Thursday, 17 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 and standing order 106, as amended by sessional order, be suspended for this sitting. As I pointed out yesterday when moving a motion of a similar nature, this is in order for us to complete the business set down for this fortnight. I reiterate that the importance of this is that the Senate will be meeting a week earlier than the House of Representatives and much of this business will flow to the Senate for it to deal with in the week that we are not here. We do have this difficulty with the chambers meeting at different times. I remind honourable members that this did necessitate the House of Representatives returning for a day to deal with an amendment by the Senate to legislation in the earlier session this year. Hopefully, that can be avoided in the future by the Senate setting itself a different sitting pattern towards the end of a session. We are trying to facilitate that matter by making sure that the Senate has all the business before it before we return. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.02) —The Opposition does not intend to facilitate the Government's attempt to overcome its bungling of the affairs of this House. Accordingly, we do not accept that the grievance debate should be eliminated, nor do we accept the propriety of sitting after 11 o'clock at night. They are two issues that are part of this motion. The Government should be able to so regulate dealing with the appropriations that they can be dealt with adequately and without having to take away from honourable members the opportunity to speak on matters that are of particular importance to them. It is quite relevant to comment, as I did yesterday on a similar motion, that at this stage many millions of taxpayers' dollars being spent by this Government are being dealt with far too expeditiously through the present appropriation debate. The decision to limit speeches to three from each side on matters that involve major departmental funding allocations is not a fair way for these Estimates to be considered. On occasions even members of the Australian Labor Party have said that they have been concerned about the increasing irrelevance of this House in matters pertaining to financial administration. In the Senate, where there is a different form of inquiry into the Estimates, there is a proper scrutiny. Indeed, it was only because of that scrutiny that much of the detail of the maladministration by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of the Australian Bicentennial Authority came out. Had it not been for the Senate's ability to question Mr John Reid and others, we would not have known of the extent to which the Prime Minister had been involved and the extent to which Mr Reid certainly saw the events unfold in a quite different light from that which the Prime Minister was prepared to tell to this House. I believe it is tremendously important that we do not accept a motion which is designed to give precedence to a very cursory examination under the appropriation procedures as they now exist under the Standing Orders. The Opposition equally is opposed to the idea of the House sitting after 11 o'clock at night. As we mentioned yesterday, it seems that, because the Government has been unable to get its act together, the members of the Parliament will be called on to stay past the hour of 11 o'clock. All of us accept that, by the end of a weekly session, it is extraordinarily difficult for honourable members to retain all their faculties. Mr Cohen —How long do you want to stay here? Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister who is commenting from the front bench has difficulty in retaining his faculties at any time. For others of us it is a matter of being weary and wanting to perform at our best to meet the requirements and demands of our constituents. In those circumstances, it would be far more appropriate- Mr Cohen —You have never seen your constituency. You have never been there. Mr SINCLAIR —Far more often than the Minister, I suspect. It is necessary that we accept something like a reasonable business practice. I find it interesting that the Australian Labor Party is hoo-haaing about this new Builders Labourers Federation campaign for a 35-hour week. From what I can see, it is all for imposing a 35-hour day on members of parliament and a 35-hour week for the BLF, which does not seem to me to correlate at all. While I know that honourable members on this side of the House are more capable than any honourable members on the other side, I suspect that we occasionally get weary. For that reason 11 o'clock is an appropriate hour for us to adjourn. We are not content with this motion and intend to oppose it. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Jakobsen, C. A.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Grace, E. L. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. West, S. J.Hand, G. L. Willis, R.Hayden, W. G. Wright, K. W.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J.Hollis, C. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Reith, P. K.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fischer, Tim Shack, P. D.Fisher, Peter Sharp, J.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Slipper, P. N.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J.Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. Watson, DavidHunt, R. J. D. Webster, A. P.Jull, D. F. White, P. N. D.Katter, R. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Lindsay, E. G. Rocher, A. C.Scott, J. L. Cameron, DonaldPrice, L. R. S. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the taxation laws in several ways. It represents a start to the Government's legislative program to give effect to the measures the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced on 19 September for reform of the Australian taxation system. In that regard, amendments of the income tax law in this Bill will provide for unde- ducted exploration and development expenditure incurred by petroleum and general mining companies to be treated as transferable company group losses. Other amendments will withdraw the rebate and deduction for capital subscribed to petroleum and afforestation companies, and reduce the taxation concessions available for investments in Australian films. Another reform measure to be given effect by this Bill will ensure that owner-builders of larger domestic building projects commenced after 30 June 1986 make deductions of tax under the prescribed payments system from payments made after that date. Together with two other Bills that I will introduce shortly, this Bill will also finalise the implementation of the Government's 1985-86 taxation Budget proposals. One of the three Budget measures designed to assist the horse racing industry-the provision of a more generous livestock valuation option for horse breeders-is contained in the Bill. The Bill will remove the exemption from tax for payments to students under the tertiary education assistance scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme. As part of the Budget proposal to align Australian Capital Territory taxes more closely with those of the States, the Bill will provide for the imposition of Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on loan securities and on transfers of units in unit trusts. Finally, there are two measures in the Bill unrelated to the Budget or tax reform. First, the Bill will give effect to the proposal-announced on 21 May 1985-to amend the income tax secrecy provisions to permit greater use of taxation information by a royal commission. Secondly, the Bill will give the force of law in Australia to a new comprehensive taxation agreement and a related protocol with Finland that were signed in Canberra on 12 September 1984. A number of technical amendments of the taxation laws are also to be made by the Bill. I now turn to outline in greater detail the more significant amendments contained in the Bill. Petroleum and General Mining Company Losses As announced in the Treasurer's tax reform statement, an annual election is being made available to general mining and petroleum companies to enable them to have undeducted exploration and development expenditure treated as transferable company group losses. Under the existing law, the deduction allowable for such expenditure cannot create or increase a mining or petroleum company's deductible carry-forward loss. One result of this is that any such expenditure not offset against the company's income may not be transferred to another company in the same group under the group loss transfer arrangements. Measures in the Bill will allow a mining or petroleum exploration company that is part of a company group to elect that any excess deductible exploration and development expenditure incurred in 1985-86 and subsequent income years forms