is, of course-and I think this is the point that the honourable member was making-a much shorter period. On the other hand, the Hawke Government benefited from riding the `bounce-back' from the 1982 recession following the breaking of the drought and had the advantage, especially in respect of getting inflation down, of the Fraser Government's wages pause, as well as sharing in the upswing in the world's business cycle. In conclusion, I want to stress this point. The frequent taunting of the Opposition by Government members to the effect that the Hawke Government has created, to use their quaint phrase, more jobs since 1983 than the Fraser Government generated in its tenure of office has no basis in fact, as will be seen from these figures, and, indeed, is false and misleading. As I have said, up to that cyclical peak towards the end of 1981, and largely over the two to two-and-a-half years preceding that, there was generated under the Fraser Government upwards of 530,000 jobs. That figure is comparable with what is now happening. Of course, the economy this time has not so far attained its cyclical peak, but I suggest that may not be too far off. So I say to Government members opposite that I will certainly join them and cheer when, and if, the resilient Australian economy generates 500,000 jobs since the Government took office. But I warn Government members that there will surely be a cyclical peak. The resources development strategy that I have referred to has run foul of a secular slow-down in commodity prices, stemming from the effective world market adjustment, largely unanticipated, to the high oil price and the threat, indeed, at the moment of an oil slump with all its ramifications for other commodities, and from the marked slow-down in inflation in the world's dominant economy, the United States. As an alternative strategy, the Hawke Government appears to have opted for a devaluation-led process of `efficient import substitution', as the respected journal Syntec put it. My fear is that, with this Government's policies resulting in costs and prices in Australia rising well ahead of those of our major trading partners, that strategy will not be sustainable through 1986. At some time, maybe sooner than later, economic activity will peak and so unhappily will the employment gains. In summary, with resources development as the main engine of economic growth, and following a period of repairing the damage done to the economy during the Whitlam years, employment-the number of jobs generated-increased under the Fraser Government by upwards of 530,000 to the cyclical peak in about September 1981. Under the Hawke Government employment has risen by in excess of 450,000 jobs, assisted by the good start given by the Fraser Government's wages pause and the breaking of the drought, and, as I have pointed out, with a changed or changing engine of growth. The cyclical peak has not yet been reached, but I warn the Government that, with its policies, that is not too far down the track. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.25) —I thank the honourable members who have addressed these various estimates. Most of the members spoke about the primary industry portfolio, a few spoke about trade and others on resources and energy. Most speakers tonight focused on some of the concerns and protests of the rural community, but not much was put forward by way of new solutions. We were interested to hear the reading of Syntec by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). He referred to economic history and cyclical peaks. It followed the Opposition's general theme of doom and gloom. In terms of new solutions in the farm sector, I am not very much attracted to some of the themes in the honourable members' speeches which reflect some idea of a nostalgic revival. Whatever government is in power, the main thing that any government can do for the farm sector-I must keep emphasising it-is to get the economy right and to make Australians more internationally competitive. While I can appreciate the fact that people are putting pressure on this Government to get the economy right more quickly and that there is an urgency about it, by and large we are doing very well. Part of the reason the farmers are so upset at the agro-political level is that they cannot really quite handle a Labor government that is giving non-inflationary economic growth. Jobs are being created; we are holding inflation down roughly to about five per cent or six per cent; the floating of the dollar has made this country face economic reality such as nothing else has; we are cutting the deficit; we are getting the profit share up; and in terms of our tax on the rorts and the taxation system, we are fundamentally changing the direction of investment in this economy towards more and more productive areas. For example, we have got the deficit down to about 2.1 per cent of gross domestic product. It was about five per cent. This is a record drop this year of about $1.8 billion. The prices and incomes accord is giving us a decent wage situation. One anticipates a wage increase at the next hearing of about 3.8 per cent and at the next hearing an increase of about 2.8 per cent. That is a lot better than some of the people opposite, the gloom and doom merchants, would endorse. The United Kingdom has squeezed out a 7.5 per cent wage increase with the monetarism of Mrs Thatcher. It has an inflation rate of about 13 per cent. In the United States of America also, conservative economics-really populist economics-is being practised. Against other countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, on all those measures, we are doing well economically, even on interest rates. I will get on to that matter in a moment. We are doing everything possible to provide the climate for getting the economy right for stimulating international competitiveness. There are problems with trade, interest rates and the balance of payments. I will get on to those matters in a moment. I will address very quickly the comments made by honourable members opposite particularly because everything that was said from my side of the chamber was pretty sensible. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Deputy Leader of the National Party, said that the figures are down. All I can say is that it is nearly impossible to get comparability one year to the next in the primary industry portfolio. Figures go in and out. For example, in the last Budget there was still a carry-over of the moneys being pumped into the rural sector for the two drought subsidy schemes-one on fodder and the other on interest. That has now gone out of the Budget estimates this year and that is why the figure is down. There are quite a few items like that with programs that are ending, so one can never get strict comparability. In terms of the additional money we are spending, the other day in Townsville the Cabinet agreed to providing money for the sugar industry. Hopefully, that money will be spent in this year if we can get the Queensland National Party or the industry up there to agree to ways and means of getting the money. Part of what the honourable member was saying was, in a way, that there should be more subsidies, but I do not think that was exactly his intention. I do not think that anyone sees any point in getting into the business of competitive subsidisation when one is up against estimates of subsidisation of anything up to $40 billion in the United States and up to $60 billion in the European Economic Community. As he said, the emphasis must really be in other areas. Other areas that are causing problems at present for the farm sector are fuel costs and interest rates. We know that; but in terms of the economic measures we have in force, some of the problems are unavoidable and in other areas we are taking action so that there is compensation. On fuel cost increases, in terms of the import parity pricing policy and its interaction with the floating of the dollar, there was effectively a more than sufficient offset for the increase in the fuel price in the May period. It is also pretty important for us to analyse the situation so that we can find new solutions and thus proceed in government on a more consistent path, rather than trying to hark back to a more glorious age. I think there is a great need to analyse the problems rather than just simply focusing on them and saying: `Look, there is a lot of debt around; that is necessarily bad'. Debt is not necessarily bad; it does not necessarily reflect the fact that it is all about economic or farm hardship. Mr White —It is like AIDS-it's all right if you do not have it. Mr KERIN —The honourable member would know about AIDS up on the Gold Coast, I suppose. If one looks at the farm sector in terms of indebtedness, one sees that for the sheep only sector of primary industry 33 per cent of that sector has zero debt. Similarly, 41.7 per cent of the beef only sector has zero debt, as have 24 per cent of the sheep-beef sector and 21 per cent of the wheat sector. I will not bore the Chamber with all the figures, but if one goes through the list one finds a very large proportion with little or no debt. For example, in the beef only industry, 57 per cent have zero debt or up to $10,000 debt. There are still significant numbers in the farm sector with no debt. There is also a substantial level of liquid assets. Some figures point out that the farm sector is still a net lender to the rest of the economy. If that is true-and there are figures to substantiate it at present-farmers are actually gaining from higher interest rates. Across the board the debt-capital ratio is about 8 or 9 per cent. From the information we can get from public sources and also from the private sector and banks particularly, we can honestly say that there are sections of the rural sector that are facing particularly difficult financial circumstances, but the situation should not be generalised for the rural sector as a whole. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics calculates that there has been an increase in real terms of rural indebtedness over the period from 30 June 1984 to 30 June 1985 of between 3.8 per cent and 4.8 per cent. That is not particularly large and discussions that we have held with the major trading banks and pastoral houses indicate that the increases are due in part to the buoyant situation in the sheep and beef industries, rather than rural hardship. I just wish to make the point that indebtedness is not necessarily a measure of farm hardship at all. There is also a lot of emphasis on Australia's external debt and no one is downplaying that. The Commonwealth debt has increased throughout 1985, due mainly again to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. About 60 per cent of that debt is held in Australian dollar terms; therefore the devaluation has effectively put up the debt. There is about $12 billion of Commonwealth debt, but we have official reserve assets far beyond that. The really big increase is in private debt, which has gone from $6.5 billion in 1980 to $42.3 billion in 1985. I am quoting here from Budget Paper No. 1. A lot of that debt is associated with resource projects, such as the North West Shelf project. In other words, it is true investment for return. We need to make some of those qualifications. There is a lot of total public and publicly guaranteed debt in non-monetary enterprises. If one looks at all of these things one sees that part of that is an accumulation of the resources boom that was not, and part of it is associated again with investment by such authorities as water boards and so on. Australian lending overseas amounts to about $2.9 billion. One of the ways we may be able to get out of some of our problems is for there to be more foreign investment and we will be looking at those sorts of questions. Interest rates are worrying the farm sector at present. Interest rate determination is not simple. A complex set of factors impact on interest rates and these include, typically, the stance of monetary policy, inflationary expectations, the relative balances and supply and demand for funds, the current account deficit on the balance of payments and hence the amount of capital inflow required from overseas, overseas interest rates, adjusted for expected currency movements, and the total flow of funds through the financial institutions. At present we have a tight monetary policy. Inflationary expectations have increased and the current account deficit on the balance of payments has continued to widen. Technically, this is partly due to the J curve effect of the currency depreciation. All these factors have tended to push up interest rates. The reason I believe we have put in place an economic setting-we are not putting in place negative forces in terms of interest rates-is that the prices and incomes accord will restore inflation to a downward path, 5 to 6 per cent, and inflationary expectations will adjust to this. Hopefully, in time the currency depreciation will narrow the balance of payments deficit and I will refer to that in a moment. The trilogy will reduce, and is reducing, government demand for funds and overseas interest rates will fall as the United States economy adjusts and the United States dollar also falls. So there are positive aspects in terms of interest rates. I accept the fact that there is criticism but I think it reflects urgency and a move to do things quicker. But one simply cannot turn around economies very quickly. I believe the Government is doing a very good job in getting the economy to move. The honourable member for Gwydir also raised the whole question of export earnings and that is one of the very big problems for this Government, or any government, at this time. The whole problem is that about 80 per cent of our export earnings are in primary commodities, either agricultural or mineral. How we get more dollars for those commodities, given the nature of world markets at present, is the real problem. The honourable member for Gwydir has already conceded that he does not really mean subsidise. We face buyers' markets wherever we go. The industrial nations certainly have the heave and the economic power to make sure that they keep down the price of our mineral exports. Of course, the big industrial countries, the EEC bloc, North America and Japan, also indulge in agricultural subsidisation and protection. Once most of our pleas, in terms of agricultural products, to the people we sell to, particularly the EEC, were all the time concentrated on access. We have swung around to now trying to identify the policies and principles and the inherent bad policy in agricultural subsidisation. More and more this Government is trying to emphasise the fact that the whole problem of agricultural commodity trade needs to be internationalised. A lot of the effort being made by my colleagues in the Government is about this internationalisation, trying to get agriculture to the top of the agenda in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and on the Multilateral Trade Negotiations round, and there has been a lot of preparation for that. The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) touched on services. To my mind, he failed to differentiate between the farm sector and the rural sector. He tried to draw a rather artificial division. People are critical of the tax cuts because they have been gained in Liberal Party demonology by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. People ought to realise that the ACTU has gained tax cuts for farmers and people in rural Australia as well and that welfare benefits are not just for people in the city. We are spending record amounts on transport and this is not spent just in the city. We are not using devaluation for an excuse. We are trying to so something about reducing input costs. I will not go into a great discussion on the recent tax package. I would be happy if the Opposition, rather than focusing on causes for squealing, were to focus occasionally on the principles behind the Government's policies in this regard, because they relate to problems that the Opposition was trying to grapple with. Most of the Opposition's attack so far has been directed at the effect of the package on the restaurant industry rather than the fact that overall in the tax package the Government is trying to get a fairer and more equitable system. We are trying to stop the enormous leakage in the tax system. We are trying to clean out the rorts and the shelters. I well remember that the Australian newspaper engaged in a great campaign in 1977-78. It invited people to join the tax revolt, and everyone did. That cost us about $4 billion in unpaid taxes. Yesterday Mr Maher was whacked into gaol. On that scheme alone something like $460m was retrieved. That scheme meant that we all paid more tax. When the Government is trying to get rid of tax shelters and trying to do something about these things, some recognition should be given to the fact that tax shelters and the people who can transform income into capital gains so easily and pay no tax are the reason for and the motivation behind the Government's proposals. We are trying to ensure that people pay less tax and the offset in the tax package is that marginal rates will go down from 60 to 49 per cent, and there are other adjustments. Sometimes honourable members opposite ought to look at the principles. Do they want rorts? Do they want shelters? Do they want people to avoid tax? Do they want the honest people to pay more tax? That is what it is all about? The capital gains tax proposed for the farm sector is extremely prospective. The complete stock of agricultural land and its ownership will be preserved in perpetuity while it remains within a family. Any capital gains incurred after 20 September will take at least two generations to take effect. I shall address the comments of the honour- able member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). He was talking about resources and energy and the taxation burden on the farm sector. To look at the figures, the income tax paid by the farm sector is not very high compared with the rest of the producing economy. Of course, indirect tax due to the high level of inputs, particularly fuel, in some parts of the farm sector is particularly high. The honourable member for Wakefield also focused on the great Meat Export Inspection Service mystery within the Budget estimates. The reason the allocation is up by 50 per cent is that the Victorian Meat Export Inspection Service is being incorporated. We have saved something like $18m or $22m this year in various ways. Now that we are taking over New South Wales and Victoria the cost of domestic inspection will be borne by consumers rather than by producers. I will not get on to Mudginberri. The honourable member for Wakefield touched on some of the trade union and industrial relations questions. I simply point out that I have yet to meet a farmer who fully understands the tally system. Often, some of the comments of honourable members opposite indicate that they do not understand it. The tally system in abattoirs applies to the people on the slaughter floor. That system actually saves the abattoirs money inasmuch as after the slaughtermen retire, having killed for the day, the rest of the people in the plant work on afterwards. If the slaughtermen finish early, it means that overtime will not be paid to all those other people. The whole tally system is pretty complicated. For people to think that somehow marvellous things would happen if the tally system in the Northern Territory were wiped out is really just a little misplaced. There needs to be a proper analysis. Two of the export abattoirs, Alice Springs and Sourey, were on contract, and they went broke. About 60 per cent of the cattle in the Northern Territory are normally shipped out. Transport costs up to $60 to $90 a head. The cattle are then slaughtered under the tally system. So it is not quite as simple. I think there was some reference also about the whole problem of growing transport costs. This problem is focusing more and more in Newcastle where I think that the dispute that took place last year or this year on rosters was pretty deplorable. People ought to focus on the in and out loading capacity of the Newcastle loading facility. They ought to focus on the way ships are handled, the problem of loading inasmuch as the potential cannot be achieved and, more importantly, the co-ordination between the Australian Wheat Board and the New South Wales State Rail Authority is as deplorable as are some of the unions' actions. The honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) got onto the question of trade. I am pleased to relate that my colleague the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is presently on a journey to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Iraq, the United States of America, Japan and India and he is certainly doing his job very well. I have suddenly discovered that I have a fan in the honourable member for Page. The only discussions that I have been engaged in have been with respect to sugar and beef and they were for reasons of timing and the fact that the then Minister for Trade, the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), was engaged in other trade matters. I am generally the Acting Minister for Trade when the Minister is away. I think we all accept that Primary Industry and Trade should work very closely together at the bureaucratic and ministerial level. We have been promoting major initiatives such as the steel and wool initiative with China, the setting up of the Australian Trade Commission with agricultural trade people in Bahrain, Singapore and Tokyo. These sorts of measures are all helping our general trade effort. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) spoke briefly on water resources. He said that we need a lot more water for developmental purposes. In other words, he is saying that we probably need more irrigated agricultural products. I do not think we need any more at present. There certainly is still potential for irrigation in this country with some of the broad acre crops such as cotton and course grains. I think perhaps we need to orientate towards smaller projects. Irrigation does not really solve droughts. We do not want more Ords. While we may need a lot more water by the year 2000 I do not think the allegation can be made that the Government is spending much less on water resource projects than did previous governments. In this year we are spending something like $67.3m compared with $62.7m last year. The major expenditure at present is, of course, on the Burdekin Falls dam project. Finally, I would like to comment on what the honourable member for Lyne had to say about the former Prime Minister's $640m mad election bribe about water resources. This was one of Malcolm's give-away promises to take back later, like his tax cuts. What we are doing about tax is giving real cuts. That will be part of our efforts in respect of international competitiveness. We are interested in stopping the tax rorts and tax shelters that honourable members opposite would do nothing about. I can quote McCabe, Lafranchi, Costigan and all of the other people. Honourable members opposite did nothing about that. What we are trying to do is to get a more basic and equitable economy. We are trying to get the economy right. We are putting in place the framework that will give us more international competitiveness in all of the areas about which I have just spoken. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Education Proposed expenditure, $958,429,000. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $160,346,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $231,924,000. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.50) —Tonight we are debating the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which comprise an amount of $272.804m for this financial year. In addition, it is worth pointing out that other departments have further expenditure of some $209m which is covered by two appropriations. It is also significant to point out that the Department, in the introductory page of its explanatory notes, has made this point: The amount proposed for departmental administration represents an increase of $0.970m or 3.99 per cent over the amount spent in 1984-85. I am rather intrigued to note then this statement: . . . and reflects the continuing effort of the Department to minimise its administrative overheads. Having increased its overheads, it is rather interesting that the Department should then talk about minimising them. Nevertheless, that is rather pinpricking in terms of the totality of the expenditure for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which is really the subject I wish to address tonight. The Labor Government was elected for its second term with a policy based upon supporting an Aboriginal policy which promised more funding, national land rights, greater self-determination and, of course, the more obvious but, nevertheless, very important elements such as improved health, accommodation, equality of opportunity and so forth. I think it is worth pointing out, however, that the proposals for expenditure for this financial year are essentially the same as we have seen in place, to a greater or lesser degree, for the last 17 years-in fact, since the Commonwealth assumed direct responsibility for Aborigines as a result of a national referendum, one of those very few referendums which were successful, back in 1967. The point I wish to raise on this occasion is simply that over that period we have spent an absolutely enormous amount of money on Aboriginal assistance-in fact, some $4.5 billion-and we are talking about a population which is no more than 300,000. We do not really know exactly how many Aborigines there are, but it is somewhere between 160,000 and 300,000. The issue to which all parties have to direct themselves-I emphasise all parties-is that a coherent and comprehensive approach to the problems of Aboriginal welfare must be essentially bipartisan. It is absolutely unacceptable that people within this Parliament or elsewhere should pick on a small number of Australian citizens and somehow take out on their hides the political guile and spleen which has so often been demonstrated in this Parliament. It is a matter of great regret to me that, with the introduction of the Hawke Government on the Australian political scene, the substantial measure of bipartisanship which had previously been in place has passed from us. On the wider picture there is a very real risk that, if we are to proceed as we have for the last 17 years, simply directing funding at a general range of programs which have not changed very much over that period, we run a major risk of creating, if we have not already created, in the minds of a significant number of Australians who are not Aboriginal the perception of a state within a state; or if I may use a term which I do not mean to be used in any other sense, a form of administrative apartheid, a tendency to try to create a bureaucratic system which covers every facet of the perceived needs of a specific section of the Australian population. We have done this to a large degree. In fact, it could even be argued that the very establishment of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs ensured that that attitude of mind would progress. Over a period, with the normal growth of programs in the best Parkinsonian principle, we have today a substantial number of programs which run the risk of being duplicated not only between the Commonwealth and the States but also between the Commonwealth departments. An examination of the programs covered in the Department's estimates for this financial year bears out that point very clearly. In the Commonwealth field alone, for example, in addition to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs we have the proposed Aboriginal Housing Authority; Aboriginal Hostels Ltd; the Aboriginal Development Commission; the National Aboriginal Development Committee; the National Aboriginal Education Committee; the National Aboriginal Health Organisation; the secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care; we hope to see in due course, when the Government gets around to it, the new National Aboriginal Conference, as it disbanded the old one; the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services; and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I assume that the trachoma programs, while they are of tremendous importance, would also be put in that category. I mentioned initially that in addition to the expenditure of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs we also have further expenditure of some $209m in what I would frankly call parallel State bureaucracies. If we look at expenditure on Aboriginal health, State Departments of Health are involved as well as the Commonwealth Department, the National Aboriginal Health Organisation, the trachoma programs and of course the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We have a similar situation in the field of education, as was pointed out in today's Canberra Times. It referred to the bureaucratic chain around Aboriginal education and to the involvement of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Education, and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Even the National Aboriginal Education Committee believes that the problem plaguing Aboriginal education could be solved by giving the Department of Education sole responsibility for the Commonwealth's financial contribution. So the problem is very real indeed. I think that that was demonstrated more clearly than ever in the report of the Miller Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs tabled in this House quite recently. It noted that the present level of accountability in the area of expenditure of funds for all Aboriginal-type programs was in many cases questionable. It stated that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations of Australia at the moment `remain the most disadvantaged people in Australian society'. The report continued: . . . a continuation of the present arrangements, even with considerably more financial support, is unlikely to change significantly the economic status of Aboriginal people in the coming decades. The problem therefore surely is that the continuation of this Labor Government's policy on Aboriginal affairs, such as it is, is based on the belief that that policy must be seen in the context of the effect which white people have had on the Aboriginal population which in turn has resulted in a significant degree of Aboriginal dependency on the remainder of the Australian population. During our earlier time in Papua New Guinea we heard of the cargo cult mentality that built up. I think on the one hand there is a risk that we are trying to establish policies and programs directed at achieving real equality of opportunity-that is not an easy thing to do, and I am sure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) would agree with me on that point-but on the other hand there is a major risk of building up in the minds of many Aboriginal communities the perception that equality of opportunity somehow is going to come from without, that it requires a minimal involvement of those who are at the receiving end of the various expenditure programs. As I have said, we have to look back on the last 17-odd years and, being absolutely honest with ourselves, admit that irrespective of that vast expenditure of some $4.5 billion on such a small number of people, whatever our good will may have been we have been less than successful. That comment can be applied to both sides of this Parliament. In fact, as the Miller report also noted, a staggering 71 per cent of the total national Aboriginal income is derived from government, and this income is mainly as a result of social welfare payments. It also demonstrated that the level of unemployment among Aboriginal communities is massive compared with any comparative group of Australians in any other element of our society. Consequently in the estimates of expenditure for this financial year we see the Government posturing in many ways. Only some $15.6m, or 16 per cent of Budget moneys allocated to Aborigines, has been allocated to Aboriginal advancement programs in 1985. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(11.00) —In speaking on the appropriations allocated to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I wish to draw attention to the problems associated with a small but powerful political and criminal element amongst the Indo-Chinese refugees. I first came into contact with the violent activities of these people when representations were made to me several years ago by a man who had been almost knifed to death by three Vietnamese assailants at the Nunawading migrant hostel. The man complained to me because he continued to fear for his life and because he believed that the local police were not investigating the matter seriously. I am glad to say that my own inquiries ascertained that the police were doing their best to identify the attackers but had been impeded in their inquiries because the Vietnamese and Kampuchean migrants who had witnessed the attack had been intimidated and threatened by the assailants and were too cowered and frightened to give evidence. Let me make it clear that the reason for the vicious attack was that the three Vietnamese migrants concerned were extracting illegal payments from their fellow Indo-Chinese ostensibly for the provision of transport from the hostel to a number of farms where the migrants were working as fruit pickers, and the assailants knew that the man they had attempted to kill was aware of their criminal activities. I am particularly concerned at the fact that by, using the same murderous strong arm tactics that they learnt in the back streets of Saigon, this small minority of thugs are able to intimidate and frighten the majority of the law abiding Indo-Chinese migrant community into abject silence about their illegal activities. The Department has advised that the number of refugees coming out of Indo-China this year will be about 6,000 and that they are mainly Vietnamese who do not come directly from Vietnam but from Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. These people are coming to Australia under our refugee and special humanitarian programs, and are keen to come to Australia because it is a country where they are encouraged to live in freedom and express their views without fear of political or physical intimidation. I am concerned that our security arrangements are not sufficiently vigilant in protecting the Indo-Chinese community against criminal and political thugs who are entering Australia posing as potential law abiding citizens. Having attended a ceremony in Victoria at which a number of Australians, including myself and my wife, were celebrating the 10th anniversary of the ending of the Vietnamese war, I can vouch for the violence of some 100 Vietnamese who attempted to prevent us from leaving the hall at the end of the ceremony. If it had not been for the presence of the Victorian police, we would have been unable to leave the hall in safety. In any event it was quite a frightening experience to have to pass through the barricade of protecting police who were holding back the jeering and gesticulating hate-filled faces of the demonstrators. Nevertheless, none of the previous incidents I have mentioned would have prompted me to make a speech on these matters as I am well aware that there is thuggery in all elements of our Australian society. However, my particular concern is over a Four Corners program which I saw on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television on 5 August. (Quorum formed) I was describing certain parts of a Four Corners program which I saw on ABC television on 5 August. The program described the harassment of Vietnamese Government officials by local Vietnamese who are now living in Canberra. Jeeny Brockie, the commentator, said: In March this year, another Embassy official was punched while waiting with his Ambassador on the steps of Parliament House in Canberra. There were no arrests. Present at the demonstration at the back of the crowd was this man, Mr Nguyen Huu Chanh. This statement later tendered by the Embassy to Federal police named Mr Chanh, not as the assailant but as one of the instigators. The program recorded the statement of an unidentified onlooker who said: I heard distinctly the following abuse and instigating words of Nguyen Huu Chanh: `Let us beat them to death. Son, today is the last day of your life. Either black son or red son you will die'. Nguyen Huu Chanh then said: I didn't say anything about killing him there that day, because if it had to be done, then I have many ways to do it. It would not be done as openly, as illegally, as that. Jenny Brockie told viewers: In April Mr Chanh attended a demonstration outside the Vietnamese Embassy in Canberra. A tape of the demonstration given to `Four Corners' by the Embassy contains some violent threats. A large contingent of police was on hand to control the crowd which called for the closure of the Embassy. The refugees also wanted the anniversary of the fall of Saigon declared a day of national mourning. One of several speakers then decided to read out the number plates of embassy officials' cars. Nguyen Huu Chanh said on film: When I read out these number plates their hearts pound and their balls shrink. When you see those cars smash them up if necessary, burn them if necessary, kill them if necessary. Kill them, exterminate them. Jenny Brockie said incredulously: But you're suggesting that people kill other people. Nguyen Huu Chanh replied: As for communists, if we can stop their activities, at any time, at any opportunity, we will do it. When we have a chance to kill them to avenge my people, then that chance will not slip by. We always respect the law, but if they act first we must take action. Jenny Brockie then asked: Do you understand that it's against the law in Australia to incite or encourage any offence, anything that would be considered an offence? You are suggesting that people be killed. You are calling for people to be killed. Nguyen Huu Chanh replied: We know it's illegal but we ask you, if you were in our position standing facing an enemy who had killed our parents, plundered our property, abused our people, what would you think in my position? If my countrymen don't oppose the communists then the communists will expand idenfinitely. I must be ready to sacrifice myself. Is the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) ready to sacrifice himself? Dr Klugman —No. Mr MILTON —Nguyen Huu Chanh continued: If that is seen as a criminal act then I will feel proud of the crime to save my country. It seems to me to be incomprehensible that people such as Mr Nguyen Huu Chanh can make statements inciting fellow Vietnamese to kill communists and, by implication, Australians who are perceived to be supporting the Vietnamese Government, without some action being taken against them. More than 70,000 Vietnamese refugees have come to Australia to find housing and jobs and to provide an education for their children. They deserve, as all Australians deserve, to be protected against the vicious hatred and incitement to violence which is preached by political agitators such as Mr Nguyen Huu Chanh and, also, Mr Le Dang Can, the editor of a Vietnamese community newspaper, the Belle of Saigon. The Four Corners program reported that an article in the newspaper called for an end to timidity in the fight against communists and stressed the need for their elimination. That is indicated in this extract from the newspaper: We are bound by a law of a free nation, but we should find loopholes. To achieve success is the important thing. The term `non-violence' does not correspond to struggle against the communists. To struggle means to sacrifice; to sacrifice means to shed blood. Four days later, more than 200 angry Vietnamese besieged a church hall in inner city Sydney. Windows were smashed and bricks were hurled into the hall as a small group of left wing Australians tried to watch a film about Vietnam. Members of the audience fled the building in fear. In Melbourne angry refugees disrupted another left wing meeting. At about the same time in Sydney another meeting of sympathisers with the Hanoi regime, mainly attended by non-Vietnamese, was the subject of a furious attack. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.10) —I make only a brief comment on the speech of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). I am sure from my own experience of Vietnamese refugees living in this country-the more than 70,000 to whom the honourable member referred-that nearly all of them, with virtually no exception, similarly would deplore any incitement to violence, as we do. I would hope that the occasion of one over-excited extremist would in no way be taken to reflect on the Indo-Chinese community which has settled in Australia and is contributing so much to it. I rise also to speak on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I have been concerned for a little time about the drift in the debate on immigration, particularly as it has taken place in this chamber. When I saw the Budget and saw the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I was similarly a little concerned about some of the cuts in programs. I was astonished today when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), in answering a question on the subject of the Hawke Government's new initiatives, referred in glowing terms to the programs the Government has in place and what the Minister referred to as new programs. In fact, nearly everything he mentioned was in no sense a new program; indeed, not even a Hawke Government initiated program. I believe it is important that we have bipartisanship in our immigration debate, but I do not believe that bipartisanship is mindless me-too-ism. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He has come in here on several occasions and answered questions from his own side, whether initiated by the back bench or not, used that opportunity to attack falsely Ministers of the Fraser Government and policies of the coalition when in government and in opposition, and then proposed as his own or the Hawke Government's policies which are nothing of the sort. If he is going to take that line on such spurious grounds, he will find the bipartisanship on immigration falling apart at his feet. I refer particularly to those matters that were mentioned today. The quid pro quo in bipartisanship is that credit is given where credit is due. As I have indicated, the Minister was asked a question about the new initiatives the Hawke Government had undertaken to ensure an equitable share of access to programs and services for migrants. Dr Theophanous —Excellent initiatives, too. Mrs SULLIVAN —Yes, a very good question and one which I was hanging on for the answer to, because I expected it to be as disappointing as it was. The Minister said in his answer: . . . this Government has taken initiatives to ensure that some affirmative action is taken to overcome the disabilities suffered by migrants. People interested in issues affecting migrants would agree with the desirability of that. The Minister went on to say that the Fraser Government had `totally ignored the needs of migrants, and particularly of those migrants with a non-English speaking background, who have special disabilities'. Mr Downer —That is a shameful thing to say. Mrs SULLIVAN —As my colleague the honourable member for Mayo said, it is a shameful thing to say; it is not true. I will refer to that in a moment. The Minister, going on to blow his own trumpet, said: I will go through the list of things that our Government has done. This is the list of things the Hawke Government has done: We have made information available to migrants in their own languages, provided translation services, migrant resource centres and facilities for learning languages and so on. I do not know what the `and so on' is, but I shall refer to those particular items one by one. Certainly this Government makes information available to migrants in their own languages. It provides translation services and funds migrant resource centres and some facilities for learning languages, but none of those are Hawke Government initiatives. A number of them go back a number of years and were funded generously by the Fraser Government. In fact, the specific migrant resource centres, to which the Minister referred, were initiated by the Fraser Government. The Budget figures show the priority that this Government gives to migrant support programs. I will refer very quickly to a number of items. We are told in the Budget Papers that the inflation assumption is 7 per cent, so we take it that increases of 7 per cent are just increases for inflation. I will refer to some of the important programs and the Government's attitude towards them. I am sure that the migrant groups in our community are well aware of these figures. I am sure that they are well aware of the facts and the reality of what has happened to programs under the Hawke Government and are in no way blinded by the rhetoric that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs treated them to in Question Time today. For example, under the item for assistance for migrant resource centres, we find that there has been an increase of approximately the inflation factor over the estimate for last year. It is very good that the funds are being maintained but it is not exactly anything to blow our trumpet about. On the other hand, voluntary agencies and community groups who are funded or assisted with funds for expenses associated with refugees have suffered a reduction in funds in money terms of 2.4 per cent and a reduction of 12.6 per cent against last year's estimate. This year they will receive $546,500. If they had received an increase just to cover inflation they would have received $600,000. As to the programs for initial settlement orientation activities-one would think they are very important in helping new settlers arrive and a very significant contribution to our immigration programs in the terms in which the Minister spoke today-funding this year has been reduced by 39 per cent against expenditure last year. This year those programs receive $90,000. If the appropriation had been increased merely for inflation they would have received nearly $158,000. The contribution from the Federal Government to the National Accreditation Authority for translators and interpreters is to be reduced by 14 per cent compared with the amount spent last year. Funding for accommodation and services for refugees and migrants at migrant centres and flats has been reduced by 20 per cent as against the amount actually expended last year. Funding for language services has increased by 7.9 per cent. Funding for the adult migrant education program has increased in a very welcome way, but if it had increased by the inflation factor it would be several million dollars higher than it is. Migrant welfare organisations will receive an increase of 12 per cent over what was spent last year. If one takes that item together with the item for assistance to voluntary agencies one finds that the appropriations even out, so there is a shift of emphasis. The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, an important voice and organ for migrant groups in Australia, has received no increase at all. If it had received an increase just for inflation its appropriation would be not the $85,000 given to it but, in fact, $91,000. But the really outstanding figure in this table of figures is that which relates to grants to trade unions for activities to assist migrants in industry. Now that was an initiative of the Hawke Government that the Minister did not think to mention today. What is the story there? The appropriation for this year as compared with last year has increased by 62 per cent. That gives us an idea of the Government's priorities. Mr Hollis —Excellent, excellent! Mrs SULLIVAN —One could make a case for that being excellent but, in fact, these moneys are essentially going towards subsidising trade unions to sign up migrants. In certain circumstances that may be a worthwhile activity, but if it is only a means of recruitment, a means of gaining even more access to financial resources, it needs a rather better justification. It is very difficult in any event to see how trade unions in Australia need a 62 per cent increase in funds when support for refugee programs, for example, has been effectively reduced. The final figure, and a very telling one, is that relating to expenditure for the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, which has been reduced by 24 per cent. So much for the new programs. The Minister today referred to the fact that he will acquire reports from other departments on what they are doing. I think that is a worthwhile initiative and I hope that the Minister will get some very good action out of it, but a reference to the Notice Paper, to questions on notice and answers given to them, tells a different story. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(11.20) —I would like to speak mainly on one aspect of education. But I cannot let the occasion pass without referring to a speech made earlier in this debate in regard to Indo-Chinese refugees and their alleged attitudes. Whilst obviously I do not support the encouragement of violence, one must think about what those people have undergone, the way in which they were persecuted and many of their relatives were killed. It would be ridiculous to assume that such people, when confronted by their persecutors, the people who have killed their relatives, would not, at least by word of mouth, utter some threats against those people. Obviously, there is nothing they can do about it and nothing they ought to do about it. But it would be ridiculous to assume that they would be happy about visits to this country by Vietnamese officials, and that they would not express some disgust. I put to honourable members who have views that are different from mine on this issue that in my electorate there are refugees from Indo-China and from some of the South American countries such as Chile. If a participant in the current Chilean Government visited this country, I would say that the Chilean refugees currently in Australia would express similar views, vis-a-vis the Chilean officials, probably with the support of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) who spoke earlier. Let me deal with a particular aspect of education that concerns me. We speak often in Australia about having a highly-educated community. It is said that people ought to be getting into technological and scientific sorts of occupations, rather than the sorts of things that many people are involved in now. One of my greatest concerns with regard to education is the lack of numeracy-the lack of people who leave schools and universities, as I will attempt to show the Committee, without real numeracy skills. I think that cannot be solved at the university level. Obviously, it must be solved at the primary and secondary school level. I shall deal most specifically with New South Wales because that is the State about which I know most. In New South Wales, in order to gain entry to a university or other tertiary institution, a student's mark in the higher school certificate is considered. The mark is taken from the ten best papers from a score of 500. In other words, if a student gets a mark of 250, it is in effect 50 per cent. For the benefit of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) a score of 300 equals 60 per cent, et cetera. Let us look at what actually happens. I would have hoped that one would assume that the people who are going to become teachers of mathematics in a secondary school would have fairly highly developed intellectual abilities which are reflected possibly in the marks they gain in their higher school certificate. The reasons for the different figures required, of course, are not necessarily the fault of the universities, although it is to some extent; it is because of the number of people applying to enter courses. To enter the Bachelor of Human Movement Science course at the University of Wollongong, which concerns dancing I assume, the mark required is 319 out of 500. In order to enter the Bachelor of Education course to teach secondary mathematics, the required mark is 246-less than 250, or 50 per cent. The mark required to enter the Bachelor of Human Movement Science course-dancing-is 319; the mark required to enter the Bachelor of Education course, which concerns physical and health education-in other words, teaching people how to run-is 321. I refer honourable members to the situation at similar universities. At the Sydney Institute of Education, a Diploma of Teaching-Bachelor of Education for primary schools requires a mark of 268. To get the same degree in mathematics at the secondary level requires a mark of 246. At the Newcastle College of Advanced Education, to get a Diploma of Teaching-Bachelor of Education in mathematics requires a mark of 240-ten points below a pass mark. A Diploma of Teaching-Bachelor of Education for secondary maths at the Mitchell College of Advanced Education requires a mark of 240. However, to get an Associate Diploma in Recreation requires a mark of 324 and if one wants to go for leisure studies it is 316, whether it is full time or part time. I do not know whether it is part time leisure studies or a part time course in leisure studies. The point I am trying to make obviously is that the situation is ridiculous. At the Riverina College of Advanced Education, a Diploma in Computing (Wagga), which must be a special kind of computing, requires a mark of 220 out of 500. That is to become a computer operator. What do we expect from our kids at school if we are going to expose them to mathematics teachers at the secondary level who themselves got marks, but did not get passes, at the 220 levels or the 240 level-levels which to me quite clearly indicate that in the vast majority of cases, and there obviously would be exceptions, they have not really shown an ability to understand the subject themselves? Those teachers are let loose onto our kids. There are many similar examples. However, I do not want to bore the Committee with them because I promised the Whip that I would take only five minutes. I do think that it is an important issue. It is not peculiar to New South Wales. I quote from an article in the Sunday Mail in Brisbane: No place shock for TE students. I do not know how they score there. It probably is out of 3,000. The article continues: Physical education, 900 score, a tougher task than physics, 840 score. For physical education one has to have 60 more points than one requires to teach physics. I am sorry that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), my colleague from Parramatta, is not here because he probably thinks physical education is one of the most important subjects to teach. As a nation we are much more likely to be able to compete with the rest of the world if we have people trained in science, mathematics or some sort of ability to think logically rather than the ability to do exercises. I think it is probably not basically a question for the Federal Government. We can approach this matter in two possible ways. One way obviously is to get more people interested in becoming maths teachers rather than dancing teachers. Therefore, the level will rise. But that is probably not possible because the teachers those people themselves had who taught them physical education and dancing were probably better than the teachers who taught them maths. We have a vicious cycle there. The second way is possibly for the Federal Government to decide not to pay for tertiary education courses for people to become maths teachers who have not got more than 220 points out of 500 at the higher school certificate level, or only to do so in very, very exceptional cases if potential students can show that there was a good reason for their getting that sort of low mark. I do appeal to honourable members to think about those sorts of issues and how we can make our young people more numerate. Hopefully, that is not only a question of science and numeracy; but to my mind numeracy leads to the ability to think logically about all kinds of issues, including the issues that we ought to be considering in this chamber. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.29) —In joining this debate on appropriations, like the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) I wish to make some preliminary remarks concerning the comments of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). I think that all of us are increasingly disturbed at the propensity of some honourable members in both this House and the other place to name persons almost like the dropping of confetti at a wedding. In doing so, we are facing an increasingly cynical public, who believe that we abuse the privileges of this Parliament so easily and without foundation. Tonight we had a classic example of that when the honourable member for La Trobe seized on a Vietnamese refugee who, in a moment of weakness, spoke in very exaggerated language. I also saw that Four Corners program. In no way were those remarks, I believe, meant to be taken literally, nor were they meant to be taken as representative of the Vietnamese community in Australia. As the honourable member for Prospect said, many persons from South East Asia have suffered in a way that very few of us in this chamber-God willing-will suffer in our lifetimes. Such people can be excused exaggerated or flowery language. After all, we have only to think back to the comments made yesterday by a Minister of this Government when he used exaggerated, threatening language on the floor of this chamber. I quote from the Hansard report of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) addressing the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman): If you ever do that to me again, I will smash you in the face. We know that Hansard contains the polite version, because an expletive was deleted. However, that expletive was sent out by Australian Associated Press. My point is this: At times of stress, in particular, persons will resort, in moments of weakness-on many occasions, unforgivable weakness-to threatening language. I wish to say no more than that on this matter, but I think that the comments of the honourable member for La Trobe were racist, because he did not make it clear that they were not meant to slur all Vietnamese refugees of a certain political persuasion. Turning now to the debate, I wish to direct my comments to the Department of Education appropriations and to one specific aspect of that Department which is causing concern to me and many Opposition members. I refer to the 50 per cent cutback in the participation and equity program. This cutback was announced in the May mini-Budget. Sadly, the mistake that has been made, and this is increasingly clear, is that the cutback was to both secondary schools and technical and further education. I do not believe that the secondary school system properly utilised PEP funding, and there is a very good case to be made for a significant reduction, almost approaching abolition, of funding for PEP within secondary schools; but the TAFE component of PEP has worked very successfully, particularly in rural areas. The more isolated the area, the more successful the TAFE program. Indeed, I say as an aside that many of the secondary schools in the isolated areas of Gippsland and other parts of Australia utilised what little PEP funding they received. Therefore, I am appealing to the Government to look again at the across the board cut in PEP and to recognise the valuable achievements of the TAFE components of PEP. I should like to draw on three examples from my electorate of Gippsland. The first is the East Gippsland access program, which is directed towards isolated unemployed youths and a number of Aboriginals. The problem is that this program extends into areas such as Buchan and Omeo, and even Bonang and Mallacoota. I would not hold it against any member of this Parliament for not being familiar with such names, given that they are small areas, but they are very important. The unemployed youth in those areas have literally nothing to assist them first in obtaining a job, and then in acquiring the skills, competence and discipline necessary to hold on to that job. The second program to which I refer is the Sale access program which is directed towards unemployed youth aged between 15 and 24 years. Sale is a large regional centre which has a population of well over 10,000 people. Yet it has no unemployment program for those youths not engaged in traineeships or work study programs other than the access program. I have inspected that program, and others in my electorate, on numerous occasions and I know the work that is being achieved. The third program, which is in South Gippsland, based at Leongatha, is the affirmative action program for unemployed youth. This program is also aimed at youth between the ages of 15 and 24 years. Again, one has to look at the geography. This is an area which is separated by distance and a lack of public transport from, if you like, the Princes Highway belt-which includes the towns of the La Trobe Valley, Moe and Warragul-which has at least some support systems for unemployed youth. Consequently, if the Government is not able to assist unemployed youth-I and those involved in those programs do not believe they will be picked up by the traineeship programs or the work study programs; these TAFE programs seek to assist the unemployed youth who will not fall within the niche that the Government seeks to create in its traineeship program-the problem will be about where those people will go. The Gippsland Regional and TAFE Board had its funding cut from $500,000 to $231,000. Sadly, the Board had no choice but to make a decision to reduce all Gippsland TAFE programs by 50 per cent rather than list programs in priority, one against another. One of the problems has been that the Government has taken far too long to issue directives and guidelines to TAFE as to how the funding should occur and what principles ought to be enacted regarding the reduced funding. It was not until approaching late August that these principles were forwarded to the State TAFE boards. That created a great deal of uncertainty. That uncertainty is compounded because if these TAFE programs in isolated areas fall away with this reduced funding, as they most certainly will within the next few months, we will lose the workers, the teachers, as well as the structure that has been painstakingly set up over some years now. If those people leave the area we will not be able to attract them back. The great tragedy is that these programs are working well. A government which approaches a problem in such a broad way and paints all those involved in PEP funding with the same brush is making a grave error which will have the most significant consequences for rural Australia. What is needed, therefore, is to restore funding for the TAFE component of PEP, particularly in country areas. The Government needs to differentiate between TAFE and secondary schools. They are very different, with different objectives, accountability and efficiency. After all, I understand that TAFE administration costs are only one per cent of total costs. The problem with PEP funding in the large secondary schools, particularly in urban areas, was that they would be funded simply by way of Consolidated Revenue and the funds would be lost. A number of high schools throughout the more isolated parts of Gippsland have taken great advantage of PEP funding, but those schools truly are a minority. What I am saying is that one can generalise and say that the Gippsland TAFE programs have been of tremendous benefit to unemployed youth who, at present, have no other source of training and, frankly, will not have any other source of training whatever program the Government has on its drawing boards. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Before calling the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), I would like to correct a statement by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) regarding the remarks made by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) yesterday. The remarks made by the Minister were accurately recorded in Hansard. The statements that were issued by the media were incorrect. I call the honourable member for La Trobe. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MILTON —In the previous speech, delivered by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), he said that I did not make it clear that I was not casting a slur on the entire Vietnamese community. When he made those remarks he was talking about a speech which I delivered in this chamber about half an hour earlier. That was a complete misrepresentation of what I said. In fact, I referred to a small number of political agitators. I made it quite clear that the 70,000 Vietnamese refugees in Australia are member's of a law-abiding community who have come here for peace and should be protected against violent people. It was the honourable member's Party that wanted to refuse to allow Indo-Chinese refugees to come to this country. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.42) —We are debating a series of estimates tonight. I make a few comments in regard to the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). The success of Australia's migration program over a long period of time, I believe, has been due to the fact that there has been a large degree of bipartisanship in the broad parameters of our programs. I draw the attention of the House to the introductory comments of one of the reports of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia which speaks of a broadly based, bipartisan policy on immigration, multiculturalism and community relations. The Minister, of course, understands that that does not mean that there is complete agreement on every aspect of migration programs or on the way in which ethnic affairs programs are dealt with. It would be non-constructive if the Opposition did not criticise or offer alternative ideas or for the Government, in response, to take for granted the things said by the Opposition. Tonight we are dealing with particularities, some of which I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Australian people. I regret to inform the House that I believe that, despite valiant efforts by the current Minister, much of our current program appears to be a selection process by administrative delay. I know that the Minister is aware of these problems and that he has used his best endeavours to overcome them, but much more needs to be done. It is an unsatisfactory set of circumstances whereby delays of inordinate length can take place for applicants for migration, for change of status or for any other of the processes in migration programs. Some of the details of current programs warrant careful scrutiny despite the Minister's obvious enthusiasm for his portfolio. In regard to the welfare services area, I was distressed to receive a Press release from the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales indicating that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has either removed or put to one side 12 welfare officers in the migrant service unit of the Department, which officers have been supplying a valuable service to various ethnic groups in New South Wales. The move has left depleted some important communities in regard to their access to and understanding of welfare services in the Department of Social Security, health services and others. I would like the Minister to explain what has happened because, if this is an example of so-called mainstreaming, he had better check to see whether the departments that are going to supply direct services for migrant communities are well-equipped to deal with the flood of inquiries they will require. I thank the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) for the questions he placed on notice in regard to the linguistic skills of officers within service providing departments and their capacity to deal with migrant inquiries or non-English speaking inquiries. The results of those questions were quite appalling. It would be unfortunate if there were a move to mainstreaming or casting off of migrant services and welfare services of the type about which I have been speaking if departments could not meet the demands and inquiries they would face. I predict that unless urgent action is taken they will not be able to meet those inquiries. There are few departments which have within them more than one or two foreign language speakers who are properly accredited and can give the service that is required. I do not think that in those circumstances one can depend on telephone interpreter services to meet the needs of those who are seeking over the counter the services of departments. I think the Minister is well aware of the complications that may arise from the new system of applying for migration to Australia. The single form approach which has been adopted has created in the Budget an extraordinary increase in the size of administrative costs at overseas missions. I believe that that large predicted cost arises because of the anticipated exceptionally heavy work loads at foreign missions. The form will place outside the knowledge of the Department within Australia details of applicants. This cuts off the link between people seeking to have family reunions and their relatives seeking to apply through foreign missions. It will be somewhat confused and daunting when long delays take place for which there are no apparent explanations. The Minister is also aware of the confusion that has been created with departure taxes. The current proposition is, as I understand it, that the departure tax for Australian citizens and residents will double to $40 and departure tax will not be paid by visitors and tourists. The mini-Budget cost cutting exercise in moving departure taxes across to airlines to administer will create confusion if it is introduced on 1 January. So many problems have not been solved with this proposal that the Australian community is bound to suffer. The unfair way in which these taxes will apply-and, once formulated, what sort of taxes will apply-will be most unfortunate and damaging to the community. The fees imposed by the Minister for applications for migration, changes of status, temporary entry and other factors in the migration area make it a very expensive exercise to deal with in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Fees of up to $200 will be charged for change of status on work related grounds and a fee of $100 will be charged for applications for migration. That is to some extent preying upon those who are seeking to make a better life for themselves. It is a revenue gathering exercise which the Minister claims will provide additional services to the community. I cannot find anything in the Budget Papers to indicate that the Department will hang on to that money and provide it directly across to other services, or whether it will become part of general revenue. The current debate on the Special Broadcasting Service and whether it should be subsumed into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is causing grave concern around Australia. It is my view that the ABC has not proved itself capable of running its own show, so why should it take on this additional responsibility? The SBS has a good reputation, has operated in a comparatively cost-effective manner, and the current debate needs to be put to rest in a proper way. I believe that putting the SBS in with the ABC is not an answer to the Government's current problems. I conclude by saying to the Minister that I believe that the decision with respect to the representative of the South West Africa People's Organisation, compared with some of the decisions made accurately in legal terms but not too thoughtfully in terms of common humanity, is one that many groups will find hard to understand. Special decisions to vary conditions applying to visitors who must undertake to abide by certain provisions within Australia were taken by two Ministers. That type of decision will encourage those who wish to preach subversion or terrorist activity to think that they will have some sort of ready access to Australia if they are abusive enough. I do not think that is good enough; nor is it consistent with proper ministerial discretion to be humane to all individuals. Currently a couple of deportations have caused concern. They were legally applied, but a special decision for SWAPO agents is hardly thought of by most communities in Australia as a fair decision. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.52) —There have been a few contributions in relation to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I promised the Leader of the House (Mr Young) that I would be brief, but I want at least to acknowledge those contributions. I say to the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) that I hope that when he makes such contributions as he did this evening he will make it clear that the actions of just a couple of people, although they are unacceptable actions of violence, are not portrayed in such a way that they inflict on the whole community a reputation that is undeserved. That applies to Vietnamese violence in our community. There is not much of it. We have to understand that the lives of so many of these Vietnamese have been sadly disrupted and obviously they are very resentful of those who have so disrupted their lives. Nevertheless, that is not an excuse for violence. We carefully monitor them. My Department and I spend a lot of time consulting with the leaders and making sure that they understand why certain people are visiting this country, whether they be students from North Vietnam or wherever they come from, so that they will not take part in violent activities. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) gave us a list of ups and downs when it came to the various parts of the settlement program which is the responsibility of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I remind her that for a long time now the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters has had a policy applied to it by respective governments of moving to being self-supporting, and when an organisation moves to being self-supporting, of course, its appropriation will be reduced. I welcome the fact that she is taking an interest in this area of immigration and ethnic affairs, but there is a lot to learn. If she wants a briefing from my Department, as the new shadow Minister and the previous shadow Minister did, I will make sure that she is given the benefit of such a briefing as the chairperson of her Party's immigration committee. Had she had such a briefing she would have understood that the reductions in the expenditure on migrant centres is related to the reduction in the number of refugees. We can have differences over whether there ought to be a reduction in the number of refugees, but obviously when a policy decision like that is taken we will have a reduction in the expenditure on the places where they go to live. More than that, of course, we are going into a rationalisation of these migrant centres, getting away from-the communal living and making sure that in future hopefully there will be independent living units so that we can persuade people to stay longer in these migrant centres while they go through their programs of initiation into this country. Lastly, I make no apologies for the reduction in expenditure on the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Much of the expenditure in the last few years has gone on mega-research projects which could have been done in a much more effective and efficient way by university departments. I would be happy to make sure that the honourable member for Moncrieff learns more about the rejuvenation of AIMA this financial year. I believe it will be a much more effective organisation and at last the community will learn about it. I tell the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) that the 12 welfare officers who are being moved within the New South Wales regional office of my Department will not, in any way, affect services to migrants in New South Wales. Those services will continue to operate at the same level as they have in the past. There is a change in status within the existing average operative staffing level and administrators in the New South Wales office assure me that it will mean a more effective office. It is nothing more nor less than a redeployment within the Department and has nothing to do with the so called mainstreaming. `Mainstreaming' is a jargon word which I hope to get rid of. It relates to services for migrants in other departments of government. Because that word is misunderstood I hope the honourable member will join with me in not using it and talking about equitable access to the services and programs of government instead. I hope that he will support the initiatives that we are taking to make sure that the programs and services of other departments are maintained to see that there is affirmative action for migrants so that they will get equitable access to those programs and services. The honourable member was pretty good at finding areas where we can spend more money. I assure him that I too would love to have extra funds in order to be more generous in certain areas. But I come back to the overall thrust of the Government's policy in making sure that we continue with the magnificent economic recovery that is taking place. Part of the need has been to reduce relatively government spending so that there is less pressure on the capital markets of this country. That is being achieved and jobs are being created. I understand from the rhetoric of the honourable member's colleagues, if not his own, but I think he would indulge in this from time to time, that his Party wants to reduce government spending by $2 billion. I therefore suggest that the honourable member become a little consistent in this matter and tell us where we might save money in some of these programs, rather than suggest where we should be spending it. I assure the honourable member that the sponsorship change is working well. I have reports from all round the world that our overseas offices are not being burdened by the change in the methods by which sponsors are bringing their relatives to this country. The departure tax rumours to which he gives credence are totally unfounded. We were waiting for decisions on the tax package before putting into effect what was announced in the 19 May statement, but he will find before 1 January next that good administrative arrangements have been made. I do not believe that the increase in fees is excessive. We have to recover costs in many areas. This is particularly so in some of the expensive areas of immigration. The honourable member mentioned the Special Broadcasting Service. It does not come under my control but under the control of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The matter is causing grave concern. We will be making decisions in government as soon as possible so that rumors about what might happen will not continue to circulate. I believe that what the Government will decide will be totally acceptable to the migrant community. The honourable member also mentioned controversial visitors and representatives of the South West Africa People's Organisation in particular. I believe that in this liberal democracy of ours we should be able to let in almost anybody who wants to come to this country. We should be able to match such people argument for argument. However, we draw the line, and I think the honourable member does too, where terrorism is blatantly supported. I do not believe that anybody we have had in this country recently blatantly supported terrorism as the only means of achieving their objectives. For example, the SWAPO delegate who came here for a particular conference did not cause much concern during his time here. I thank all honourable members who took part in this debate and I trust that we will have other debates on the important subject of immigration on a future occasion when it is not so late at night. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. House adjourned at 12.02 a.m. (Thursday) The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Laboratory development at CSIRO Floreat Park Laboratories, Perth. Mr West to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Refurbishment of Commonwealth Centre and Associated Major Fitout Works, Melbourne. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Canberra Mail Centre, Fyshwick. Mr Young to move- That standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order, relating to the adjournment of the House, standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) and standing order 106 (grievance debate), as amended by sessional order, be suspended for this sitting. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 October 1985: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1985-No. 4-Marine, Part 2. Proclamations by His Excellency the Administrator fixing the date on which the following Act shall come into operation-Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Act 1985-16 October 1985. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determinations listing fees, etc., for purposes of- Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance, dated 30 September 1985. Motor Traffic Ordinance, dated 11 October 1985. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 10 October 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1502) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user, if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The following table details the major administrative computing systems in use within the Department of Defence, the Defence Forces and other authorities for which I am responsible. The table does not include computers serving an operational function, nor small administrative applications where the hardware cost was less than $100,000. DEFENCE COMPUTING SYSTEMS MAJOR COMPUTING SYSTEMS IN USE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE, THE DEFENCE FORCES AND AUTHORITIES FOR WHICH THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE IS RESPONSIBLE System Hardware Principal Function Installed Hardware Cost ($M) Anticipated Life Replacement Other Users CENTRAL Sperry/Univac U1... Supply, Pay and Administration 1974 12.400 1995 Planning underway for future replacement of existing systems NIL Sperry/Univac U2... Development 1979 5.400 1995 NIL Sperry/Univac U3... Supply 1981 9.500 1995 + NIL Perkin Elmer (52 Sites)... Supply Network and Stores Depot Administration 1974 20.000 1995 NIL Burroughs... Pay, Catalogue Production 1975 0.224 1992 NIL Honeywell... Finance and Planning 1981 0.110 1990 NIL NIL IBM... Information Storage and Retrieval 1982 1.065 1995 NIL NIL Perkin Elmer... Financial Accounting Syd 1979 Canb 1980 Bris 1982 Melb 1984 1.200 1995 Progressive replacement near end of 1986-91 FYDP NIL Perkin Elmer... Personnel and Establishments 1983 0.200 1990 Proposed replacement 1989-90 NIL Wang... Financial Resources Management 1973 0.157 1986 Planned acquisition of replacement 1986-87 NIL Wang Jacquard Word Processing Word Processing 1979 1980 0.241 0.336 1989 1989 Policy on future of Word Processing under examination NIL Perkin Elmer... Prototyping for Supply Systems Redevelopment 1985 0.612 1993 NIL NIL OFFICE OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION NCR... Factory Management Ammunition Factory Footscray 1983 0.232 1988 NIL NIL Prime... Management Information 1982 0.539 1989 NIL NIL Prime... Factory Management Aust. Gov. Clothing Factory 1984 0.114 1991 NIL NIL FACOM... Factory Management Garden Island Dockyard 1985 0.862 1992 NIL NIL IBM... Factory Management Govt. Aircraft Factories 1982 0.700 1989 NIL NIL NAS... Factory Management Govt. Aircraft Factories 1985 0.930 1992 NIL NIL Amdahl... Manufacturing Computing Bureau 1983 0.450 1988 Cabinet Submission and RFT in preparation Nil FACOM... Factory Management Munitions Filling Factory 1985 0.757 1992 Nil Nil NCR... Factory Management Ordnance Factory Maribyrnong 1977 0.209 1987 Nil Nil NCR... Factory Management Small Arms Factory 1983 0.215 1988 Nil Nil Prime... Factory Management Williamstown Dockyard 1983 0.196 1988 Nil Nil Navy Wang... Australian Frigate Project Management System 1983/84 0.175 1993 Nil Nil Wang... Australian Frigate Project Management System 1984/85 0.112 1994 Nil Nil ICL... Navy Supply Centre Management Support 1984/85 0.120 1994 Nil Nil Archives... Navy Supply Resource Management 1984/85 0.181 1994 Nil Nil Hewlett Packard... Hydrographing Chart Making 1979/80 1.159 1994 Nil Nil Prime... Hydrographic Office Support 1984/85 0.471 1994 Nil Nil Army ICL... Personnel 1985 0.448 1995 Nil Nil Perkin Elmer... Engineering Logistics 1979 0.238 1991 Proposed replacement 1990/91 Nil Data General... Engineering Logistics 1985 0.202 1995 Nil Nil Prime... Management Information HQ Training Command 1984 0.287 1993 Proposed replacement post 1991 Nil Prime... Management Information HQ Field Force Command 1984 0.268 1992 Nil Nil Prime... Management Information HQ Logistic Command 1985 0.333 1993 Proposed replacement post 1991 Nil Prime... Management Information HQ 1 Military District 1985 0.349 1993 Proposed replacement post 1991 Nil Prime... Management Information HQ 2 Military District 1985 0.349 1993 Proposed replacement post 1991 Nil Prime... Management Information HQ 3 Military District 1985 0.332 1993 Proposed replacement post 1991 Nil Prime... Management Information Operations Branch 1985 0.359 1993 Nil Nil Prime... Management Information Personnel Branch 1984 0.337 1992 Proposed replacement 1990/91 Nil Prime... Management Information Logistic Branch (Russell) 1985 0.385 1993 Nil Nil Prime... Management Information Logistic Branch (Campbell Park) 1984 0.295 1992 Nil Nil Prime... Management Information Materiel Branch 1985 0.356 1993 Nil Nil Perkin Elmer... Workshop Production Control 1976 0.974 1984 Proposed replacement 1987/88 Nil Prime... Management Information Maintenance Engineering Agency 1984 0.105 1994 Nil Nil Air Force DEC... Publications Production 1985 0.458 1995 Nil Nil ICL... Maintenance Planning 1984 0.694 1995 Nil Nil Perkin Elmer... Foreign Military Sales Requisition Management 1984 0.300 1995 Proposed replacement 1987/89 Nil Hewlett Packard... Manpower Management 1982 0.450 1993 Proposed replacement 1989/90 Nil Texas Instruments... Maintenance Planning 1980 0.180 1990 Proposed replacement 1987/89 Nil DEC... Word Processing 1981 0.130 1990 Proposed replacement 1989/90 Nil Texas Instruments... Financial Accounting 1982 0.140 1990 Proposed replacement 1989/90 Nil Dewhurst... Administration and Instruction 1983 0.120 1990 Nil Nil Australian Defence Force Academy DEC... Administrative Support 1979/08 1.000 1990 Replacement under investigation Nil AWA... Library Support 1984 0.660 1994 Nil Proposed access for other academic institutions Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority DEC... DFRDB Support &Administration 1974 0.270 1986 Being replaced by Nixdorf system Node to Dept. of Finance system (Question No. 1540)) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1985. (1) In the electoral division of Tangney up to August 1985 how many pensioners who had their pensions cancelled had assets of total value in the following ranges (a) if single and a homeowner (i) $116 000 to $150 000, (ii) $150 000 to $200 000 and (iii) $200 000 to $250 000, (b) if single but not a homeowner (i) $177 000 to $200 000 and (ii) $200 000 to $250 000, (c) if married and a homeowner (i) $177 000 to $200 000 and (ii) $200 000 to $250 000, (d) if married but not a homeowner $227 000 to $250 000 and (e) for all categories (i) value of assets unknown to his Department, (ii) $250 000 to $500 000, (iii) $500 000 to $1 000 000 and (iv) greater than $1 000 000. (2) How many pensioners in each of the categories and in each of the assets test value ranges were farmers. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) This information is not collected by electorate but a list of statistics by postcode districts can be inspected at the House of Representatives Table Office. (Question No. 1542)) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) How many pensioners were there each month in each category of pension in the Electoral Division of Tangney from December 1984 to August 1985. (2) How many pensions in each category have been (a) cancelled and (b) reduced. (3) How many pensioners in each category have had their fringe benefits (a) cancelled and (b) reduced. (4) What percentage of pensioners in each category have been affected by the assets test. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The information sought is not available. Relevant statistics for geographical areas smaller than States and Territories are available only by Social Security regions and by postcode districts. Tables showing the number of pensioners whose pension has been reduced or cancelled, by Social Security region and by postcode districts, have been prepared but are too voluminous for incorporation in Hansard. Statistics for particular postcode districts or Social Security regions can be inspected at the House of Representatives Table Office. (Question No. 1544)) Mr Jacobi asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) What steps is the Government taking to ensure that the additional investigators in tax and other enforcement agencies will enhance the Government's campaign against entrenched lawbreakers, corruption and exploitation. (2) Does the Government propose to amend the National Crime Authority Act to clarify the responsibility of the National Crime Authority for SP betting as recommended by the Royal Commission on the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. (3) What steps have been taken to provide for a central national intelligence function for the monitoring of SP betting. (4) What action is being taken to ensure that the pricing services for SP betting are subjected to the same liabilities as SP betting. (5) With respect to Chapter 8 of Volume 5 or the Royal Commission report dealing with the possibility of using publicity as well as the law to inhibit the development of organised crime, corruption and other malpractices does the Government have a policy on the use and abuse of publicity or is it the responsibility of the National Crime Authority. (6) Will the Government adopt the Royal Commission's recommendation that the United States Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Statute, with its sweeping provisions for the annihilation of illegally procured profits be adopted. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) the Government has every confidence that the additional resources supplied to the Australian Taxation Office and to law enforcement authorities are being used effectively in the fight against crime. Futher steps are being taken through the National Crime Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill currently before Parliament to widen the powers of the NCA to provide broader access to taxation records and strengthen the fight against organised crime as well as tax evasion. The charter of objectives and priorities of the Australian Federal Police which was tabled in the Parliament on 10 September 1985 has also been revised to give greater emphasis to the investigation of drug trafficking, organised crime and major frauds against the revenue. (2) No. SP bookmaking is essentially a State matter. Commonwealth and State Racing and Police Ministers met on 7 February 1985 to discuss the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission on SP bookmaking. The Conference endorsed the concept of a co-ordinated approach between the States and a review of relevant legislation to provide uniformity. The Commonwealth does not favour amending the definition of ``relevant offence'' under the National Crime Authority Act specifically to include illegal SP bookmaking, given that the States have not increased the penalties for such offences to the level prescribed therein (3 years' imprisonment). (3) I understand that the Conference of State Racing and Police Ministers proposes to refer the matter of co-ordination of intelligence on illegal bookmaking to the Australian Police Ministers' Council for consideration. (4) This is a matter for individual States. (5) As noted by the Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General on 18 December 1984 and repeated on 21 May 1985 in my Statement on the Government's response to the Costigan Royal Commission Final Report, the Government rejects as a means of combating criminal activity the policy of public exposure of persons suspected of criminal activities. There is no place in our legal system for guilt by accusation or denunciation. This would contravene fundamental civil rights. (6) The specific style of legislation embodied in the American Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Statute is not appropriate for our situation, given the constitutional differences between the United States and Australian systems. However, proposals for uniform forfeiture of assets legislation similar to the forefeiture provisions contained in the United States Statute have been drafted by a joint working group of officials from the Australian Police Ministers' Council (APMC) and the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG). The Government is currently considering the form legislation should take. (Question No. 1582) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Details of all expenditure within the Department of Defence in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 are: $ (a) Compensation (CGE) Act-Service Personnel... 10,478,294 (b) Compensation (CGE) Act-Civilian Personnel... 7,149,498 (c) Common Law Settlements-Personal Injury... 3,645,742 (d) Common Law Settlements-Property Damage... 621,354 (e) Legal Expenses associated with compensation cases... 244,453 22,139,341 (2) The amount and nature of expenditure in each case for compensation and legal expenses was: (a) Compensation (CGE) Act: $ 1. Incapacity payments (3656 claims)... 9,702,732 2. Medical expenses (3453 claims)... 4,316,245 3. Lump sums for specified losses (504 claims)... 2,385,360 4. Lump sums and weekly payments to dependants in respect of death (includes 198 ongoing payments from previous years) (215 claims)... 1,016,448 5. Lump sum redemptions in lieu of weekly incapacity payments (1 claim)... 142,097 6. Attendance allowance (102 claims)... 53,196 7. Funeral expenses (8 claims)... 8,305 8. Artificial aids (31 claims)... 3,409 17,627,792 (b) Personal Injury: 1. Common law settlements... 3,264,213 2. Legal expenses... 381,529 3,645,742 (c) Damage to property: 1. Common law settlements... 487,868 2. Loss/damage to personal property: (i) Permanent Services... 20,516 (ii) Reserve Forces... 594 3. Road damage... 110,338 4. DA69/AMR816... 402 5. Kangaroo exercises... 1,636 621,354 (d) Legal expenses: 1. Compensation (CGE) Act... 45,628 2. Court-martial Costs: (i) RAN... 63,832 (ii) ARMY... 74,577 (iii) RAAF... 60,416 244,453 (3) The information requested by the honourable member regarding the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses is not readily available and would need to be obtained from the offices of the Australian Government Solicitor who generally represents the Department of Defence in common law matters. (Question No. 1606) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What is the reason for the delay in establishing appropriate protocol for (a) the import of frozen bovine embryos from Canada, (b) the import of frozen bovine semen from the United States of America and (c) the export of frozen bovine embryos to North America. (2) When will his Department establish protocol for this trade. (3) What was the added cost to Australian importers of bovine genetic material from North America as a result of the lack of protocol for the importation of frozen bovine embryos from Canada in the last 12 months. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Australia has a very favourable animal disease status. The continued exclusion of foreign animal diseases is of paramount importance to primary producers and exporters. To ensure that the import protocols provide adequate security, extensive consultation with overseas authorities, State veterinary services and industry is required. I am happy to advise the honourable member that: (a) conditions for import into Australia of bovine embryos from Canada are now complete; (b) conditions for import of frozen bovine semen from the USA should be completed in time for semen collection in the coming northern winter provided agreement can be reached on supervision and control of collection and processing; (c) conditions for the export of frozen bovine embryos to Canada from Tasmania were agreed over two years ago; the US Department of Agriculture is in the process of completing consultations prior to enactment of legislation to permit embryo imports. (3) Any answer would be entirely speculative. I am not aware that it has been established that there was any added cost to Australian importers. (Question No. 1616) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) Is there a reciprocal agreement with New Zealand for the payment of social security benefits; if so, what is the nature of the agreement. (2) In what circumstances can Australian citizens resident in New Zealand (a) temporarily and (b) permanently, obtain social security benefits from the NZ Government. (3) What is the (a) maximum rate of and (b) number of people receiving each type of benefit as at 30 June (i) 1983, (ii) 1984 and (iii) 1985. (4) In what circumstances can NZ citizens resident in Australia (a) temporarily and (b) permanently, obtain social security benefits from the Australian Government. (5) What is the (a) maximum rate of benefit relative to (i) Australian citizens and (ii) permanent residents and (b) number of people receiving each type of benefit as at 30 June (iii) 1983, (iv) 1984 and (v) 1985. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Agreement is an international treaty designed to assist people moving from New Zealand to Austalia to become eligible for Australian benefits and people moving from Australia to New Zealand to become eligible for New Zealand benefits. The agreement deems residence in one country to be residence in the other for the purposes of each country's social security law. The matter of citizenship is not relevant under the agreement. (2) (a) An Australian residing temporarily in New Zealand would, after a period of six months, be deemed to be a permanent resident of New Zealand and could use his previous Australian residence to qualify for any New Zealand benefits and pensions for which he may otherwise be eligible. (b) An Australian residing permanently in New Zealand can use his previous Australian residence immediately on arrival in New Zealand to qualify for any New Zealand benefits or pensions for which he may otherwise be eligible. (3) (a) At 30 June 1985 the weekly rates of New Zealand benefits were as follows (before tax): Single Married $NZ $NZ National Superannuation (age pension equivalent)... 133.83 220.28 Invalid Benefit... 99.82 166.36 Widows Benefit... 99.82 . . Unemployment Benefit... 99.82 166.36 Sickness Benefit... 99.82 166.36 (b) Figures as at 30 June are not available, however, payments made in New Zealand by virtue of the Agreement, as at 31 March each year, are: (i)1983 (ii)1984 (iii)1985 National Superannuation... 633 639 621 Invalids Benefit... 58 63 65 Widows Benefit... 21 20 18 Unemployment Benefit... 16 19 15 Sickness Benefit... 2 1 1 These figures do not include payments made to Australian-born permanent residents of New Zealand under that country's ordinary social security law. (4) (a) A New Zealander temporarily resident in Australia would, after a period of six months, be deemed to be a permanent resident of Australia and could use his previous New Zealand residence to qualify for any Australian benefits or pensions for which he may otherwise be eligible. (b) A New Zealander residing permanently in Australia can use his previous New Zealand residence immediately on arrival in Australia to qualify for any Australian benefits or pensions for which he may otherwise be eligible. (5) (a) The weekly rates of Australian pensions and benefits as at 30 June 1985 are as follows: Single Married $A $A Age Pension... 94.30 157.30 Invalid Pension... 94.30 157.30 Widows Pension... 94.30 157.30 Unemployment Benefit... 85.20 157.30 Sickness Benefit... 94.30 157.30 (b) The following payments were made in Australia by virtue of the Agreement as at 30 June each year: (iii)1983 (iv)1984 (v)1985 Age Pension... 387 400 432 Invalid Pension... 50 49 56 Widows Pension... 47 41 42 These figures do not include payments made under Australia's ordinary social security law to Australian residents born in New Zealand. No statistics are kept on the number of Australian unemployment or sickness benefit payments made by virtue of the Agreement. (Question No. 1617) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: Is it a fact that the traineeships announced by the Prime Minister on 18 August 1985 will encourage young unemployed people to transfer from unemployment benefit to training positions: if so, will he alter the requirements for unemployment benefit so that unemployed people may undertake training/study courses of their own choosing without losing entitlement to unemployment benefit, provided they maintain their availability for work. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Section 107 (1) (c) of the Social Security Act enables unemployment benefit to be paid for a period when a person is unemployed and capable and willing to undertake, and taking reasonable steps to obtain, suitable paid work. A person in full-time vocational training and/or study would not generally be regarded as unemployed but may be eligible for an education or training allowance, subject to requirements such as course appropriateness and study progress. The Government proposes to progressively reorganise education allowance and unemployment benefits for young people, to remove financial disincentives to participation in education and training for those from low income families. It also intends to ensure that constructive options in education and training are available to all young people. Part of this long term strategy is the introduction of traineeships which will provide appropriate remuneration, rather than unemployment benefit. (Question No. 1618)) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) How many (a) pensioners, (b) family allowees and (c) beneficiaries, have requested exemption from the direct debit system for payment of their entitlements. (2) How many of these requested exemption because of (a) remoteness, (b) age, frailty or other disability and (c) personal disadvantage. (3) How many have been (a) granted and (b) refused, exemption in each category, and on what grounds. (4) What is the legal basis for refusing exemptions to any person who has requested exemption from the direct deposit system. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 30 August 1985 requests for exemption from the direct deposit system for payment of entitlements were as follows: (a) Pensioners...89,987 (b) Family allowees...22,103 (c) Beneficiaries...10,218 (2) As at 30 August 1985 requests for exemption by category were as follows: (a) Remoteness: Pensioners...15,952 Family allowees...14,864 Beneficiaries...5,538 Total...36,354 (b) Aged, frail or disabled: Pensioners...60,434 Family allowees...925 Beneficiaries...308 Total...61,667 (c) Personal disadvantage: Pensioners...13,601 Family allowees...6,314 Beneficiaries...4,372 Total...24,287 (3) (a) As at 30 August 1985 requests granted by category were as follows: (i) Remoteness: Pensioners...15,564 Family allowees...14,340 Beneficiaries...5,455 Total...35,359 (ii) Aged, frail or disabled: Pensioners...50,251 Family Allowees...762 Beneficiaries...255 Total...51,268 (iii) Personal disadvantage: Pensioners...13,381 Family allowees...6,130 Beneficiaries...4,144 Total...23,655 (3) (b) As at 30 August 1985 requests refused by category were as follows: (i) Remoteness: Pensioners...388 Family allowees...524 Beneficiaries...83 Total...995 (ii) Aged, frail or disabled: Pensioners...10,183 Family allowees...163 Beneficiaries...53 Total...10,399 (iii) Personal disadvantage: Pensioners...220 Family allowees...184 Beneficiaries...228 Total...632 The grounds for refusing requests for exemptions are as varied as the reasons for requesting exemptions, and for this reason cannot all be listed. In general terms, a request for exemption would be refused if a client's circumstances did not fall within the exemption guidelines which include the following grounds: * The client cannot get to a financial institution because of living in an area `remote' from financial institutions, or experiencing difficulties with travelling to those institutions. * Because of frailty or disability the client experiences difficulties in using the services of financial institutions. * The client can show either significant or long term problems if required to change to direct deposits. These guidelines were developed in consultation with representatives of major welfare bodies and have been distributed to all Regional Offices. (4) The Department is empowered with a broad administrative discretion under the terms of the legislation. This discretion is contained in Section 135 TD (2) of the Social Security Act (1947). When a request for exemption is refused a client is of course advised of the right to appeal. However, to date, only one client has chosen to exercise this right. (Question No. 1647)) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the regional or district offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is the policy of the Department of Social Security that nobody should be disadvantaged by situation or geographic location. Recent government inititiatives such as Pensions Assets Testing and Direct Credits were extensively publicised. Included in these publicity campaigns was the advice that should clients require further information they should use the reverse charge facility provided by Telecom to contact the Department. The use of 008 lines in association with other equipment to form a co-ordinated telephone inquiry system is presently being evaluated. In the interim, the Department will continue its policy of accepting reverse charge calls until a cost effective national telephone inquiry system is implemented. (Question No. 1890)) Mr Cowan asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) How many people were receiving aged pensions in the Electoral Division of Lyne as at 31 August 1985. (2) How many of them have been notified that their pensions have been (a) affected or (b) cancelled due to assets testing. (3) How many appeals against the effects of assets testing have been upheld in the Electoral Division of Lyne as at 31 August 1985. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) &(2) The information sought is not available. Relevant statistics for geographical areas smaller than States and Territories are available only by Social Security regions and by postcode districts. Tables showing the number of pensioners whose pension has been reduced or cancelled, by Social Security region and by postcode districts, have been prepared but are too voluminous for incorporation in Hansard. Statistics for particular postcode districts or Social Security regions can be inspected at the House of Representatives Table Office. (3) Figures are not available for the number of appeals lodged in a particular Electoral Division. (Question No. 1908)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What was the cost of Telecom facilities hired by his Department and authorities under his control in 1984-85. (2) Will the estimated cost of hiring such facilities increase in 1985-86; if so, (a) why and (b) what is the estimated cost. (3) Will the cost of hiring these facilities continue in future years. (4) Has any increase in cost in this area resulted in cost savings in other areas; if so (a) what are they and (b) what is their value. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The cost of hiring Telecom facilities in 1984-85 was $19,722,654, including $2,056,654 for the hire of Datel lines for the transmission of computer data. (2) (a) The estimated cost of hiring Telecom facilities will increase in 1985-86 because of the full year effect of regional offices opened, offices to be opened in 1985-86 and increased Telecom charges announced by Telecom during 1984-85. (b) The estimated cost of hiring Telecom facilities in 1985-86 is $24,567.000. (3) Yes. (4) There are no cost savings in other areas. (Question No. 314) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 1983-84-178 claims (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985-255 claims (2) Analysis of claims Females... 424 Males... 9 Keyboard... 361 Clerical... 31 *Other... 41 * includes science officers, cleaners, diet maids, printers, storemen packers Claims accepted in the period 1 July 1983-20 March 1985...315 Claims rejected...Nil Claims being examined March 85...118 As recovery from repetitive strain injury can be slow and recurrences are possible, it is difficult to confidently state when a case is actually finalised. (3) At 20 March 1985 seventy nine officers were considered to be successfully rehabilitated and returned full time to normal duties. The following steps are generally taken to facilitate rehabilitation: Medical diagnosis followed usually by a period of rest and a graduated return to modified or normal duties. Other workers and supervisors are requested to support the rehabilitation process and assist in protecting staff from stress and undue work pressure. The tasks of officers undergoing rehabilitation from RSI are varied as much as possible. Ergonomics of the work place are reviewed and modified where necessary. Upgrading of furniture where necessary. (4) Steps taken to prevent this type of injury are generally as follows: On site instruction to staff on correct posture and good working practices by occupational health staff and physiotherapists as well as more general education of supervisors and managers by circulation of information and attendance at lectures. Overtime on keyboard work is avoided as far as possible. Workloads are managed and peaks are eliminated where possible. Introduction of regular work breaks in full time keying areas. Alternative duties are provided for keyboard staff where practical. Upgrading of furniture (e.g. adjustable desks, chairs and footstools) for keyboard staff. (Question No. 1453) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or coordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has not conducted or commissioned any advertising campaign or research study since March 1983. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 1521) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Re- creation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Did he give an undertaking in June 1984 to a delegation of mayors from the western region of Adelaide, that $2m would be provided in the 1984-85 Budget for stage 1 of the Western Region Aquatic Centre. (2) Did he subsequently approve the allocation of an amount in excess of $2 million to the North Adelaide Aquatic Centre; if so, what sum was approved. (3) On what criteria was an additional grant of up to $1,050,000 approved on 3 April 1984 to provide for the cost overrun on the South Australian Aquatic Centre and how did this grant satisfy the criteria of the International Standard Sports Facilities program. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 26 June 1984 during discussions with a delegation from the Metropolitan Regional Organisation Western I indicated hopes of obtaining funds for a new Regional Sports Facilities Program in the context of the 1984-85 Budget allocations. When funds were not provided for such a program I advised the Metropolitan Regional Organisation Western that I was unable to commit funds to the proposed Western Region Aquatic Centre. (2) No. I had previously approved, on 27 February 1984, an allocation of $2,989,735 towards the upgrading of the State Aquatic Centre, North Adelaide, under the then International Standard Sports Facilities Program, on the basis of a request from the South Australian Minister for Recreation and Sport. (3) Construction costs for this project were substantially higher ($2.1 million) than estimated. At the request of the South Australian Minister for Recreation and Sport I indicated that subject to availability of funds, I would consider the approval of $1,050,000 on a dollar for dollar basis as a first charge against South Australia's allocation from any new international standard sports facilities program in 1984-85. This is consistent with the policy guidelines for the National Sports Facilities Program, initiated in 1984-85, which state that additional payments to meet cost overruns will be considered if funds permit. As funds were available in this instance the additional allocation was approved. (Question No. 1525) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: What progress has been made towards implementing (a) a review of depreciation rates for accommodation buildings, (b) provision of subsidised holiday accommodation for poor families, and (c) a proposal to establish a School of Tourism, centred around either Cairns or Townsville, to provide skilled staff in the industry, as enunciated by him at the Economic Summit in April 1983. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Government increased the depreciation allowance for new non-residential income-producing buildings and short-term traveller accommodation buildings from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent in the 1984-85 Budget. (b) The Government continues to strongly support the principle that all persons have the right to affordable holidays. While we have considered a number of options to meet the commitments in this area, to date the current climate of budgetary restraint has restricted funding for this purpose. I am, however, pleased to say it is likely that some low cost accommodation proposals will be brought forward under the Steel Regions Assistance Program. (c) I have a strong commitment to ensure that adequate training facilities exist to meet the needs of the tourism industry. Any proposal for a national school of tourism would, of course, have to take into account the adequacy of existing facilities to meet the increased demands of an expanding industry, perceived industry needs and the level of sophistication of training required. My Department is currently exploring the key issues within tourism training, through a Review Group which comprises a broad cross-section of the industry, training institutions, industry associations and the unions. The Review Group has recently prepared a report which has made recommendations on short and long term strategy to consolidate and further develop tourism training in Australia. I will be considering the Report in the near future, including the Review Group's recommendations on the concept of the National School of Tourism. (Question No. 1526) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What has been the cost of each survey of activity levels of Australians. (2) Who conducted each survey and what was the sample size used. (3) Is any specific amount or general allocation of funds earmarked for these surveys. (4) Who decides whether these surveys are justified. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2): Survey Cost Sample Size Consultant $ Physical Activity Levels 1 18,000 3,502 The Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd Physical Activity Levels 2 20,300 3,484 The Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd Physical Activity Levels 3 24,000 3,386 The Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd Recreation Participation Survey 29,080 4,897 McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd (3) The availability of funds for the conduct of each survey is determined annually in the light of the Department's Budget appropriation. (4) In both cases, I do, based on a recommendation from my Department. (Question No. 1527) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: With respect to the National Australia Day Council, (a) how many times has it met, (b) how often does it meet, (c) what remuneration and expenses are received by its members, and (d) what is its cost. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Three times. (b) 5-6 times annually. (c) Sitting Fees-$163 per day (President) and $131 per day (members) Travelling allowance: $100 for an overnight stay and $30 per additional 10 hours away from home. (d) The Council has been allocated $750,000 in program funds in the 1985-86 Budget. (Question No. 1550) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) What arrangements are there between the Federal Government and the Victorian Government for the compulsory collection of blood for alcohol testing in all Victorian motor vehicle accident patients. (2) Does blood have to be collected from such patients even if they are not a casualty, or even if directed by a police officer not to do so. (3) What is the State's liability to any doctor required to take a blood sample, often from an unco-operative patient, who as a direct consequence contracts a blood borne viral disease. (4) Is any compensation payable to the doctor in this situation, such as is paid to workers in risky occupations. (5) Why are blood collections not performed by Government-employed doctors only. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The enactment and enforcement of laws relating to road traffic are primarily the responsibility of individual States. No arrangements exist between the Federal and Victorian Governments regarding the compulsory collection of blood for alcohol testing. (2) to (5) It would be appropriate to direct any questions on these matters to the State authorities. (Question No. 1566) Mr Beddall asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will he update the gluten-free commercial food list (a) in 1985 and (b) annually. (2) Will he ensure that the list is made widely available to the public. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Currently, my Department is updating the 1982-83 edition of the List of Gluten Free Food Information. It is anticipated that the revised list will be available at the end of this year or early 1986 and, provided resources are available, it will be updated annually. (2) In the past, my Department has made the list freely available to the public on request. However, in recent months officers of my Department have become concerned about the increasing self-prescription of restrictive dietary regimens such as the gluten-free diet. Restriction of dietary intake by exclusion of an entire group of foods, such as those containing gluten, can result in inadequate intakes of some essential nutrients. For this reason, and especially in children, it is important that a correct diagnosis is made before the start of any kind of elimination diet. Appropriate management should ensure that nutritionally adequate food sources are used in place of the foods avoided. A qualified dietitian should provide help with food selection and meals following diagnosis by and referral from a doctor. Also elimination of gluten-containing foods from the diet of either children or adults before diagnosis may make eventual differential diagnosis both difficult and more time consuming for the patient. For these reasons it is now the policy of my Department to provide the List of Gluten Free Food Information to doctors, dietitians, Coeliac Societies and individual members of the public with a medical or a dietetic prescription. With this policy a patient with a genuine need, that is with, eg., diagnosed coeliac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis, will have access to essential information. (Question No. 303) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, 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 her 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 finalied. (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 Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Number of claims (a) (b) (c) 1 July 1983- 30 June 1984 1 July 1984- 20 March 1985 Totals Department of Education... 28 30 58 Commonwealth Schools Commission (CSC)... 5 10 15 ACT Schools Authority (ACTSA)... 6 18 24 Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE)... 5 11 16 Australian National University (ANU)... 22 134 156 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC)... (nil) 5 5 Australian Maritime College (AMC)... (nil) (nil) (nil) TOTAL... 66 208 274 (2) Sex Duties performed Claims (f) (m) Accepted/ Rejected Not finalised Department of Education... 57 1 49 keyboard 6 clerical 3 clerical assistants 50 . . 8 CSC... 15 . . 13 keyboard 2 clerical 14 . . 1 ACTSA... 21 3 16 keyboard 2 clerical 1 lifting handicapped children 1 sweeping floors 1 offset printer 1 spinning &weaving 1 industrial art-manual tasks 1 writing &keyboard duties 18 1 5 (1 transferred from the Authority) CCAE... 16 . . 14 keyboard 2 clerical 16 . . . . ANU... 147 9 104 keyboard 32 clerical 7 laboratory technicians 2 gardeners 2 tea assistants 2 cleaners 1 Research Assistant 6 Library Officer/Librarians 125 1 21 (9 not applicable no time lost) CTEC... 5 . . 4 keyboard 1 clerical 4 . . 1 AMC... . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) No. of Employees working normal hours Steps taken to achieve rehabilitation Dept of Education... 30 Rehabilitation is achieved by phasing injured staff back into the workforce on reduced working hours into positions that do not exceed restrictions placed on them by the Commonwealth Medical Officer or occupational therapists. An additional 20 officers (approximately) are currently working on reduced hours as part of the rehabilitation programme. CSC... 4 Reduced working hours, activities in accordance with medical advice. ACTSA... 16 Phasing back affected officers into the workforce on a part-time basis with knowledge of restrictions placed on them by the Commonwealth Medical Officer &Occupational Therapists. CCAE... 14 Keyboard staff have either been redeployed into clerical areas or gradually returned to keyboard duties over a period of several months. ANU... Just over half the staff with RSI are back at work; many are performing modified duties and it is too early to claim that rehabilitation has been ``successful''. The steps taken included reference to the University Health Centre, the monitoring of treatment, an examination of the availability of alternative work and the modification of previous duties. CTEC... nil not yet applicable as no employee has yet been successfully rehabilitated. AMC... not applicable not applicable (4) Steps being taken to prevent this type of injury Department of Education and CSC (a) Employment of an Occupational Health and Safety Officer to advise the Department on its policies, procedures and standards; (b) Publishing of guidelines for safe working practices, eg. restbreaks, keyboard workloads etc; (c) Introduction of ergonomically sound equipment and furniture; (d) Training programmes on causes and prevention of RSI; (e) Engagement of specialist consultants; (f) Establishment of RSI Management Committee (joint union-management consultative committee) to advise management of contributing organisational problems; (g) Establishment of RSI Redeployment Committee to counsel affected staff, to monitor appropriate rehabilitation and to assist in placing affected staff; (h) Establishment of RSI Support Group, for RSI sufferers, to assist in career retraining, information dissemination, to provide support, and to assist in identifying contributing organisational problems; (i) Applications to Department of Finance for increased AOSL cover to accommodate effects of RSI. ACTSA (a) Training courses on causes and prevention; (b) Introduction of ergonomically sound equipment and furniture; (c) Attention to posture; (d) Use of rest pauses every hour; (e) Attention to environment-sound and lighting; (f) Development of multi-skill tasks such as combination of keyboard and clerical duties. CCAE The College has informed all employees that they must limit the use of keyboard equipment to fifty minutes with a ten minute break and after three consecutive fifty minute sessions users must leave the equipment for not less than one hour. ANU Prevention action has included: (a) the engagement of a specialist consultant to advise the University on its policies, procedures, standards; (b) the development, approval and implementation of standards for the replacement and purchase of furniture; (c) the publishing of guidelines for the safe operation of equipment, including rest periods, exercises, etc; (d) staff seminars to raise awareness of operators and supervisors to the risks of RSI The University is also conducting a research project into the causes of RSI and has appointed an Occupational Health and Safety Officer with specialist skills in this area. CTEC (a) keyboard staff have been addressed by Occupational Health and Safety physiotherapists on RSI preventative matters; (b) Ergonomic furniture purchased; (c) Keyboard staff advised of preventative measures and keyboard representatives nominated to attend a VDU/RSI workshop in July 1985; (d) Recommendations from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission on preventative measures brought to the attention of all keyboard operators. AMC The College is a comparatively new Authority and is able to use the experience of other authorities and departments to introduce appropriate work practices, including rotation of the type of work to ensure that there are no lengthy periods of keyboard work without a break, eg. 45 minutes maximum work and 15 minutes break. The College uses ergonomically designed furniture in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of RSI. (Question No. 1240) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March, 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed; (b) for what purpose; (c) what working plan was given to them; (d) what was the cost of their services; (e) when did their services commence and finish; and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount- Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Yes. Since March 1983, the Department of Finance and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust have employed the following consultants: Department of Finance (a) Who has been employed: 1. Amdahl Australia Pty Ltd 2. Optimum Operations Consultants 3. Bell and Howell 4. Computer Power 5. Systems Control Programming 6. ACI Computer Services 7. Logica 8. Parity Computer P/L 9. Doll Martin and Associates 10. Computer Resources 11. Jude Needham and Judy Cole Health Promotion Branch Capital Territory Health Commission 12. Chris Richards School of Administrative Studies, Canberra College of Advanced Education 13. Simon Maddox and Eric Leape Maddox Leape &Associates 14. Elaine Chesworth Sydney Human Performance Laboratory 15. Dr Robert Wood Australian Graduate School of Management 16. Anne Kiley Woden College of Technical and Further Education 17. Michael Creenaune Michael Creenaune &Associates 18. Dr Roger Collins RR&G Collins &Associates 19. Dr Robert Spillane Graduate School of Management 20. Mr Hugh Stretton University of Adelaide 21. Mr W. P. Butler 22. Ernst and Whinney Chartered Accountants (b) For what purpose: 1. To carry out a Capacity Planning review of the Department's Computing Resources. 2. To provide classroom instruction to Trainee Computer Operators in such areas as input/output devices, operating systems, job entry subsystem 2 and JCL overview. 3. To instruct Trainee Computer Operators in the use of Bell &Howell microfiche production equipment. 4. (i) To carry out a feasibility study on the Budget Management System; and (ii) To assist along with others (see 7 and 8 below) with the development of programs associated with the Budget Management System. 5. To formulate a data security policy and assist with the installation and implementation of the Department's security package. 6. To provide training in the use of the fourth generation language, FOCUS. 7 &8. To assist with the development of programs associated with the Budget Management System. 9. To undertake a study of the Department's information needs. 10. To instruct Trainee Computer Operators in the use of Datagraphics microfiche production equipment. 11. Stress Management. 12. Change in Public Sector Management &Meeting Skills. 13. Time Management. 14. Stress Management. 15. Appraisal Development &Motivation. 16. Effective Writing. 17. Negotiation Skills. 18. Organisation Styles. 19. People in Organisations. 20. Preparation of a paper, at the request of the Minister for Finance on the role of government enterprises in Australia to assist the Government's consideration of a proposed White Paper on this general subject. 21. To conduct a continuing review of the administration of the various expenditure programs involving the provision of financial assistance to the States and Local Government for which the Department of Finance is responsible. 22. (i) To provide to the Monaghan Inquiry into the Operations of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, a private sector perspective on the adequacy of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust investment processes and procedures; and (ii) To provide a private sector perspective to the Joint Working Party established to advise on action necessary to remedy the shortcomings identified by the Monaghan Inquiry. (c) What working plan was given to them: 1. The consultant was provided with a detailed specification on the objectives to be achieved. 