part of the company's carry-forward loss available for transfer to another company within the same group. A separate election will be available for each year of income. The estimated revenue cost of this measure is $70m in 1986-87 and $65m in 1987-88. Capital Subscribed to Petroleum and Afforestation Companies In giving effect to another tax reform proposal, provisions in the Bill will withdraw the tax concessions in respect of moneys paid on shares in petroleum or afforestation companies. First, there is the tax rebate of 27c in the dollar for moneys paid on shares in an eligible petroleum company. This is available where the company lodges a declaration that it has expended, or will expend, the moneys on prospecting, exploration or mining for petroleum in Australia. There is also a deduction for one-third of calls paid on non-redeemable shares in a company whose principal business is afforestation in Australia, where the call moneys are for use in that business. Both the rebate and deduction are being withdrawn for moneys paid on shares after 19 September 1985, other than moneys paid by a person on calls made on or before that date on shares then owned or beneficially owned by the person. Withdrawal of these concessions is estimated to result in a gain to revenue of $A10m in 1986-87 and $15m in 1987-88. Investment in Australian Films As the Treasurer announced on 19 September 1985 in the tax reform statement, the tax concessions for investment in the production of Australian films are to be reduced as part of the restructuring of assistance to the film industry. For eligible expenditure contracted for after 19 September, the special income tax deduction will be 120 per cent of the expenditure, in lieu of the existing 133 per cent. The associated income tax exemption in respect of the net income from a film will be 20 per cent of the eligible investment, rather than 33 per cent. The higher concession levels will, however, continue to be available to an investor who takes up an interest in an Australian film in place of an underwriter who entered into underwriting arrangements on or before 10 September 1985. This reduction in taxation concessions is to be offset by additional funding of $2m in 1985-86 and $3m in each of the following two years. This will be achieved through the special production fund administered by the Australian Film Commission. The estimated net saving to revenue is $35m in 1986-87 and subsequent years. Prescribed Payments System This Bill will also give effect to the tax reform measure to impose on owner-builders a liability under the prescribed payments system to make deductions of tax from prescribed payments made in connection with domestic construction pro- jects exceeding $10,000 in cost. This measure represents the Government's considered response to industry representations that an owner-builder should, as far as the prescribed payments system is concerned, be treated in the same way as the professional builder. By this Bill, owner-builders are to have the same obligations and duties as are currently imposed on professional builders under the prescribed payments system. This change will apply in relation to prescribed payments made by owner-builders on or after 1 July 1986 in connection with domestic construction projects costing more than $10,000 that are commenced on or after that date. It is estimated that this measure will lead to a net revenue gain of $16m in 1986-87 and $4m in 1987-88. Another amendment to be made to the prescribed payments system provisions of the law will overcome a possible technical weakness in the present statutory definition of a `householder'. This amendment will affect neither the practical operation of, nor collections received under, the prescribed payments system. It will apply from the date of royal assent to the Bill. As the Treasurer said to honourable members when delivering his statement on reform of the Australian taxation system on 19 September, the Government is engaged in a tax reform exercise, not a tax raising one. The gains to revenue arising from the tax reform changes will be applied by the Government towards substantially easing the burden of high marginal rates of tax on honest middle income taxpayers. Together with other elements of our tax reform package, these changes will restore fairness to the Australian tax system. Livestock Valuation Option A Budget measure contained in the Bill will provide, for horse breeders, an additional livestock valuation option under the trading stock provisions of the income tax law. This measure was one of the three proposals announced in the 1985-86 Budget to assist the horse racing industry. The additional option will be available in respect of a sire or brood mare acquired under a contract entered into after 20 August 1985. Under the present law, a taxpayer may elect to value livestock on hand at the end of a year of income at cost price, market selling value or some other appropriate value. The new livestock valuation method for horse breeders is in addition to existing valuation options available. This further method of valuation will enable a horse breeder to write down the cost of a sire by up to 50 per cent per annum or a brood mare by 33 1/3 per cent per annum-in either case on a diminishing value basis. An alternative in the case of a brood mare will be to write down its cost to $1 on a straight line basis over, depending on the mare's age, a minimum period of three years. The Bill contains safeguarding provisions that will operate to counter artificial arrangements designed to make eligible for the new option a horse that would not otherwise qualify because it was in fact owned by the breeder on or before 20 August 1985. Mr Speaker, this measure should have no effect on 1985-86 revenue. The nature of the measure is such that a reliable estimate of its revenue effect in future years cannot be made. Education Assistance Scheme Payments As announced in the Treasurer's Budget Speech, the Government has developed a comprehensive four-year plan designed to encourage young people to remain in education. Financial support for young people is one area of our strategy designed to ensure that the youth of Australia share in the benefits of economic recovery and growth. Part of the Government's plan is to bring education assistance allowances for those under 18 and those in the 18 to 20 age group more into line with the benefits payable to single unemployed people in the equivalent age brackets. By 1988, students entitled to education assistance and young people on unemployment benefits will be receiving basically the same rate of payment. Unemployment benefits are already taxable. The living allowance and incidentals allowance payable under the education schemes should, therefore, also bear tax. This Bill proposes, with effect from 1 January 1986, to remove the present exemption from income tax of payments received under the tertiary education assistance scheme and the adult secondary education assistance scheme. However, any component of the allowance attributable to a dependent child will, as is the case with unemployment benefits, remain exempt. An associated amendment will provide for taxable scheme payments to be subject to regular pay as you earn deductions. The estimated net gain to revenue from this measure is nil in 1985-86, $4m in 1986-87, $23m in 1987-88 and $25m in 1988-89. The Government has also announced that it proposes to remove, from 1 January 1987, the tax exemption now available for payments made to parents of secondary students under the secondary assistance scheme. The conditions that apply to determine entitlement to payments under this scheme are to be changed and legislation to give effect to the decision to withdraw the tax exemption will be introduced into the Parliament after the details of the revised scheme are settled. Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Together with two further Bills that I will shortly introduce, this Bill will also give effect to the Government's 1985-86 Budget proposals to introduce new and increased taxation in the Australian Capital Territory. One of these proposals is to subject transfers of units in unit trusts to Australian Capital Territory stamp duty and tax. To that end, a transfer of a unit in a unit trust is to be treated as a transfer of a marketable security. The result will be that stamp duty and tax will be imposed on such transfers at the rates applicable to marketable security transfers. The estimated revenue gain from this measure is $50,000 in a full year. Provisions of the Bill will also counter the avoidance of stamp duty on certain conveyances by way of mortgage under the Australian Capital Territory Real Property Ordinance. Under existing Australian Capital Territory stamp duty law, a conveyance of a legal interest in land by way of mortgage is specifically exempt from duty-on the principle that the transfer of the legal title to a mortgagee is no more than a means of securing repayment of the borrowed moneys. In such cases the mortgagor is intended to retain what is called the equity of redemption which carries with it the right to retransfer of the legal title on repayment. This exemption could be abused to obtain an exemption from duty in cases where there is no intention that the mortgagor will reacquire the legal interest. The exemption from stamp duty is to be removed in relation to transfers of legal interests under the Real Property Ordinance by way of mortgage where there is an intention that both the legal and equitable interests are being transferred to the mortgagee. Where property transferred in these circumstances is subsequently retransferred to the mortgagor, a refund of the excess duty paid will be available. The tax on transfers of units in unit trusts and the amendments relating to duty on non-bona fide mortgages will apply to transactions occurring on or after the first day of the month following that in which the Bill receives the royal assent. While the imposition of Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on mortgages, debentures and other loan securities is being implemented by amendments contained in the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Amendment Bill, provisions in this Bill will set out the rules governing liability for the new duty. Under those rules, a document will be subject to duty if it is a mortgage, a company debenture, or a bond or covenant securing a loan and it is executed or issued in the Australian Capital Territory by the borrower. Likewise, a loan security on property in the Australian Capital Territory will be subject to duty. In these cases the person liable to pay the duty will be the borrower and the Bill sets out the requirements as to payment of duty. Other provisions of the Bill will validate the regulation-making power under the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Act, and several related taxing Acts. At the time of enactment of the Australian Capital Territory Stamp Duty Act, the regulation-making power contained in the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Act was thought to be adequate to authorise regulations under the Stamp Duty Act and related taxing Acts. This is because those Acts and the Administration Act are to be read as one. Regulations were accordingly made specifying circumstances in which duty or tax is not imposed. Following the recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal it is now clear that a separate power to make regulations is required for each Act. Provisions in the Bill will provide a specific regulation-making power in each of the Australian Capital Territory stamp duty and taxing Acts. To validate regulations that have already been made, the regulation-making power will, where necessary, be deemed to have come into operation on 1 July 1969. Taxation Secrecy Provisions Amendments contained in the Bill will permit greater use of information that, under the existing income tax secrecy provisions, may be provided to certain royal commissions. These amendments give effect to a recommendation made by Mr F. X. Costigan Q.C. in the fourth interim report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The amendments will allow a royal commission to make taxation-sourced information available to the Director of Public Prosecutions or a special prosecutor, if the commission considers that the information is relevant to an investigation of a tax-related offence. The requirements of secrecy applying to taxation officers and other persons privy to confidential taxation information will, of course, extend to persons to whom taxation information can be communicated under these amendments. The amendments will also remove any doubt that taxation-sourced information can be passed on by a royal commission to a police officer assigned to make an investigation on behalf of the commission. These measures should have no effect on the revenue. The Finnish Tax Agreement I now turn to provisions of the Bill that will provide legislative authority for the entry into force of a comprehensive double taxation agreement and protocol dealing with all forms of income flowing between Australia and Finland. The agreement and protocol were signed on 12 September 1984, at which time details were announced and copies of the agreement were made publicly available. The Bill will insert the text of the agreement and protocol into the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act 1953 as a schedule to that Act. The agreement with Finland, as with comprehensive taxation agreements generally, has two primary objectives-the elimination of international double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The first of these objectives is achieved by the contracting countries agreeing to allocate taxing rights between them. There are various ways in which this is done, the particular method depending upon the nature of the income concerned. For example, some classes of income are to be taxed only in the country of residence, while others will be taxed only in the country of source. A third category is comprised of income consisting of dividends, interest and royalties which may be taxed in both countries. In this case the country of source generally agrees to limit its tax, and the country of residence of the taxpayer agrees to allow a credit against its tax on such income for the tax paid in the other country. The agreement contains measures for the formal relief of double taxation of income that may be taxed in both countries. It also contains provisions of a kind common to taxation agreements relating to the taxation of business profits, professional services, employees, public entertainers, students, pensioners and so on. So far as the object of preventing fiscal evasion is concerned, provision is made in the agreement for the exchange of information and for consultation between the tax administrations of the two countries. In these and all other essential respects, the agreement accords with the position that Australian governments have taken over the years in relation to the negotiation of comprehensive taxation agreements. The agreement and protocol will not enter into force until all necessary constitutional processes are completed both by Australia and Finland. They will then have prospective effect in accordance with their terms. For Australia, this Bill, when assented to, will complete the constitutional processes required of us. The agreement and protocol are not expected to have any significant effect on the revenue. A broad guide to the provisions of the Bill is contained in part A of the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members. A detailed, clause by clause explanation of each provision of the Bill contained in part B of the memorandum will be made available to honourable members in the next few days. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to the proposal announced in the 1985-86 Budget to double the rates of bank account debits tax in the Australian Capital Territory, in lieu of the introduction of a state-type financial institutions duty. The proposal is part of a package designed to bring taxes and charges in the Australian Capital Territory more closely into line with those that commonly apply in the States. In keeping with other Australian Capital Territory taxes, the increased rates of bank account debits tax will apply also in the Jervis Bay territory. The new rates will be 20c on debits of $1 or more but less than $100, 50c on debits of $100 or more but less than $500, $1 on debits of $500 or more but less than $5,000, $2 on debits of $5,000 or more but less than $10,000 and $3 on debits exceeding $10,000. Special provisions will counter arrangements to avoid Australian Capital Territory rates of bank account debits tax by keeping accounts outside the Australian Capital Territory. The Bill also provides that cheque accounts kept in Australia but outside the Australian Capital Territory are to be subject to Australian Capital Territory rates of tax where those accounts have been opened on behalf of depositors with Australian Capital Territory building societies or credit unions. The revenue gain from the measure is estimated at $4m in a full year. An explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In association with the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 just introduced, this Bill will give effect to the 1985-86 Budget proposal to impose Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on loan securities. It will also increase the current rates of Australian Capital Territory duty on conveyances of real property. These measures are part of the wider proposal to better align Australian Capital Territory taxes with those levied