2. The consultant was provided with the course outline to cover all aspects of computer operation in which the trainees were to receive instruction. 3. The consultant was requested to cover all aspects of microfiche production using the Bell &Howell system. 4. (i) The consultant was requested to undertake a freasibility study in accordance with a detailed specification; and (ii) Individual programs that make up the Budget Management System are allocated for development as required. Estimates are made of the time required to develop each program and progress is monitored regularly. 5. A specification for the development of security controls and implementation of the Department's Security package was provided to the Consultant. 6. The consultant was required to provide instruction on all aspects of FOCUS to enable end users to fully understand and use the product. 7 &8. Individual programs that make up the Budget Management System are allocated for development as required. Estimates are made of the time required to develop each program and progress is monitored regularly. 9. Written specifications of the Department's requirements were provided, and a work plan, including timetable, was developed jointly by the Department and the Consultant. 10. To cover all aspects of microfiche production using the Datagraphics system installed. 11. to 19. The consultants were briefed on the Department's requirements by the course manager in each case and were required to provide an outline of their session. 20. To draw upon the author's broad interest and experience in public administration and the role of government enterprises. 21. The consultant was required to undertake and perform, under the supervision of the Minister, such tasks as were from time to time specified by the Minister by notice in writing to the consultant. 22. (i) To focus on the six major investment projects of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and other concerns in the Auditor-General's Report of 1981-82. (ii) To examine and consider a number of matters associated with the conclusions and recommendations of the Monaghan Report and report to the Minister for Finance on action considered appropriate. (d) What was the cost of their services: 1. $3,000 2. $8,573 3. $1,300 4. (i) $10,792 (ii) $167,300 5. $12,620 6. $14,000 7. $83,000 8. $334,500 9. $52,770 10. $780 11. $240 12. $725 13. $240 14. $405 15. $150 16. $646.49 17. $4,810 18. $1,300 19. $1,250 20. $5,000-paid to the University of Adelaide 21. $32,138.36 22. (i) $40,760 (ii) $6,492 (e) When did their services commence and finish: 1. 12-16 December 1983 2. 7-8 February; 19-20 February 1984; 2-3 April 1984; 14-16 November 1984; 11-14 December 1984 3. 5 March 1984; 8 January 1985 4. (i) 14 May 1984-8 June 1984; (ii) 3 December 1984-30 September 1985 5. 21 May 1984-22 June 1984 6. 29 October 1984-18 December 1984 7. 29 October 1984-31 July 1985 8. 5 November 1984-30 September 1985 9. 2 November 1984-31 January 1985 10. 4 February 1985 11. 15 April 1983 and 11 November 1983 12. 7-8 November 1983 13. 10 November 1983 14. 24 October 1984 and 20 February 1985 15. 24 October 1984 16. 31 October-1 November 1984 17. 13-14 November 1984 and 26-28 March 1985 18. 18 February 1985 19. 21 February 1985 20. 14 December 1983-17 January 1984 21. 22 February 1984-3 September 1984 22. (i) 23 January 1984-21 March 1984 (ii) 10 April 1984-5 July 1984 (f) Was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount: No. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (SFIT) The information provided has been confined to details of consultancies that do not relate to specific investments. Information on consultants engaged to advise or assist the SFIT on particular investments has not been included on the grounds that such information is commercially sensitive. The engagement of contract ADP staff, ``internal'' auditors, lawyers and valuers have also been omitted from the answer on the grounds that they are not considered to be ``consultants'' in the sense used in the question. (a) Who has been employed: 1. Hay and Associates 2. Eric White and Associates 3. Noble Lowndes 4. Computer Information Management Pty Ltd 5. Coopers and Lybrand and WD Scott 6. Charles Wright and Associates (b) for what purpose: 1. To provide an overview of a proposed reorganisation of SFIT and to advise on the levels of remuneration and other benefits payable to senior officers of the SFIT relative to those offered by private enterprise. 2. Supervise production of a booklet on SFIT's investment in NSW. 3. To calculate SFIT's investment performance and compare the results with other major funds. 4. To develop a statement of accounting policy for the SFIT, advise on the implementation of this policy, and make other recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the SFIT's accounting operations. 5. To review and report on SFIT's investment strategy and management organisation. 6. To produce an information brochure on SFIT's activities for distribution to contributors. (c) What working plan was given to them: 1. Establish the duties and responsibilities of senior staff and relate those to comparable positions in the private sector. 2. In consultation with SFIT staff, liaise with graphic artist and printer. 3. Measure performance of post-1976 investments for period 1976-1983. Update post-1976 investments performance measure for 1984. Measure performance of all investments for period 1981-1984. Compare SFIT's earning rate with other major funds. 4. Prepare draft policy for the SFIT's consideration and assist with the implementation of the approved policy (including consultations with the Department of Finance, the Auditor-General and ACTU). 5. Propose an appropriate investment policy and strategy. Recommend the organisation structure needed to implement the proposed strategy. Advise on appropriate management information and reporting systems. 6. Design and arrange printing of 150,000 copies of the brochure in consultation with SFIT staff. (d) What was the cost of their services: 1. $2,000 2. $18,145.48 3. $22,669 4. $15,583 (to June 1985) 5. $106,300 6. $22,325 (e) When did their services commence and finish: 1. October 1983 2. February 1983-February 1984 3. June-October 1984 4. December 1984 (continuing) 5. January-July 1985 6. June-August 1985 (f) Was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount: 3. by $4,969 5. by $16,800. (Question No. 1336) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 31 May 1985: (1) How many Australian officials accompanied him during his visit to Korea from 29 April to 2 May 1985. (2) What did each official achieve. (3) Can he provide the exact form of words issued by the Korean Government when it purportedly gave an assurance that Australia will be the source of supply looked to first when Korea re-opens its beef market Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Five. (2) The visit to the Republic of Korea had a two-fold purpose of providing the opportunity for holding the fourteenth session of Australia/Korea Bilateral Ministerial Trade Talks and also my participation in the Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference in Seoul. Officials accompanying me provided support in both the Ministerial Talks and the PEC Conference. Opportunity was also taken to discuss trade issues with their counterparts in the Korean bureaucracy and Korean industry. The results are reflected in my media release of 2 May 1985. (3) I refer the honourable member to my answer in the House on 7 May 1985 in which I said that the Koreans, for the first time, had agreed to consult Australia on the question of beef demand and supply in Korea. This will not only pave the way for an early warning for the Australian industry of the re-opening of the beef market in Korea but also will ensure that the Australian industry will be the first suppliers approached when the beef market is re-opened. (Question No. 1421) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many consultant architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other specialists were commissioned by his Department to complete designs or tender documentation during (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85? (2) How many new projects were involved? (3) What proportion of the design workload of the Department was placed with private practitioners? (4) For each State and Territory (a) how many consultants were engaged on new projects, (b) what was the value of projects and (c) what proportion of the design workload for projects was placed with private practitioners in that State or Territory, during those year? Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. My Department placed 824 new commissions in 1983-84 and 882 in 1984-85, with Architects, Engineers, Quantity Surveyors and other Specialists to undertake design and documentation activities; the figures do not include commissions solely for technical advice. 2. The approximate number of new projects involved was 477 in 1983-84 and 465 for 1984-85. 3. The level of design workloads placed with private practitioners (by commissions and engagement of contract personnel) was approxiamately 53% in 1983-84 and 56% in 1984-85, (expressed as a percentage of total design workload). The following schedule is listed by Regional offices of the Department and includes: (a) The number of engagements of consultants on new projects. (b) The total value of the projects. `New' projects are those where design commenced during the year. (c) The proportion of design placed with private practitioners-consultants and contract personnel. SCHEDULE OF CONSULTANTS BY REGION (a) (b) (c) Regions Total of Consultancies on New Projects Value of Projects Workload by Private Practitioners $ % ACT 83/84... 72 88.75 55 84/85... 38 51.67 60 NSW 83/84... 80 112.90 59 84/85... 120 254.70 65 Vic/Tas 83/84... 76 114.00 43 84/85... 85 64.54 47 SA/NT 83/84... 188 350.00 63 84/85... 117 15.00 68 WA 83/84... 12 5.77 29 84/85... 16 32.64 29 Qld 83/84... 49 53.95 59 84/85... 89 21.45 39 (Question No. 1676) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: What amount of (a) single strength fruit juice and (b) fruit juice cordial, was produced in Australia in each of the last three financial years. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), production of fruit juice and fruit juice cordials and syrups over each of the last three financial years has been as follows: (a) Natural Fruit Juices (i) Apple and Citrus 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 ('000 litres) Apple... 37,732 30,540 51,072 Citrus... 112,529 103,046 138,510 Total... 150,261 133,586 189,582 (ii) Other Than Apple and Citrus (latest available figures are for the three years to 1982/83) 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 ('000 litres) 61,638 71,274 63,471 (b) Fruit Juice Cordials and Syrups (containing at least 25% pure fruit juice) 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 ('000 litres) 78,658 75,687 85,243 Production statistics for fruit juice cordials and syrups containing less than 25% pure fruit juice are not collected separately by the ABS. (Question No. 1857) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Is he able to indicate whether a subsidiary of the American Westinghouse Corporation continues to log environmentally sensitive rain forest areas at Downey Creek, Queensland; if so, what action is he taking to highlight the actions of the Westinghouse Corporation in this matter. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Selective logging of rain forest at Downey Creek in north Queensland is currently being undertaken by Foxwood Limited under licence and in accordance with guidelines set down by the Queensland Department of Forestry. I understand that Foxwood Limited is a subsidiary of Email Limited, an Australian company which manufactures a range of electrical, consumer and industrial products and has, as part of its operations, a licence to manufacture on behalf of the Westinghouse International Technology Corporation. (Question No. 125)) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: 1. Which countries have: (a) used the Pacific Ocean area for missile testing; and (b) had nuclear: (i) powered and (ii) armed ships in the Pacific. Mr Beazley —The following answer to the honourable member's question assumes that by Pacific Ocean area the question refers to that body of water extending from the Bering Strait to the Antarctic continent and from the west coast of the Americas to the east coasts of Australia and Asia, including the Indonesian Archipelago: (a) Three countries are known to have tested land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and/or submarine launched ballistic missiles into the Pacific. These countries are the People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union, and the United States of America. (b) (i) The following countries have sailed nuclear powered vessels in the Pacific of the types indicated in parenthesis: France (submarine) Japan (merchant ship-the Mutsu) People's Republic of China (submarine) Soviet Union (submarine) United Kingdom (submarine) United States (submarine, naval surface and possibly a merchant ship, the Savannah, which is now deregistered) Additionally, the Western German nuclear powered merchant ship, the Otto Hahn, may have sailed in the Pacific, prior to its conversion to diesel power. (b) (ii) The Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom possess nuclear missile capable warships which have sailed in the Pacific Ocean or its adjacent seas. None of these countries confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons for a particular deployment. (Question No. 546)) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report on page 1 of the Sydney Morning Herald, of 7 March 1985, entitled `Australia Asked to Run Spy Base'. (2) Does equipment for the detection of nuclear weapons on foreign ships exist; if so, for how long has it been available. (3) Does the Government possess, operate or have access to any such equipment in Australia or its Territories for monitoring the visits of foreign warships to Australian ports or the transit of any foreign warships in international water adjacent to Australia or its Territories. (4) Do any of our military allies which have defence intelligence operations based in Australia or Australian Territories operate any such equipment at any of their Australian installations; if so, is the information gained from such intelligence operations made available to Australian defence and intelligence organisations and the Government. (5) If either of the answers to parts (3) and (4) is in the affirmative, is it therefore the case that the Government can make an independent assessment of whether visiting warships carry nuclear weapons regardless of whether the relevant foreign power refuses to confirm or deny that its ships carry nuclear weapons. (6) If so, for how long has this been the case. (7) If the answers to parts (3) and (4) are in the negative, will the Government consider obtaining such equipment to allow Australia to make independent assessments of whether visiting warships carry nuclear weapons. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2), (3) and (4) Highly sensitive detectors capable of detecting the low levels of radiation emanating from nuclear weapons have been in laboratory use for many years. Consistent with the practice of successive Australian Governments, it is not proposed to comment on whether Australia possesses, operates or has access to specific intelligence gathering capabilities, or whether our military allies possess, operate or have access to such capabilities. (5) and (6) See the answer to Question 3 and 4 above. (7) Consistent with the practice of successive Australian Governments, it is not proposed to comment on Government intentions in this field. (Question No. 1032)) Mr Jull asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) How many people are involved in the censorship of videotapes in the Commonwealth Chief Censor's office. (2) How many tapes were censored: (a) in 1984; (b) to 10 May 1985. (3) (a) What is the current backlog of tapes awaiting censorship. (b) What provisions are being made to clear this backlog. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The censorship of cinema films and videotapes is handled by a Censorship Board currently consisting of a Chief Censor, a Deputy Censor and 9 members. The Board is supported by a Censorship Section comprising 24 full-time and one part-time staff. (2) (a) In 1984, 5,173 videotapes were classified and gazetted. (b) From 1 January 1985 to 31 August 1985, 8,997 videotapes were classified and gazetted. (3) (a) At 31 August 1985 a total of 556 videotapes were awaiting classification. (b) Two additional members have recently been appointed to the Censorship Board and Cabinet has approved the employment of four extra temporary staff to assist in processing the backlog of videotape classification applications. A system of classification of videos of previously classified cinema films based on statutory declarations submitted by video distributors has been introduced. A task force of four Departmental Officers drawn from regional offices has completed a six week location at the Censorship Board. The above measures have reduced the backlog of videotapes awaiting classification from 2,831 at 31 March 1985 to 556 at 31 August 1985. (Question No. 1329)) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Will the Attorney-General set out the current guidelines for the grant of legal aid to people involved in cases arising out of commercial or business transactions. (2) When were the guidelines promulgated. Mr Lionel Bowen —The following answer is provided to the honourable member's question: (1) Legal aid is provided principally by the independent State and Territory legal aid commissions and by the Australian Legal Aid Office (ALAO). The ALAO currently operates in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Each legal aid commission has its own policy that is relevant to the granting of assistance. It would be appropriate for the honourable member to seek relevant information from each commission concerning the availability of assistance in cases arising out of commercial or business transactions. As to the granting of aid by the ALAO, the Office does not have a specific formal policy applicable to cases arising out of commercial or business transactions. As with all applications for assistance, the Office is required to have regard to all relevant circumstances in determining whether it is reasonable to provide assistance. This includes having regard to the nature and extent of any benefit that may accrue to the applicant from the provision of assistance or of any detriment that the applicant may suffer if the assistance is not provided and, in the case of a proceeding, the likelihood of the proceeding terminating in a manner favourable to the applicant. When assessing applications for aid in connection with disputes arising out of matters that are essentially commercial or business transactions, in the context of assessing the `reasonableness' of the application, the Office will not ordinarily approve a grant of assistance unless there are special circumstances, such as where the applicant's livelihood, or family home, are placed at risk. The Office gives a low priority to commercial or business disputes so as to ensure that legal aid funds are spread as widely over as many cases as possible, and directed to those persons most in need in the community. (2) Guidelines dealing specifically with the availability of legal aid in connection with cases arising out of commercial or business transactions have not been issued by the ALAO. (Question No. 1514)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department of Veterans' Affairs (1) The Department of Veterans' Affairs uses the following brands of computer hardware: (i) Amdahl 5860 processor with attached hardware Amdahl Technology disc equipment Storage Technology disc equipment IBM disc drives Impact printers (ii) Telex terminal equipment (iii) Prime and Webster minicomputers (iv) IBM Personal Computers. (2) (a) the Amdahl 5860 mainframe computer system provides centralised processing capacity for the Department's wide range of ADP applications which cover administrative applications, client related claims processing, pension payment and hospital and medical applications in all Branch Offices and Repatriation General Hospitals (b) May 1984 (c) $3.1 million (d) 4 to 5 years (e) No action is being taken to replace the Amdahl computer; however, additional computing capacity will be sought during 1985. (3) No. Defence Service Homes Corporation (1) The major computer system used by the Defence Service Homes Corporation consists of an ICL 2903 mini computer in each of the mainland State capital cities together with ICL terminal equipment. Personal computers are installed in all mainland capital cities, including Canberra, to provide word processing and data manipulation facilities. (2) (a) The ICL system provided batch processing of loan and insurance accounts and some limited management and statistical information (b) Between November 1977 and January 1979 (c) Approximately $755,000 (d) Action was being taken to replace the ICL 2903 system before the Treasurer's announcement on 14 May 1985 of the decision that the private sector should take over the administration of the Defence Service Homes Scheme. Replacement action has been stopped, but a site review was undertaken to determine action needed to extend the operational life of the mini computers so that client services may be continued during the transitional period. The necessary action will require some minor expenditure. (3) No. Australian War Memorial (1) The Australian War Memorial uses the following brands of computer hardware:- (i) Hewlett Packard (HP 3000-37 Minicomputer) (ii) Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN) Hardware-3 VDU (Ericsson); 3 Keyboard (Ericsson); 1 Printer (Ericsson); 1 Processor 4103 (Ericsson) (iii) Micromation system Hardware-2 VDU; 2 Keyboards; 1 Draft Printer (iv) AWA Corona (v) Apple IIE (2) Hewlett Packard (HP 3000-37 Minicomputer). (a) To facilitate inventory control and to support other collection management activity. (b) 24 May 1985 (c) $42,728.56 (d) 7 years. It is considered that the current configuration will meet the Memorial's requirements for the immediate future with a series of upgrades to provide additional disc space and additional terminals/printers as the collection management system develops. (e) At this stage, upgrading options offered on the HP3000-37 will be followed. Dependent upon production load, it may be necessary to upgrade to a higher series of HP3000 in the future. (3) No. Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN) (2) (a) ABN is an automated national bibliographic service based on a co-operative on-line shared cataloguing facility. It is a service provided by the Australian National Library and operated on a cost-recovery basis. (b) 1984 (c) $20,000 (d) Hardware 10-15 years (e) Nil (3) Although the hardware is used solely by the AWM, it is part of a network controlled by the National Library of Australia and used by over 100 participant members and over 100 dial-up customers. Micromation System (2) (a) Collection control within the Special Collections and Audio-Visual Records Collection sections (b) 984 (c) $8,000 (d) Hardware-5-8 years (e) This unit will eventually be superseded by the AWM HP3000-37 system. (3) No. APPLE II E (2) (a) AWM Fund Reporting System, Debtors and General Ledger (b) August 1982 (c) $7355 (d) 4 years until August 1986 (e) None (3) No. AWA Corona (2) (a) Appropriation Funds Reporting System (b) June 1985 (c) $9376 (d) 5 years (e) None (3) No. (Question No. 1575)) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department of Finance (1), (2) and (3). (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $165,537. For the most part this covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($109,168) made to eleven (11) former employees in accordance with Determinations of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($56,369) covered payments to Medical Practitioners, Chemists and Hospitals relating to Employee Compensation Determinations in respect of 138 officers and comprising 374 individual transactions. (ii) Other Compensation Payments. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $923 in respect of 26 claims of compensation for damage to clothing. (iii) Legal Expenses Amount Recipient Service $175 Mr R, Boaden Memorandum of Fees for interpreting a Will Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office (AGRBO) (1), (2) and (3) (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $47,062. For the most part this covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($38,158) made to six (6) former employees in accordance with Determinations of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($8,904) covered payments to Medical Practitioners, Chemists and Hospitals relating to Employee Compensation Determinations in respect of 24 officers and comprising 64 individual transactions. (ii) Legal Expenses Amount $ Recipient Service 6,666 Mrs Fleming Memorandum of Counsel Fees 1,215 Mr H. G. Shore Memorandum of Counsel Fees 150 Mr S. W. Gibb Memorandum of Counsel Fees 1,829.50 Various Witness Fees 60 South Eastern Services Service of documents on two doctors 878.80 Chris Hudson &Co Investigators appointed by the Australian Government Solicitor in a damages case. (Question No. 1596)) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: Does the Government intend to conduct a survey into the awareness of the Australian public of the 1985-86 Budget; if so: (a) who will conduct the survey; and (b) what amount will be allocated for it. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government does not intend to conduct a survey into the awareness of the Australian public of the 1985-86 Budget. (Question No. 1983)) Mr Moore asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has the Government established a committee to investigate the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations. (2) If so, does the committee consist of 3 appointees of the Government, with no representation from the various State and local governments. (3) When will he receive the committee's report. (4) Has sufficient time been given to the committee to cover all aspects under review. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The task group established to undertake the review consists of officers of the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Local Government and Administrative Services, and the Treasury. It is undertaking its work in full consultation with the State and Northern Territory Governments and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. Public submissions have been invited by advertisement in the national press. (3) and (4) The task group expects to be able to complete its report before the end of 1985, and to have sufficient time to cover all aspects under review. (Question No. 381)) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The information sought is incorporated in the following tables, correct at 31 July 1985. TERRITORIES PORTFOLIO ACT Architects Board Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman V. Martisius (1) 24.4.85 23.4.88 Nil Nil Deputy Chairman J. Redmond 24.4.85 23.4.88 Sitting Fees: Travelling Allowance: Up to 3 hours per day $55 $96 per day overnight stay in a Capital City More than 3 hours per day $110 $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member R. Krastins E. Taylor G. Williams (1) 24.4.85 24.4.85 24.4.85 23.4.88 23.4.88 23.4.88 As above As above Nil As above As above Nil Note: (1) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. ACT Bush Fire Council Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman V. M. Jeffrey (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 Sitting Fee: Travelling Allowance: Up to 3 hours per day $68 $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City More than 3 hours per day $136 $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy Chairman R. J. Murray 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil Member P. B. Buckmaster (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 Members Sitting Fees: Up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As for Chairman A. I. Fleming (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 As above As above P. W. Webb (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 As above As above B. H. Leaver 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil N. P. Cheney 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil J. G. Williams 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil B. H. Pratt 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil W. G. Kerr 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil G. R. Taylor 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil Deputy Member(2) G. Crawford (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 As for paid members As for paid members A. W. Johnson (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 As above As above D. M. Fowler (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 As above As above K. A. Bolton (1) 18.12.84 17.12.85 As above As above A. Fearnside 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil S. R. Evans 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil R. B. Goode 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil A. M. Gill 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil P. M. Seal 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil F. R. Gnauck 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil E. G. Stokes 18.12.84 17.12.85 Nil Nil Note: (1) These persons receive remuneration. All others are Government employees and receive no remuneration. (2) Deputies receive remuneration only if Chairman or member is not present. ACT Credit Tribunal Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Chairman A. Menzies, O.B.E. 10.4.85 9.4.88 Daily rate fee: $249 Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Members B. Pentony 10.5.85 9.5.88 Sitting Fees: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 Travelling allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City L. Abraham 10.5.85 9.5.88 As above As above ACT Electricity Authority Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Chairman W. E. Bolton 23.1.81 22.1.87 $63,972 p.a. Office allowance: $1,900 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $105 per full day in a Capital City $75 per full day in other than a Capital City Members P. R. Kolbold 23.7.85 Whilst a M.H.A. $4,604 Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City MemberJ. A. Turner (1) 21.3.84 20.3.87 Nil Nil Note: (1) Departmental officer, no remuneration paid. ACT Fire Brigade Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Commissioner W. M. G. Kerr 22.10.84 21.10.87 Salary: $46,019 p.a. Office Allowance: $975 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $105 per full day in a Capital City $75 per full day in other than a Capital City ACT Fire Brigade Appeal Board Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Chairman Vacant (1) Nil Nil Member 2 Vacancies (1) Nil Nil Note: (1) Appointment action in progress. ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman D. J. Crossin 1.9.81 31.8.86 Salary: $16,860 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $125 per overnight stay in a Capital City $95 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy Chairman P. H. Watson 1.9.81 31.8.86 $9,052 p.a. As above Member H. J. Hird (2) T. J. Higgins (3) M. C. Woods (1) 1.9.81 3.10.84 5.9.84 31.7.85 31.8.85 31.8.85 $6,781 p.a. $6,781 p.a. Nil As above As above Nil Note: (1) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. (2) New appointment currently under consideration. (3) New appointment currently under consideration. (4) New appointment currently under consideration. ACT House of Assembly Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Leader of the House J. W. Leedman 5.6.82 1.7.86 Basic Fee: $9,136 p.a. Additional Fee: $3,342 p.a. Office Allowance: $3,315 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Speaker of the House H. J. Hird 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $2,507 p.a. $2,230 p.a. As Above Minority Leader P. R. Whalan 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $501 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above Independent Member J. M. Clements 4.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above Australian Democrats Member G. J. Walsh 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above Family Team Member B. Cains B. Hocking 5.6.82 5.6.82 1.7.86 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above As Above Labor Party Member S. A. Craven 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above K. R. Doyle 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above J. B. Reid 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above J. M. Taggart 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above P. Vallee 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above R. L. Walmsley 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above M. Horder 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above Liberal Party D. Adams 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above G. G. Cornwell 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above T. T. Kaine 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above P. R. Kobold 5.6.82 1.7.86 $9,136 p.a. $1,715 p.a. As Above Administrator of Christmas Island Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Administrator T. F. Paterson 10.8.83 At Governor-General's pleasure Salary: (1) (2) $52,551 p.a. Office Allowance: $3,800 p.a. District Allowance: $3,690 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Note: (1) The Remuneration Tribunal has determined that the rate per annum of salary is the maximum salary payable from time to time to the holder of a Clerical Administrative Class 11 Office in the Third Division of the Australian Public Service. The current rate for that level is $39,918 p.a. (2) The Administrator was already First Assistant Secretary, SES Level 3 before appointment and remuneration at that level was maintained through an amendment to the Remuneration and Allowances Regulations with effect from 1 August 1983. Administrator of Cocos (Keeling) Islands Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Administrator Dr K. Chan 14.12.83 At Governor-General's pleasure Salary: (1) Office Allowance: $3,800 p.a. District Allowance: (family rate) $2,500 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Note: (1) See note (1) for Administrator of Christmas Island. Administrator of Norfolk Island Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Administrator Commodore J. A. Matthew, C.V.O., M.B.E. 29.4.85 At Governor-General's pleasure Salary: (1) Office Allowance: $3,800 p.a. Travel Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Note: (1) See note (1) for Administrator of Christmas Island. Agents Board of the ACT Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman R. O'Connell (1) 26.5.83 At the Minister's pleasure Nil Nil Members S. Craven 4.8.82 31.7.85 (2) Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City J. O'Donnell 12.5.83 11.5.86 As above As above A. Curtis 15.3.84 14.3.87 As above As above M. Cummins 17.5.83 16.5.86 As above As above Note: (1) Departmental representative, no remuneration received. (2) New appointment currently under consideration. Air Pollution Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman (1) R. Dunn (2) 19.11.84 19.11.85 Nil Nil Member (3) 5-10 Vacancies (4) not to exceed 3 years (5) (5) Note (1) Person appointed under the Ordinance as the `Authority' is ex officio, the Chairman. (2) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. (3) Committee is newly established and appointments have not yet been made. (4) Must include 1 member of the House of Assembly. (5) Remuneration has not yet been determined. ACT Internal Omnibus Network Liaison Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman Dr M. Ward 12.6.84 11.6.87 Nil Nil Member S. Craven 12.6.84 No fixed term Nil Nil J. Clements 12.6.84 No fixed term Nil Nil J. Brigg 12.6.84 No fixed term Nil Nil R. Black 12.6.84 No fixed term Nil Nil B. Smith 15.10.84 No fixed term Nil Nil D. Lamont 15.10.84 No fixed term Nil Nil ACT Sports and Fitness Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman D. Stafford 13.12.82 30.11.85 Nil Nil Member P. Thompson 3.1.85 30.11.86 Nil Nil L. Jackson 3.1.85 30.11.86 Nil Nil J. Pyke 3.1.85 30.11.86 Nil Nil L. Appleby 1.7.85 30.6.87 Nil Nil Vacant P. Shakespear 1.12.83 30.6.85 Nil Nil L. James 10.12.83 30.11.85 Nil Nil Vacant D. Furner Position of Departmental Executive Assistant, Sport and General Recreation Vacant 11.6.83 30.6.87 Nil Nil Nil Nil ACT Third Party Insurance Premiums Advisory Committee (1) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman B. Reid representing ACT House of Assembly 1974 No fixed term Nil Nil Member J. R. Ford Australian Government Actuary 1974 No fixed term Nil Nil S. G. East Canberra Chamber of Commerce 1974 No fixed term Nil Nil R. J. Lamble NRMA Insurance Ltd 1974 No fixed term Nil Nil A. J. De Domenico Insurance Council of Australia 1974 No fixed term Nil Nil C. Parsons Department of Territories 1975 No fixed term Nil Nil Prof. AD Barton Consumers 29.8.84 No fixed term Nil Nil P. Edstein Motorcyclists 27.3.85 No fixed term Nil Nil Note: (1) Membership comprises organisations with an interest and/or expertise in third party insurance matters. The majority of organisations have been represented since the Committee was reconstituted in 1974. Appointment dates are those of appointment of organisation to the Committee. Asbestos Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman B. Selinger Not specified $70 per hour to maximum of $170 per day Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member C. McDonald Not specified Sitting Fees: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 No travel allowance P. O'Dea Not specified As above As above P. Paramour Not specified As above As above R. Dunn (1) Not specified Nil Nil Vacant (2) Note: (1) Commonwealth employee, no remuneration received. (2) Appointment action is in progress as at 31 July 1985. Canberra Development Board Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman Sir Laurence Muir 30.11.79 $13,564 Travelling Allowance: $125 per overnight stay in a Capital City $95 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Members W. R. Tieck 30.11.79 $6,781 As above G. Cusack 30.11.79 $6,781 As above J. G. Service 30.11.79 $6,781 As above J. D. Enfield (1) 25.5.83 Nil Nil M. B. Latham 25.7.85 Nil Nil Note: (1) Commonwealth employee, no remuneration received. Canberra Public Library Service Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman The Hon. Mr Justice R. Else- Mitchell, C.M.G. 10.12.83 9.12.85 Nil Nil Member D. Barron Whilst City Librarian Nil Nil J. Biles 4.9.84 3.9.86 Nil Nil K. A. Bourke A.M. 16.7.85 16.7.87 Nil Nil O. P. Butz 30.3.85 29.3.87 Nil Nil B. M. Cains whilst a MHA Nil Nil J. M. Clements whilst a MHA Nil Nil S. Craven whilst a MHA Nil Nil R. Driver 4.9.84 3.9.86 Nil Nil T. Bailkowski awaiting appointment as at 31.7.85 Nil Nil G. Papek 13.4.84 12.4.86 Nil Nil K. A. Peisley, M.B.E. 30.3.85 29.3.87 Nil Nil L. Webb ex-officio Nil Nil B. Yates ex-officio Nil Nil Home and Community Care (HACC) Forum Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance One Representative April 1985 April 1986 each from: (1) Nil Nil ACT Council of Social Service ACT Council on the Ageing ACT ACROD Community Services Health Care Consumers Migrant Resource Centre Red Cross Emergency Housekeeping and Home Help Service Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Association ACT Association for Mental Health Department of Community Services (ACTRA) ACT Health Authority Department of Territories Note: (1) Membership is for twelve months and members receive no remuneration, but $500 is available to defray the meeting costs of HACC forum members. Housing Branch Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman (1) OIC Co-ordination and support Nil Nil Secretary (1) Priority Housing Officer Nil Nil Member (2) One representative each from: Nil Nil House of Assembly Welfare Branch Council of Social Services of ACT Inc. St Vincent de Paul Society Smith Family Inc. Single Women's Shelter Inc. Catholic Social Services Canberra Youth Refuge Association Salvation Army Family Welfare Bureau Note: (1) and (2) Individual persons are not appointed to this Committee but the current occupants of the nominated positions or representatives of nominated organisations attend. Appointments were made from date of the inaugural meeting of 29.8.84. No fixed term of tenure is set. (2) Only representatives from four independent bodies attend each meeting and the attending bodies are rotated on roster every six weeks. Nominal Insurers Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman Vacant (1) Nil Nil Member 3 Vacancies (1) Nil Nil Note: (1) Appointment action to be taken when a new Nominal Insurer is appointed. (Interim) Racecourse Development Fund Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman P. H. Watson 1.3.84 Until legislation introduced Up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 Nil Member A. P. Kenyon 1.3.84 Until legislation introduced Up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 Nil R. A. L. Bradford (1) 2.7.85 As Above Nil Nil Note: (1) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. International Youth Year Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman B. Redpath (1) 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil Member B. Cains 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil P. Plowman 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil S. Rickerby 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil T. Holland 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil W. Green 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil Y. Georgevic 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil J. Chadwick 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil J. Small (1) 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil E. Paijmans (1) 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil S. Hagan 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil G. Eager 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil Vacant 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil L. Denoon (1) 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil B. McInnes 17.1.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil N. Hillman ex-officio Note: (1) $9.65 paid per meeting to student and unemployed members. Lanyon Restoration and Acquisitions Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman C. Campbell 22.3.85 21.3.88 Nil Nil Executive Member J. Cox 22.3.85 21.3.88 Nil Nil Member Lady Hay 22.3.85 21.3.88 Nil Nil Dr C. Pearson 22.3.85 21.3.88 Nil Nil J. Broadbent (1) 22.3.85 21.3.88 Nil Nil Note: (1) Fares only paid for J. Broadbent to travel to and from Sydney. Travel Allowance is not paid. Namadgi National Park Consultative Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman P. Cullen 20.5.85 2.10.86 Nil Nil Member B. Leaver 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil I. Fraser 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil Dr K. Shepherd 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil D. Robin 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil T. Middleton 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil I. Davies 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil P. Buckmaster 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil S. Feary 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil Dr G. Yapp 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil C. L. Bell 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil W. E. Poole 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil D. Wimbush 13.3.85 12.3.87 Nil Nil R. J. Donnellan(1) 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil Dr B. Pratt(1) 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil Note: (1) Ex-officio members Insurers Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman L. Doig(1) 4.6.84 No set term Nil Nil Member A. De Domenico 8.5.85 7.5.88 Nil Nil H. Edwards 8.5.85 7.5.88 Nil Nil R. Montgomery 8.5.85 7.5.88 Nil Nil Note: (1) Chairman is the Nominal Insurer. Parliament House Construction Authority-Art Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Convenor Sir Laurence Muir(1) Not Specified Nil Nil Member C. Andrew J. Bailey Sir Joseph Burke A. Giurgola(2) D. Lewers G. Parr J. Mollison(3) Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Daily Sitting fee of $131 Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City Two representatives of the Joint Standing Committee on the new Parliament House (4) Not Specified $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Note: (1) Convenor receives no remuneration (2) Not paid sitting fee or travelling allowance (3) Not paid sitting fee (4) Not paid sitting fee or allowance. Road Safety Council of the ACT Inc. (1) Office Name Organisation Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman M. Ransom NCDC 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil Public Officer J. Maher Dept of Territories 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil D. Huntley Action for Public Transport 8.6.83 No fixed term Nil Nil D. Videan Canberra Chamber of Commerce 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil A. Lupton Dept Local Govt and Admin Services 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil R. Warren ACT Council of Parents and Citizens 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil R. Potts ACT Driving Schools 7.11.83 No fixed term Nil Nil Vacant ACT House of Assembly 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil E. Higgins Confed of Aust Motor Sports (ACT) 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil B. Roberson ACT Schools Authority 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil J. Lightfoot Canberra Apex Clubs 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil Sgt D. Wilson Australian Federal Police 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil R. Cheshire ACT Health Authority 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil A. Scott Inst Automotive Mech Engineers 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil Vacant Canberra Lions Club 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil C. Nichols Motorcycle Riders Association 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil J. Thomson National Council of Women 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil G. Heywood NRMA 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil G. Horn Pedal Power Inc 10.3.71 No fixed term Nil Nil Note: (1) Membership comprises community organisations and government bodies, the majority of which have been members since the incorporation of the Council on 10.3.71. Representatives can change frequently. Appointment dates are those of appointment of organisation to the Council. SAAP/CAP GENERAL SERVICES CONSULTATIVE FORUM (1) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Membership determined by general service providers of supported accommodation in the ACT (2) 11.1.85 Indefinite Nil Nil Note: (1) This committee is attended also by the SAAP/CAP IDC. (2) Committee membership is for an indefinite period and neither remuneration nor travel costs are provided. SAAP/CAP WOMEN'S SERVICE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (1) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance SAAP/CAP IDC 5.1.85 Indefinite Nil Nil ACT Women's Services Consultative Conference (2) 5.1.85 Indefinite Nil Nil Note: (1) This committee advises the SAAP/CAP IDC. (2) Committee membership is for an indefinite period and neither remuneration nor travel costs are provided. SAAP/Cap Youth Sub-Program Committee (1) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance SAAP/CAP IDC 17.1.85 Indefinite Nil Nil Five representatives of the ACT Youth Accommodation Group (2) 17.1.85 Indefinite Nil Nil Note: (1) This Committee advises the SAAP/CAP IDC. (2) The Youth Accommodation Group determines which of its members will participate on this Committee. Committee membership is for an indefinite period and neither remuneration nor travel costs are provided. Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP)/Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) Inter-Departmental Committee (1) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance There are four members representing three Departments (2): 22.1.85 Indefinite Nil Nil Territories (3) Welfare Branch Housing Branch Housing and Construction Community Services Note: (1) This Committee assesses recommendations for SAAP/CAP funding made by the three sub-program committees described on the following sheets, and operates within national SAAP and CAP guidelines. (2) Appropriate officers participate in the Committee for an indefinite period and receive no remuneration or travel expenses as part of their membership. (3) An officer of the Women's Bureau, Department of Territories, observes Committee meetings. Australian Federal Police (Police Liaison Advisory Committee) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman P. R. Kobold 29.4.83 Whilst a MHA Sitting Fee: Travelling Allowance: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member J. M. Taggart 2.11.83 Whilst a MHA Sitting Fee: As above up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 J. M. Clements 29.4.83 As above As above As above A. Hocking 4.8.82 As above As above As above S. A. Craven 16.5.83 As above As above As above A. R. Hedley (1) Whilst Position No. 650 Dept of Territories Nil Nil P. D. McConaghy (1) Whilst Assistant Commissioner AFP Nil Nil Note: (1) Commonwealth employees, no remuneration received. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board (ACT) Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman R. J. Yeomans 24.9.81 23.9.86 Salary: $6,781 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member M. J. Lonie 12.3.84 23.9.86 Daily Sitting Fee $131 As above B. O'Reilly 12.3.84 23.9.86 As above As above Deputy Member T. L. White 24.9.81 20.9.86 As above As above D. G. Strange 24.9.81 20.9.86 As above As above Building Review Committee Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Chairman W. E. Lawrence 18.2.85 17.2.88 Sitting Fees: Travelling Allowance: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 $105 per overnight stay in a Capital City $75 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member R. Sly 12.10.82 31.7.85 Sitting Fees: As above: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 D. Adams 30.7.85 30.6.85 or first meeting of House of Assembly whichever is first As above As above Vacant (1) As above As above Vacant (1) As above As above R. Gallagher (2) 18.9.82 17.9.85 Nil Nil Note: (1) Appointment action in progress. (2) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. Building Standards Committee Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Chairman P. Wyrdeman (2) 9.7.85 Whilst the Building Controller Nil Nil Member A. K. Cooper 9.7.85 9.7.88 Sitting Fees: Travelling Allowance: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City B. M. Griffith 9.7.85 9.7.88 As above As above S. J. Pinter 9.7.85 9.7.88 As above As above Vacant (1) Note: (1) Appointment action in progress. (2) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. Canberra Commercial Development Authority Office Name Appointment From to Salary Allowance Chairman J. Pead, M.B.E. (1) 3.6.83 2.6.86 Salary $6,781 p.a. Travelling allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member J. M. Clements 4.8.82 Whilst a MHA $2,800 p.a. As above D. L. Elsworth (1) 3.6.83 2.6.86 $2,800 p.a. As above D. J. Griffiths (1) 3.6.83 2.6.86 $2,800 p.a. As above K. O'Clery 3.6.83 2.6.86 $2,800 p.a. As above A. R. Hedley 16.7.84 15.7.87 Nil Nil E. Mathews 13.6.85 30.6.86 Nil Nil Note: (1) In addition a member of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Authority, receives an additional fee of $5,600 p.a. Canberra National Memorials Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman Prime Minister No set term Nil Nil Minister for Territories No set term Nil Nil Leader of the Government in the Senate No set term Nil Nil Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives No set term Nil Nil Leader of the Opposition in the Senate No set term Nil Nil Secretary, Department of Territories No set term Nil Nil Officer, Department of Territories Vacant (1) Nil Nil Member Sir H. White C.B.E. 18.4.75 Governor- General's pleasure Nil Nil Vacant As above Nil Nil Note: (1) Appointment action in progress. (2) Members shall receive reimbursement or payment as Governor-General approves. Canberra Public Cemeteries Trust Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman L. Doig 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil Trustees R. John 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil G. Graham 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil D. McDonald 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil D. Youngman 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil B. Pratt 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil S. Brown 9.5.85 No specified period Nil Nil Vacant (1) Note: (1) Appointment action in progress as at 31 July 1985. Canberra Retail Markets Trust Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman R. Yeomans 3.12.82 2.12.85 Sitting Fee: Travelling Allowance: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Trustee D. Adams 4.8.82 Whilst a M.H.A. Sitting Fee: As above up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $1107 J. H. Lowe (1) 12.4.83 11.4.86 Nil Nil Note: (1) Departmental employee, no remuneration received. Canberra Theatre Trust Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman K. M. Stokes 16.10.84 30.9.87 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $68 More than 3 hours per day $136 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy Chairman J. Taggart MHA 4.8.82 1.7.86 or until first sitting of next ACT House of Assembly whichever occurs first Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As above Trustees R. Refshauge D. Riddell J. Bell G. Fraser Vacant(1) Vacant(1) Vacant(1) 12.9.84 12.9.84 12.9.84 12.9.84 11.9.87 11.9.86 11.9.86 11.9.87 As above As above As above Nil As above As above As above Nil Note: (1) New appointments currently under consideration. Christmas Island Arbitrator Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Arbitrator R. G. Sweeney 14.9.84 13.9.88 Nil(1) Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Note: (1) No additional remuneration to that received as a Commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Christmas Island Services Corporation Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Director B. J. McLean 26.4.85 30.9.85 $39,918 $3,400 Travelling Allowance: $80.20 per full day in a Capital City $63.00 per full day in other than a Capital City Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman Parson bin Yapat 22.10.83 21.10.85 $500 p.a. Nil Deputy Chairman Wahin bin Bynie 22.10.83 21.10.85 $350 p.a. Nil Councillor Rabuhu bin Anthoney 22.10.83 21.10.85 $200 p.a. Nil Mocksen bin Satar 22.10.83 21.10.85 $200 p.a. Alpan bin Puria 22.10.83 21.10.85 $200 p.a. Batte Binte Liedie 22.10.83 21.10.85 $200 p.a. Omal bin Ebnue 22.10.83 21.10.85 $200 p.a. Consumer Affairs Council of the ACT Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman M. Vernon 26.10.82 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member K. Doyle 4.8.82 Whilst a MHA Siting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As above R. M. English 26.10.82 25.10.85 As above As above G. Lindell 26.10.82 25.10.85 As above As above E. L. Crook 26.10.82 25.10.85 As above As above P. Goodall 26.10.82 25.10.85 As above As above N. C. Seddon (20) 9.5.85 31.12.85 As above As above L. M. Webb (1) 26.10.82 25.10.85 Nil Nil Note: (1) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. (2) Appointed as member during leave of absence of G. J. Lindell. Design and Siting Review Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman C. Gustaven 17.7.85 6.7.88 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy Chairman Vacant (2) Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As above Member M. R. Hardman 9.12.83 8.12.86 up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As above Deputy Member B. H. McNeill 9.12.83 8.12.86 As above As above Member H. G. Sforcina 9.12.83 8.12.86 As above As above Deputy Member D. S. McLagan 9.12.83 8.12.86 As above As above Note: (1) Appointment action in progress (2) Successive Ministers have agreed to non-appointment to this position. Land Commissioner Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Land Commissioner E. Dunn 10.5.75 Governor-General's pleasure Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy Land Commissioner J. H. O'Donnell 2.6.77 As above Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 As above Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance President (and Chief Minister) D. E. Buffett 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee: $4,189 p.a. Additional Fee $20,425 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $125 per overnight stay in a Capital City $95 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy President (1) (and Minister for Community Services) E. Brenda Reed 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. Additional Fee: $7,493 p.a. As above Member and Minister for: Finance B. G. Bates 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. Additional Fee: $6,980 p.a. As above Social Services and Primary Industries A. I. Buffett 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. Additional Fee: $6,980 p.a. As above Tourism and Lands P. A. Page 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. Additional Fee: $6,980 p.a. As above Member A. F. Buffet 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member E. D. Howard 25.7.84 (2) 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. As above Member W. W. Sanders 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. As above Member J. T. Brown 18.5.83 17.5.86 Basic Fee $4,189 p.a. As above Note: (1) Members are elected for up to a 3 year term (2) Elected at a by-election Milk Authority of the ACT Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman S. F. C. Wilcox 15.3.84 14.3.87 Sitting Fees: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member B. R. Glanville 22.9.82 21.9.85 Sitting Fees: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As above J. M. Clements 4.8.82 Whilst an MHA As above As above National Capital Development Commission Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Commissioner M. M. B. Latham 25.7.85 24.7.90 $76,527 Office Allowance: $3,800 Travelling Allowance: $125 per overnight stay in a Capital City $95 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Associate Commissioner Vacant Office Allowance: $1,355 Travelling Allowance: $105 per overnight stay in a Capital City $75 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Associate Commissioner J. Lang 29.10.84 28.10.91 $59,484 Office Allowance: $1,355 As above National Capital Planning Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman (ex officio) M. M. B. Latham 25.7.85 24.7.90 No Remuneration other than that received as Commissioner of the NCDC Members J. H. Andrews M. R. Hardman J. W. Lindsay C. F. Madigan J. Mc. G. McIntyre K. M. Stokes A. Logan B. H. McNeil 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 26.8.82 16.8.84 9.12.82 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) 25.8.85(1) Daily Sitting fee $131.00 Travelling Allowance $100 per overnight stay in a Capital City $80 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Note: (1) New appointments under consideration. National Exhibition Centre Trust Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman S. G. East 1.7.85 1.7.88 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $68 more than 3 hours per day $136 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member P. Buckmaster 1.7.85 1.7.88 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 As above J. Muir 1.7.85 1.7.88 As above As above J. Taggart 1.7.85 1.7.88 As above As above V. Walsh 1.7.85 1.7.88 As above As above W. Lawrence 1.7.85 1.7.88 As above As above G. Mann 1.7.85 1.7.88 As above As above P. Whalan 20.10.83 Whilst an MHA As above As above Nominal Defendant Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Nominal Defendant P. W. Clough 29.7.83 No set term Nil Nil Nominal Insurer Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Nominal Insurer L. Doig (1) 17.11.83 No set term Nil Nil Note: (1) Departmental officer, no remuneration received. Parliament House Construction Authority Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman A. L. Morkoff 23.4.85 22.4.90 Fee: $20,283 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $125 per overnight stay in a Capital City $95 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Member D. Jackson 23.4.85 22.4.88 $9,052 p.a. As above N. M. McPhillamy 23.4.85 22.4.88 $9,052 p.a. As above Sir L. Muir 23.4.85 22.4.88 $9,052 p.a. As above M. McKenzie 23.4.85 22.4.88 $9,052 p.a. As above M. M. B. Latham while Commissioner of NCDC Nil Nil Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Limited Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman K. J. Edwards 19.11.84 (1) Salary $17,568 p.a. Travelling Allowance: $126 per overnight stay in a Capital City $96 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City Deputy Chairman D. I. Blesing 19.11.84 (1) $8,845 As above Member R. Austen AO S. Padgett H. Rolfe B. H. Teo 19.11.84 19.11.84 19.11.84 19.11.84 (1) (1) (1) (1) $8,845 $8,845 $8,845 $8,845 As above As above As above As above Note: (1) The requirement of the Articles of Association is that one-third of the Directors must retire from office at the Annual General Meeting of each year. A retiring Director is eligible for re-election. The Minister has power to appoint any person to be a Director to fill a casual vacancy. Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman G. Howard(1) 18.12.82 17.12.85 Nil Nil Member A. Maybury 18.12.82 17.12.85 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City A. Fleming 18.12.82 17.12.85 As above As above B. Marcus(1) 18.12.82 17.12.85 Nil Nil Vacant(2) Vacant(2) Deputy Member B. O'Reilly 18.12.82 17.12.85 Sitting Fee: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City T. Neaves 18.12.82 17.12.85 As above As above L. Blackley(1) 18.12.82 17.12.85 Nil Nil G. Mewburn(1) 18.12.82 17.12.85 Nil Nil Note: (1) Commonwealth employee, no remuneration received. (2) Appointment action in progress as at 31 July 1985. Surveyors Board of the ACT Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman J. W. Sleep Whilst holding the office of Surveyor General Nil Nil Member J. Vaughan 9.1.84 8.1.86 Sitting Fees: up to 3 hours per day $55 more than 3 hours per day $110 Travelling Allowance: $96 per overnight stay in a Capital City $66 per overnight stay in other than a Capital City J. K. Taylor 9.1.84 8.1.86 As above As above N. Hall 9.1.84 8.1.86 Nil Nil P. B. Daly 9.1.84 8.1.86 Nil Nil Water Pollution Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman R. Dunn (1) 19.11.84 19.11.85 Nil Nil Member 6-12 Vacancies (2) (3) up to 3 years Nil Nil Note: (1) Person appointed under Ordinance as the ``Authority'' is, ex-officio, the Chairman. (2) Must include 1 House of Assembly Member. (3) Newly established, appointments not yet made. Workmens Compensation Supplementation Fund Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Manager L. Doig(1) 4.6.84 No set term Nil Nil Note: (1) Departmental Officer, no remuneration received. ACT Arts Development Board Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman C. Santamaria 8.4.80 1.4.86 Nil Nil Member G. Page 25.2.81 1.4.86 Nil Nil P. Amberg 31.8.83 31.8.86 Nil Nil P. Thom 2.4.84 1.4.86 Nil Nil S. Dawkins 2.4.84 1.4.86 Nil Nil P. Sutherland 2.4.84 1.4.86 Nil Nil A. Gray 3.10.84 2.10.86 Nil Nil P. Woods while employee of Dept. in current position Nil Nil ACT Committee for the National Tree Program Office Name Appointment (1) From To Salary Allowance Chairman Dr J. Fryer 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil Member T. Fearnside 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil J. Gunthorpe 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil R. Freeman 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil R. Neilsen 26.2.83 No Fixed Term Nil Nil G. Shoobridge 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil C. Foster 1.8.84 No Fixed Term Nil Nil B. Hudson 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil P. Buckmaster 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil G. Heap 8.12.82 No Fixed Term Nil Nil Note: (1) All the members represent specific organisations, both government and non-government. The organisations are free to change their representatives on a progressive basis. ACT Employment Advisory Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman P. Kendall (acting) 16.4.85 (2) Nil Nil Member B. Hocking 19.9.84 (2) Nil Nil S. Craven 20.11.84 (2) Nil Nil A. Kavanagh 13.12.83 (2) Nil Nil L. Ball 28.5.85 (2) Nil Nil F. Quinane 19.9.83 (2) Nil Nil D. van Arkle 9.11.84 (2) Nil Nil P. Kendall(1) 19.9.84 (2) Nil Nil N. Wilkinson 28.8.84 (2) Nil Nil R. Missingham 19.9.83 (2) Nil Nil E. Davenport 9.7.85 (2) Nil Nil J. Curran 6.3.85 (2) Nil Nil S. Brown 24.11.84 (2) Nil Nil Vacant Nil Nil Note: (1) J. Lang has resigned as Chairman of the Committee. P. Kendall is acting in the position, appointment action in progress. (2) There are no tenure restrictions on membership of the Committee, however, represented organisations are invited to review their nominations after every 12 month period. ACT Heritage Committee Office Name Appointment From To Salary Allowance Chairman Vacant up to 3 years Nil Nil Executive Member Vacant up to 3 years Nil Nil Member 7 Vacancies up to 3 years Nil Nil Note: The Committee is currently being re-constituted and membership details are not yet established. (Question No. 937)) Mr Braithwaite asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) How many appeals against judgments made by judges of the Family Law Court have been made and how many have been successful. (2) How many complaints have been made to him or his Department against the proceedings or actions of the judges of the Family Law Court. (3) If these appeals and complaints are noted, who are the 10 judges against whom most appeals and complaints were lodged. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Statistics provided by the Principal Registrar of the Family Court of Australia record that the following number of appeals were filed against decrees of Judges of the Family Court of Australia and Family Court of Western Australia: 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Number of appeals filed 237 317 278 265 315 Allowed... 77 103 85 53 55 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 (to 30 June) Number of appeals filed 277 294 265 261 133 Allowed... 50 56 58 53 8 In this table, the number of appeals includes all appeals allowed in the year, and appeals allowed in that year which were filed in the previous year. The expression `allowed' comprehends appeals allowed in whole and in part. Cross appeals are not counted separately but are included as part of the original appeal. (2) I have no readily accessible statistical record against which I can report on complaints made against Judges of the Family Court of Australia. I receive a large volume of correspondence relating to the operation of the Family Law Act and the Family Court of Australia. Some of that correspondence relates to particular proceedings before the Family Court of Australia, and to the involvement of a particular Judge or Judges in those proceedings. (3) Statistics relating to the identity of Judges against whose decrees appeals have been filed have been kept only since 1983. The following table records the 10 Judges against whose decrees the most appeals were filed during the years 1983 and 1984 and the 11 Judges against whose decrees the most appeals were filed during the first 6 months of 1985: Number of Name of Judge appeals 1983 Elliott J. ... 20 Cook J. ... 19 Hogan J. ... 18 Tonge J. ... 16 Nygh J. ... 12 Maxwell J. ... 11 Treyvaud J. ... 11 Pawley S. J. ... 10 Gibson J. ... 8 Gee J. ... 8 1984 Hogan J. ... 14 Pawley S. J. ... 14 Nygh J. ... 13 Tonge J. ... 12 Dovey, J. ... 11 Yuill J. ... 9 Renaud J. ... 9 Cook J. ... 8 Elliott J. ... 7 Watson S. J. ... 7 1985 (to 30 June) Ellis S. J. ... 10 Hogan J. ... 8 Elliott J. ... 6 Renaud J. ... 6 Pawley S. J. ... 5 Tonge J. ... 4 Purdy J. ... 4 Asche, S. J. ... 4 Simpson S. J. ... 3 Buckley J. ... 3 Dovey J. ... 3 (Question No. 1431)) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) When did lots 1 and 4, DP542402, part of the former Royal Australian Air Force Barracks area in High Street, Penrith, New South Wales, become the property of Penrith City Council. (2) Was the price paid for the land by Penrith City Council $1,725,000. (3) Was this the value placed on the property in a valuation by the Australian Taxation Office dated 23 March 1983. (4) Did the New South Wales Valuer-General give the value of the property at 26 January 1981 as $1,850,000. (5) What was the reason for the fall in the value of the property over that period. (6) Was an offer for the property received before the sale to Penrith City Council by (a) Mr F. Hodgkinson, a member of the family of Mr F. W. Young who was one of the owners of the land when it was resumed in 1941 or (b) any other person; if so, for what amount. (7) Did he advise Mr Hodgkinson in a letter, dated 6 September 1983, that he had decided not to exercise his discretion to offer the Hodgkinson family a chance to purchase the land. (8) Did he subsequently give as one of the reasons for not exercising this discretion the fact that the Commonwealth had made substantial improvements to the land since acquiring it. (9) Did the Australian Taxation Office valuation of 23 March 1983 state that the improvements added no value to the land. (10) What is the reason for the discrepancy between the valuation and his letter. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Contracts for the sale of the land were exchanged with Penrith City Council on 13 April 1984 and the sale completed on 11 May 1984. NOTE-The property sold to Penrith City Council comprised Lots 1, 3 and 4 DP542402. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) My Department does not have details of the method and basis of the New South Wales Valuer-General's valuation assessment of the property as at 26 January 1981. It is understood, however, that the Valuer-General's valuation is based on a ``ratable value'' as opposed to a ``current market'' value. The latter was the basis of the Commonwealth's valuation. (6) (a) Yes. No amount specified. (b) Yes. No amounts specified. (7) Yes. (8) Yes, this was one of a number of reasons contained in the then Minister's response. (9) Yes. (10) The Commonwealth's valuation was assessed on the basis of the highest and best use for the land, that is `general industrial'. While the existing improvements did not add any value to the land for industrial use, this does not mean that the improvements had no value per se. As noted in (8) above, this was one of a number of reasons given for the then Minister's decision not to offer the land for sale to the former owners. Those reasons in full were: (a) Sections 53 (3) and 53 (4) of the Lands Acquisition Act specify that where land is being disposed of within seven years of its acquisition, the former owner should, as a general principle, have the first opportunity to purchase it back at a reasonable price provided the Commonwealth has not made substantial improvements to the land since its acquisition. (b) The seven year time limit has expired. (c) The former sole registered owner of the land at the time of acquisition was Mr F. W. Young, now deceased. (d) The Commonwealth has made substantial improvements to the land since acquiring it. (e) The Commonwealth incorporated the title of the land acquired from Mr Young with several others into one title. (f) It is the practice where consolidation of titles has taken place not to make an offer where significant improvements have been made at Commonwealth expense or where the former owner is deceased. (g) The land acquired was not part of a larger holding and previous Government decisions supported the principle that there is no need to offer the land to heirs where disposal is outside the seven year limit. (h) No special circumstances existed to justify exercising discretion in favour of the claim made. (Question No. 1549)) Mr Duncan asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: How many (a) Aboriginal people and (b) people of other ethnic origin, were in custody in Australian gaols in each of the last 10 years. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since 1982, the Australian Institute of Criminology, with the co-operation of the relevant State and Northern Territory Departments, has carried out a national prison census on 30 June of each year. The data set out below has been provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology for 1982, 1983 and 1984. The data for 1985 is not yet available. The headings set out below are those used by the Institute: (a) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders: 30 June 1982, 1,049* 30 June 1983, 1,118* 30 June 1984, 1,018* * These figures do not include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in prison in Queensland, as Queensland does not separately identify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for the purpose of the census. The Australian Institute of Criminology has advised that estimates based on the Census of Population and Housing indicate that approximately 580 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would have been in prison in Queensland on each census day. (b) Number of prisoners by country of birth 30 June 1982 New Zealand... 293 Papua New Guinea... 12 Other Oceania... 17 Vietnam... 10 Other Asia... 82 U.K. &Eire... 588 Greece... 59 Italy... 137 Yugoslavia... 146 Other Europe... 304 U.S.A.... 21 Canada... 9 Other America... 28 Africa... 29 Middle East... 145 Unknown... 54 30 June 1983 New Zealand... 271 Papua New Guinea... 14 Other Oceania... 24 Vietnam... 18 Other Indo-China... 17 Timor... 1 Other Asia... 100 U.K. &Eire... 612 Greece... 48 Italy... 136 Yugoslavia... 144 Other Europe... 319 U.S.A.... 33 Canada... 14 Other America... 19 Africa... 33 Middle East... 146 Unknown... 32 30 June 1984 New Zealand... 241 Papua New Guinea... 14 Other Oceania... 27 Vietnam... 13 Other Indo-China... 9 Other Asia... 114 U.K. &Eire... 629 Greece... 66 Italy... 101 Yugoslavia... 135 Other Western Europe... 185 Eastern Europe... 80 U.S.A.... 35 Canada... 14 Other America... 27 Africa... 32 Lebanon... 82 Turkey... 44 Middle East... 22 Unknown... 240 (Question No. 1557)) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Has he or his Department made any representations to the Department of Defence about the possible use of Royal Australian Air Force Base Richmond as the second Sydney airport; if so, what was the response. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No such representations have been made. The possibility of siting a second major civil airport at Richmond was examined and rejected in studies prior to the current Second Sydney Airport Site Selection Programme. No strong or compelling reason was found to reconsider such a suggestion in the current context. (Question No. 1591)) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total expenditure incurred by the Department of Communications in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) was $73,734. (2) (a) and (b) (i)-Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $68,805. This covered compensation payments ($35,346) made to 5 former employees in accordance with determinations of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($33,459) covered payments to medical practitioners, hospitals, chemists etc relating to employee compensation determinations in respect of 50 officers and comprising 217 individual transactions. Other compensation payments. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $91. This covered payments to 4 officers for damage to personal property. (a) and (b) (ii) Expenditure on legal expenses in 1984-85 totalled $4,838 as set out in the reply to part 3 of this question. (3) The name of each recipient, the amount and the nature of expenditure in each case for legal expenses was as follows: Amount ($) Recipient Nature of Expenditure 2,000 Mr R. French, QC.... Memorandum of fees re: Minister for Communications and third Commercial Licence 600 Mr D. Ipp, QC.... Memorandum of fees for representing the Commonwealth re: TVW Enterprises Ltd V Duffy and Others 250 Australian Government Solicitor... Memorandum of fees-Mr J. Spender, Q.C. representing the Commonwealth re: Kirkegard V Queensland Television Ltd. 291 Mrs Foot... Costs awarded to plaintiff re: Foot V Commonwealth and Ray. 110 Australian Government Solicitor... Cost of medical report re: Foot V Commonwealth and Ray. 79 Melbourne Radiological Clinic... Costs awarded to plaintiff re: Foot V Commonwealth and Ray. 265 Various... Fees for service of summons against offenders under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. 497 Various local magistrates... Fees for search warrants to conduct investigations pertaining to the Wireless Telegraphy Act. 74 Australian Government Solicitor... Redirection of amounts incorrectly forwarded to the Department of Communications. (Incorrect Costing) 672 P. M. Regenspurger... Legal fees associated with officer's transfer of residence from Darwin to Cairns.