by the States. The duty to be formally imposed by this Bill on loan securities will be $5 where the maximum amount repayable under, or secured by, the security does not exceed $15,000. On securities for greater amounts, the duty will be $5 for the first $15,000 and 40c for every $100 or part thereof that exceeds the first $15,000. Loan securities for amounts up to $500 will be exempt. The estimated revenue yield from this measure is $1.5m in a full year. Stamp duty on real property transfers up to a value of $14,000 will remain at the present rate of $1.25 per $100 or part of $100. Where the value of the transfer is between $14,001 and $30,000 the duty will be $175 plus $1.50 for each $100 or part thereof over $14,000. In the range of $30,001 to $60,000, duty of $415 plus $2 per $100 or part thereof over $30,000 will be payable. Above $60,000 the duty payable will be $1,015 plus $2.50 for each $100 and any fractional part of $100. The increased duty on real property transfers will produce a revenue gain estimated at $1.5m in a full year. Both the new duty on loan securities and the increased rates for conveyances of real property will apply to instruments executed on or after the first day of the month following that in which this Bill receives the royal assent. An explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.40) —in reply-In closing this sec- ond reading debate, I would like to thank all honourable members who have participated. I wish to respond briefly to a few of the issues that have been raised. There are only three matters of controversy in the Bill-the pro- visions relating to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, some issues relating to medical fraud and the considerable discussion about the Australia Card. Let me take each of those issues in turn. The first relates to the powers that are to be extended to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) expressed great alarm about these `open-ended powers' as he called them. The honour- able member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) was implacably opposed to this increase in functions and powers and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), a little more modestly, was a trifle suspicious. These open-ended powers are no different from those possessed by all other pharmaceutical companies in this country, most of those being multinational companies. The so-called open-ended powers that we propose to give to CSL are similar, in fact, to those of other statutory authorities engaged in commercial enterprises, such as Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. There are two specific powers to which we are referring and which have caused all the hyperbole from Opposition members. The first is the ability of CSL to use idle capital and equipment for other than the production of pharmaceutical products. I must say that both the honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for Petrie noticed that there was idle capacity at CSL resulting from the cyclical pattern of work there. I must point out that there are opportunities for CSL to make use of its influenza vaccine facilities, for example, which are not in constant use. These can be used for other activities, and as well there is unused penicillin production plant equipment which could also be used. It would be a sensible commercial decision to use these facilities; certainly any other commercial company would make such a decision if it had that unused capacity and there were other possible uses for it. We simply wish to give CSL the power to make use of idle capacity which is an inevitable result of the cyclical nature of its work. I am sure that in any other commercial operation such idle capacity would be utilised if it could be. The second power to be given to CSL is to authorise it to form companies by shares and form partnerships. In that respect there are some ministerial controls, certainly when the activities reach a certain level. Again I would ask why should CSL not have these powers like any other pharmaceutical company? Why does the Opposition want to fetter the great statutory authorities that the Commonwealth controls? Mr Hodges —Because it is government-owned. Dr BLEWETT —From the noises the honourable member for Petrie is making, it seems that the Opposition has a very odd attitude to statutory authorities. The honourable member for Petrie said in his speech that CSL, having operated for 70 years, should be allowed to continue as it is. No commercial organisation in this country, none of the businesses that the honourable member himself runs, would accept that undynamic approach to commercial organisation. Mr Hodges —Only for government organisations. Dr BLEWETT —I am very grateful to the honourable member for Petrie because he says that government organisations should not be dynamic. Our proposal is to give the same dynamism to the statutory authorities of government as is possessed by any other commercial pharmaceutical activity in this case. Finally, the honourable member for Petrie said: `The CSL has no dividends to pay and no shareholders to worry about'. That is a totally blinkered approach by the Opposition because the CSL does pay dividends. It pays dividends to the taxpayers of this country who are the shareholders of CSL. As a result of the decisions which we are now making, the taxpayers of this country will receive larger dividends because CSL will be a more dynamic, more enterprising and more commercial company. I fail totally to understand the opposition of the Opposition to the extension of these powers apart from, as I have said, its completely blinkered and negative approach to the statutory authorities of this country. I also wish to raise some personal matters which were raised by the Opposition. I have never referred to these personal matters, despite considerable provocation on them over a period of more than a year. It is about time they were addressed. There was much unctuous comment from Opposition members about the replacement of Dr Jim Forbes, then President of the Liberal Party of Australia, at the end of his term of office as Chairman of the CSL by Mr Neil Batt, ex-President of the Australian Labor Party. I am told that this was a clear political bias, a jobs for the boys mentality, and Mr Batt was referred to as a socialist. Of course, these Liberals are quite without shame. Who on earth was Dr Forbes when he was appointed Chairman of the CSL? He was an ex-member and soon to be President of the Liberal Party. It seems simply that there was some complaint about their boy being replaced. Mr Batt possesses all of the qualities required for a chairman of a statutory authority. He combines financial experience, having had three years as Treasurer of Tasmania, with commercial experience; he has been Executive Director of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd for the past three years. That seems an ideal basis for a chairman of a statutory authority. Two other men collected a few swinging bits of invective from Opposition members. I want to say and put on record that both of them, Dr Neville McCarthy, Director of the CSL, and Mr Arthur Shields, now Regional Director of my Department in Melbourne, are simply great servants of the Australian public. I now turn to the second issue raised, which is the issue of medifraud. In this case I welcome the support of the Opposition for the revised medifraud provisions. I must say that the honourable member for Barker seems to be about the only person who believes that medifraud is not still a major problem. Certainly his colleague the honourable member for Warringah disagreed with that. My colleague the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) reflected the disquiet amongst doctors over the draconian and arbitrary Liberal legislation on medifraud. They made the case against the honourable member for Barker without any need for me to make any comments. Among the other points raised by the honourable member for Barker was that of overservicing. I point out that that is very much on our agenda. We have dealt with the medifraud legislation. We are working on much more effective legislation in the area of overservicing. As usual, the honourable member for Barker brought out the old furphy about bulk billing. He refuses to recognise the simple fact that the heart of the problem is the fee for service system underwritten by insurance. If one has a fee for service system underwritten by insurance, almost by its very nature there is the possibility and danger of overservicing with the system structured in that way. I take on board the constructive suggestions of the honourable member for Warringah about the ways in which we could improve the pursuit of the few doctors involved in medifraud. I must say that the honourable member for Warringah was almost unique among Opposition members in actually making positive and constructive suggestions, marred only by his allegation that somehow my views on medical fraud have changed with the passage from opposition to government and that somehow office is supposed to have educated me. I will refer him to one of my speeches in opposition. This is a speech I gave on 29 April 1982, when we were still in opposition. I pointed out: The Opposition endorses the view, believing that the great bulk of doctors act with integrity towards the health insurance system. The honourable member for Warringah can search among a range of other speeches of mine to find exactly the same remarks. My views on this issue have been both persistent and consistent. Finally, I take up the issue of the Australia Card. I could devote my time, as did my colleague the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons), to pointing out the utter and total chaos within the Opposition in relation to the Australia Card and the series of conflicting views which pervade the coalition. As there has been considerable negotiation and discussion and the issue has significantly changed since it was presented to the House, it might therefore be unfair to ridicule some of the hogwash that was presented as argument by members of the Opposition. I just wish to indicate to the House where we are in relation to this matter. I want to inform it of the details of an agreement reached yesterday between the Government and the Australian Democrats, to which I understand the Opposition also gives its adherence, in relation to the Government's proposed introduction of a national identity system, utilising the Australia Card. As honourable members would be aware the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 before us contains in Part IV certain provisions designed to enable the Health Insurance Commission to undertake planning for and research into the Australia Card proposal in order to identify specific requirements to implement the system fully. These amendments are designed to do no more than authorise the Commission to plan and develop the Australia Card proposal. Despite what the Opposition was trying to convey, they do not authorise any form of implementation of the proposal-in fact that was not mentioned by a single Opposition speaker. To ensure that the legislation allows for no more than this, a sunset clause has been included. This clause provides that the amending legislation will cease to have effect after December 1986 if substantive legislation to give effect to the Australia Card proposal has not been enacted by that date. It is the Government's intention to introduce this substantive legislation during the 1986 autumn sittings of the Parliament. The content of the legislation is to be defined during the planning phase. However, in view of the various concerns expressed by the Australian Democrats both in relation to the legislation and in relation to certain aspects of the Australia Card proposal itself, I have on behalf of the Government held detailed discussions with Senator Haines, representing the Australian Democrats. I am pleased to be able to report to the House that as a result of those discussions, certain matters have been agreed between the Government and the Australian Democrats. The basis of the agreement is as follows: Firstly, the Australian Democrat senators will support passage of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 subject only to an amendment to which I shall refer, so enabling passage of that legislation without delay. Secondly, on behalf of the Government I will introduce today during the Committee stage of this debate an amendment to Part IV of that Bill in terms which will make absolutely clear that the Australia Card function given to the Health Insurance Commission under the Bill is limited strictly to the planning function and does not involve any authority under which the Commission may proceed to the implementation of the Australia Card proposal. Thirdly, on behalf of the Government I shall move at an appropriate time for the establishment of a joint select committee to investigate and report to the Parliament on the national identification system and the Australia Card proposal, with particularly emphasis on: The costs of introducing and operating the system; the effectiveness of the system in combating evasion of and fraud against the taxation and welfare systems; and in fulfilling the other purposes for which, in accordance with the recent statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on reform of the Australian taxation system, it has been proposed; the most appropriate means of identification which should appear on the Australia Card to ensure effectiveness of the system; the most appropriate methods of establishing positive identification of individuals for the purpose of issuing Australia Cards; the experience of other countries in utilising identity cards; the inclusion of adequate protection against abuses of civil liberties and invasions of privacy; the comparable cost effectiveness of alternative proposals to combat evasion of and fraud against the taxation and welfare system; whether use of the Australia Card should be universal and/or compulsory and, if so, for what purposes and by whom; the limits that should be placed on the requirement for individuals to produce an Australia Card; and other related matters upon which the Commonwealth may deem it appropriate to report. The composition of the joint select committee will be four Government members, three Opposition members, and one Australian Democrat member, with one of the Government members being appointed Chairman. The joint select committee will be required to report to the Parliament by no later than 31 March 1986. Prior to February 1986 the joint select committee will limit its activities to the soliciting and consideration of public submissions. Government departments and agencies will, where required, present submissions and evidence to the joint select committee in February 1986. The Health Insurance Commission will present its final planning report to the joint select committee immediately upon completion of that report in February 1986. I will arrange at an appropriate time for release to the joint select committee of the report of the interdepartmental committee on the national identity system and the interim planning report of the Health Insurance Commission. On behalf of the Government, I undertake that no substantive legislation in relation to the Australia Card proposal will be brought before the Parliament until the joint select committee presents its final report. From the outset the Government has encouraged and welcomed public debate on the Australia Card proposal. We recognise that any major change such as the introduction of an identification system needs the widest possible community support and understanding. For this reason, the Government welcomes the agreement reached with the Australian Democrats, which will enable passage of the Government's legislation to facilitate further planning for the Australia Card. The Health Insurance Commission will now be able to proceed with the necessary planning for the project and will report to the joint select committee in February 1986. As it was never the intention of the Government to introduce the primary legislation prior to the completion of the planning process, the Government has no difficulty with the timetable for the joint select committee. I assure the House that, as has always been the case, the Government is committed to ensuring that the Health Insurance Commission spends no more than is absolutely necessary on the planning stage of the Australia Card proposal. I make it quite clear to the House that the Commission will need to spend sufficient funds to guarantee that adequate planning and research is carried out on this proposal. Only by so doing will the various needs of the Government and the joint select committee be satisfied and the legitimate concerns of the public with respect to this proposal be met. The Government appreciates the spirit of co-operation and common sense shown by the Australian Democrats during the discussions on this matter and it welcomes their support for the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 9-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11-by leave-taken together. Question put: That the clauses be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Grace, E. L. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Wright, K. W.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. .N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McCGoodluck, 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. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Lindsay, E. J. Rocher, A. C.Scott, J. L. Cameron, DonaldPrice, L. R. S. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 12 to 56-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 57 to 66-by leave-taken together. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.08) —I move: Clause 59, page 34, lines 28 and 29, omit `the planning and development of the organisation required to implement', insert `planning for the establishment of'. In my second reading speech I emphasised that the amendment to the Health Insurance Commission Act was to allow the Health Insurance Commission to do no more than the planning and development work necessary to enable the Government to prepare the legislation for the national identification system. Objections that have been raised to this amendment appear to be based on the misunderstanding that the amendment might, by some means or other, permit the Commission to proceed with the implementation of the system. After discussions with the Australian Democrats and others the Government is quite willing to make a minor drafting change so that it is quite clear that it has been the Government's intention from the outset that the Health Insurance Commission's responsibilities are strictly limited to the work necessary to enable the Government to bring forward the substantive legislation for the national identification system in 1986. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.09) —When the Opposition announced on Tuesday that it would be moving for a parliamentary inquiry into the Government's identification card proposal because the Government had failed to substantiate the claim that it had made regarding both the savings and integrity of the card, the Government initially tried to deflect the debate by suggesting that our legitimate inquiries in some way made us friends of the tax evaders and social security defrauders. However, there is no doubt that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), when he answered a question during Question Time on Tuesday, was determined to misrepresent our position. The pathetic accusations made by the Treasurer were obviously a preconceived attempt to divert attention from the real issues. Let me restate that the Opposition has not made an in principle decision in favour of or against the ID card. I made that clear on Tuesday in my Press release, at my Press conference, on radio and in this chamber. In fact, as was stated during the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) on Tuesday, we will look very positively at an ID card proposal, provided that the proposal will work and will provide adequate protection for the privacy of the individual. Our deep concern about tax evasion and social security fraud did not extend to giving the Government a blank cheque, or in this case a $3.5m cheque, to implement a proposal for which the Government has failed to provide convincing evidence that it will work and that individual privacy will be protected. The only information which the Government has provided is a grossly inadequate 3 1/2 page annexure to a now totally discredited tax reform statement. The lack of detail is appalling and the Treasurer's 5 1/2 line explanation of the Government's costing of the proposal certainly does not inspire confidence that the idea has been properly thought through. The real question is why the Government failed to give the Parliament and the people details of the feasibility and viability of the proposal. If the work has been done, why is it not available? If the work has not been done, how did the Government justify, firstly, making the in principle decision to implement the proposal? Secondly, how does it justify the original request made last Friday for $3.5m for the development work on the issue of the card, for which the feasibility and viability have not been established? When the Minister introduced this legislation last Friday he made it clear that the Bill was required so that the Government could meet its timetable for the issue of the card, starting in March 1987, just 16 months away. The Minister explicitly stated that the Health Insurance Commission was to be empowered to undertake development work pursuant to the Government's commitment to issue the card in March 1987. The Minister did not say in his second reading speech on the introduction of this enabling legislation that the legislation was to enable the HIC to undertake investigation work into the feasibility, viability or practicability of the proposal. He said that it was to enable the HIC to undertake development work to meet the tight schedule which the Government had set down for the card to be issued only 16 months away. In fact, he said 18 months, but he is not too good at counting. On the basis of the very limited and grossly inadequate supporting documentation, we were being asked to blindly support the Government's ID proposal. We did not accept that it was an appropriate use of taxpayers' funds and therefore we demanded that the Government establish a parliamentary inquiry to establish whether the Government's proposal in fact will achieve the stated goals. The Opposition is therefore pleased that, following the support given to the idea by the Australian Democrats on Wednesday, the Government has now backed down and accepted our request for a parliamentary inquiry to test the Government's decisions. Our major areas of concern are three-fold. Firstly, we want to be convinced that the integrity of the card is such that it will be effective in combating tax evasion and social security fraud. Secondly, we want to examine the basis on which the Government believes that the card will cost less than the money it saves or additional revenue it raises. Thirdly, we want to ensure that adequate provision is made to protect individual privacy. There are, of course, a number of other issues of concern which have now been picked up in the terms of reference for the committee which were drafted jointly by Senator Haines from the Australian Democrats and me. There are a number of fairly fundamental points which the committee will have to establish if this proposal is indeed to be viable. One of those basic points is the constitutional head of power the Government intends to rely on in requiring people to use an ID card; or is the ID card to be a voluntary card? It seems to us that some of these basic constitutional issues have not been addressed by the Government. Certainly we have been given no information in relation to those sorts of issues. As I stated last Tuesday when debating the motion for the second reading of this Bill, some information has been provided to some Government back benchers, but that information certainly has not been distributed widely, as the Minister pretended. He has now seemingly acknowledged my concern about the lack of information. He has acknowledged his failure to distribute widely any information in relation to the Government's proposals and he now intends to table and make available to the parliamentary inquiry that information which I requested originally. Mr Hodgman —Too little, too late. Mr PORTER —It is too little, too late, but at least now, once the Minister was backed into a position where he was not going to get any ID card, he has come forward with some information. Another issue of concern to the Opposition is how much money will be required by the Health Insurance Commission to provide the information to the committee of inquiry to enable it to establish whether the card will work and whether adequate protection will be able to be given to the privacy of the individual. The Minister maintains that he needs $3.5m. Let me make it clear to the Minister that we will be watching very closely the work that is undertaken by the Health Insurance Commission. If the Minister believes that he can appoint or allow to be appointed new members-I understand that there is a proposal for 40 new members to be appointed to the Health Insurance Commission-to undertake work on implementing the Australia Card proposal before this committee reports, I suggest to the Minister that that would be a breach of the undertakings given to the Australian Democrats and ourselves in allowing this legislation to go through. It would certainly be a gross maladministration of taxpayers' funds. Before the Government undertakes any implementation work in relation to this proposal, surely the committee must report so that the Government can review its decision for an ID card on the basis of the evidence provided in the report. We look forward to participating in the committee of inquiry- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.19) —I wish to join the debate relating to the amendment for the introduction of identity cards. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated that, rather than generating revenue in the short term, this proposal will cost the Government $128m in the first year and $83m in the second year. The Opposition is opposed to this expenditure, but is now prepared to give some encouragement to it on the ground that the committee the Opposition has proposed will come forward. That has been a policy position that we have always taken. We are not opposed to anything that will assist the Government to overcome fraud and tax evasion, provided it is of proven value. But that is the big question mark hanging over this proposal. Naturally, as some honourable members have said, there is popular support for this because the general public is browned off with the massive fraud, particularly in the social security area. Someone has to get to the bottom of that. As I have said, the Australia Card probably is not the solution. It certainly is not from my experience of dealing with the general public in many fields of small business, including the hotel industry, over many years. The Government says: The Australia Card is designed to provide a substantially effective and long overdue means of ensuring that everybody in the community contributes a fair share towards the costs of providing Government services to the community. At the same time it will help ensure that no individual or group within the community takes from the community more than their fair and equitable entitlement. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) some of my experiences from dealing with people, not with a mob of university students telling how the Government reckons it might work. I am telling the Government what it is like out there in the real world. I suggest that an identity card is very much like a padlock; it is designed to keep honest people out; no more, no less. Let us look at some of the Government's suggestions. The statement entitled `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' states: The Australia Card and its number will be used to aid in the identification of- (a) participants in certain financial transactions (eg opening and operating bank accounts and the like, payments of interest, distributions by unit trusts, disbursement of rent collected by estate agents-- In other words, the card will be used by the Commissioner of Taxation to catch up with people who choose to use false names. Let me discuss that situation from my experience, after all these years that I have been around. The card will be used for all sorts of identification. Recently my mother's Visa card number was used to buy all kinds of goods in Italy while she happened to be back in Australia with the Visa card in her purse. How did this happen? It happened because on an overseas trip someone got hold of a carbon copy from a transaction, managed fraudulently to manufacture a Visa card and then transacted $7,000-worth of goods in Italy. This situation occurred. What is more, this Australia Card will be demanded by people. For instance, when we go to cash a cheque, someone will ask: `Have you got your identity card?'. As we are honest we will say `Oh yes, here is my identity card', and the number will be jotted down. Who do they hand that on to? When they do hand it on to someone, how will it be used? If I want fraudulently to open a savings bank account, all I have to do is what they used to do years ago in the bush when I was a publican. At the pig sales, all pigs were sold for cash. Every now and then I, Wilson Tuckey, would get a statement from my last pig sale, but I had never owned a pig in my life. Someone at the pig sale had used my name and got the money. Unfortunately, the statements always had a nil balance, but that was the system used. Let us assume that I have an Australia Card with a number on it. Off I go to the bank. I suppose the people at the bank have to look at the card but I bet that they will not frank it on to a piece of paper. I can say: `Look, I have forgotten my card but I have $2,000 or $10,000 to put into a savings account'. Avarice will take over. I will say: `Here is my card number. My name is Smith, and my number is such and such'. That savings account is established. So what happens next? About 12 months later the bank sends a message to the Taxation Office. As interest has been earned, the bank states: `We have paid Smith, with tax number so and so, that particular amount of money'. Mr Smith, of course, does not declare it. The real Mr Smith will not declare the interest earned. He will respond to the Commissioner: `This is not my account. So the Commissioner will rush back to the bank to find that the money is not there. The person who fraudulently used the card has moved on, having received 12-months interest on it. Can the Minister tell me how to get over that other than by having a tax commissioner standing at every teller at every bank. If the Government is going to make people frank the card to assist, the criminals will just get cards made, they will produce them and the same thing will happen. Paragraph (b) on page 29 of the statement states: persons lawfully entitled to undertake work in Australia (for tax linkage purposes);-- Let me give another example. How many people listening to me now have employed a cleaning lady. Under the present law she is supposed to pay tax and declare any income if she is on a pension. I know of a woman who, when she was recently offered a cheque in payment for work done for somebody, said: `Oh no, I can't do that; I'm on a pension'. I suggest that 90 per cent of the people who are employing those sorts of women at the moment know that they are on pensions and know that when they hand them the cash, which of course is not tax deductible for their purposes, no tax will be paid on it. What will change when we give that lady a piece of plastic with her name and a number on it? Nothing will change. Double dipping-beating the social security system and beating the tax man-will continue. These are the sorts of things that the Government's committee will have to go into. It will have to satisfy us that all of those hundreds of millions of dollars, even this $3.5m, will be used effectively. The Government states that it is going to do something about illegal immigrants with the introduction of this card. There is international evidence that when someone who does not have an identity card seeks employment, he works for less money. He is paid cash and becomes a disadvantaged citizen. He cannot get award rates because the person he chooses to work for knows that very well; so he is paid cash. There are a million ways for people to get their hands on cash. Dr Blewett —That is done now. Mr TUCKEY —Of course that happens now, but nothing is going to change it. Those people will not have a card; they will just work for less. That happens all around the world, and the American experience is well known to the Minister. Those people will work in cafes and other places and the money will just be taken out of the till at the end of the night and the tape is written down by that amount. This is happening all the time. This card is not going to resolve that. I spoke to a businessman recently who thought that the introduction of the card was a great idea. He had been taken in by the superficial value of this thing. He said to me: `I employ a lot of butchers. I am sure half of them give me false names. I think they are beating the tax system'. I said: `All right, let me give you a hypothetical case. Say one day three butchers leave together and the following day you get one applicant. You are in there trying to cut up the meat and serve it. Your wife is working and you are flat out. This bloke comes in and says ``My name is Smith. I'll work for you but I haven't got a card''. Would you employ him?', and he said: `Yes, I would start him'. Of course he would and most businesses would too. They might be honest people until those sorts of pressures come on them and, mark my words, they do. This is the sort of thing we are up against. Paragraph (c) states: persons entitled to Government allowances, benefits, pensions and other income support-- Fraudulent cards will be used long enough, before being discovered, to allow people to get a couple of benefits. They will be able to get away with it. How efficient is the Department of Social Security going to be about a card that it does not want? I was advised by a member of that Department not long ago that it is now possible to get a supporting parent's benefit while still residing in the same house as the spouse. I do not know whether we would keep someone in the bedroom at night in those circumstances. But the reality is that that is going on, and the Department knows it. I have brought the abuse of the supporting parent's benefit to the attention of the Department on three occasions-it had been brought to my attention by a parent who only wanted his wife not to work in a nightclub in the middle of the night and leave their small child at home on its own-and on each of those three occasions it did nothing about it. So what is going to change when people are given this little piece of plastic? They are the questions we are posing. But there is another aspect. Today I received in my office the Professional Transport Drivers Association Western Australia (Inc.) Newsletter for October. We are told on the fly leaf page how things work in the trucking industry in Sweden, how everyone has to have a tax number. It states: There are two main reasons: Firstly, everyone in Sweden is given a personal number which sticks with them for life. It appears on all official documents such as tax forms and driving licences, and on many non-official ones such as insurance forms. Fine, that is a pretty innocuous statement. But what does it say further on? It mentions a truck being pulled up for some reason and states: While the police are checking the vehicle over, the taxmen examine the . . . owner's records. If he appears on their `black list' as owing too much in back taxes, the truck is immediately confiscated. The driver is free to go-without the truck. Another story states: Five-thirty in the morning. An owner driver and his family were woken up by the door of their flat opening. In came eight policemen and four tax inspectors. The startled people were dragged out of their beds and told to stand facing the wall. Just like in a film. The taxmen then began to search all the rooms for documents relating to the business. Floors were torn up, beds were broken and all the cupboards were emptied. Is that exactly what we can expect to happen in Australia? That is Sweden. People may say that it is a democratic country. Those are some of my thoughts. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.29) —I want to enter today's debate to make a few points in regard to the identification card proposal. I firstly say that I welcome the inquiry that the Government has been required to set up. I think the need for it can be well and truly substantiated on the basis that the more information that is available on this subject, the better and the more informed will public debate be on it. I think that needs to be said, particularly in view of the fact that obtaining information from the Government on this proposal has been difficult. Frankly, the information that has been obtained and the information that has been publicly released has very often been open to question. When the proposal was first mooted, I made some phone calls to those involved in preparing some of the figures. One of the bureaucrats said to me: `Mr Reith, don't rely too heavily on these figures. We had only 48 hours notice to put a few things up to the Minister to support what he was saying'. Reading between the lines, the figures were plucked out of thin air, and we have seen nothing but figures coming and going ever since. In the glossy brochure the Government produced for the Summit, which is the bureaucrat's definition of producing charisma, the figure for the establishment of this scheme was about $38m to $40m, with similar sorts of running costs on an annual basis. What do we have now? I think it is $127m to set the thing up-three or four times what the Government first said-and the running costs have blown out from $87m to $100m a year. So I think that to have an inquiry, a committee to go over these figures with a fine toothcomb, will be a useful contribution to the debate. Mr Hodges —Very rubbery figures. Mr REITH —As the honourable member for Petrie says, quite rightly, what we have had so far are pretty rubbery figures. I also want to pick up the Government on this question of development, planning and implementation. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is keen to draw some lines of differentiation between these aspects. He says: `We are not going ahead with implementing this scheme; we are just going to try to work out the nuts and bolts of it'. But the fact is that yesterday we had the Treasurer (Mr Keating) berating the Opposition for questioning the Government's policy. The Government started off in the last election campaign without a tax policy. We were putting some pressure on the Government, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, in response to a Perth radio announcer: `Oh, a Summit. That's a good idea'. So they trotted off to the Summit. They had the draft White Paper, and the Treasurer went around the country putting option C to the people. In the end, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in a deal with the Government one night in a motel room, said: `Look, you will have to back off on option C'. The Government did what it was told, and it has come back to this Parliament with a tax reform package that has been padded out by this ID card we are now discussing. The fact is that the Government will proceed with ID cards come hell or high water, and, as I said, an inquiry will reveal a lot more. My other concern is that this $3.5m-odd to take the first step towards implementation will be the first dollars of taxpayers' money down the drain on this scheme. We have seen many instances of this in recent times with this Government. It was only a couple of weeks ago that it paid out $500,000 to a bloke when its own legal advice was that $10 would have been enough. Then, this morning, in the Sun, we see a report about another handout to one of the former cronies of this Labor Government. Well might we on this side stop and put a few searching questions to the Government on some of its expenditures. What we have seen under this Labor Government is the national debt going up and up, taxes going up and up, and expenditure going up and up to match. We on this side favour sensible measures to cut back on tax avoidance and evasion and social security fraud; but surely one must ask whether this proposal is the way to go when we have had people such as Frank Costigan saying it is not a good idea. We have even had the Department of Social Security saying it is not a good idea; and we have had Mr Justice Kirby saying that this proposal will massively alter the relationship between the individual and the state. My concern is that this card scheme will not work. The Government has reached a compromise with the Socialist Left to remove the photograph from the card. The costings are all absolutely rubbery. We have a scheme which will be a massive intrusion into the rights of ordinary Australians. The Government says to honest, ordinary taxpaying Australians: `Look, honest people have nothing to worry about'. But it is the honest people who will cop the abuses from the ID card system. I conclude my remarks by saying that I welcome the proposed committee. Although I understand there is growing opposition to this proposal, we may well get into a situation in which the Australian community, as time goes on, will understand and develop the view that so great is the significance of the proposal that in the end the only way to come to some final decision about it is to hold a plebiscite so that all Australians can be involved in the decision that will be required to be made. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(11.36) —Last Friday the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) introduced into this Parliament for debate this substantial, omnibus legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). The debate was adjourned until 48 hours ago, when members of the Government and members of the Opposition entered the debate. I thought it rather strange at the time that the debate was not wound up by the Minister. Of course, this morning we know exactly why that situation arose. Less than 48 hours later, we find that the Minister has done a sleazy, shady deal, and formed a shady alliance with the Australian Democrats. Of course, the suggestion had been put by the Opposition that this committee of inquiry be set up; but, no, that was not good enough for the Health Minister. He first had to find out that his legislation was not going to be successful in passing through the Senate, so he did this deal with the Australian Democrat senators. This is a case of a decision made on the run by a government on the run. It is as simple as that. We have seen this Government on the run for many, many months. It is the incompetence of the Health Minister that has caused this particular incident to arise. In the nine paragraphs or so of his second reading speech, let us look at what he said right at the end: The Government intends that the national identification system become fully operational from July 1989. As a first step, it is planned that the issuing of Australia cards begins in March 1987. Thus the Commission has a period of 18 months from now to undertake the necessary planning and development for the card issue. I ask: Is the Commission going to do the necessary planning and development? Of course, further on the Bill makes provision for $3.5m and, of course, a sunset clause, at the end of which stipulated time substantive legislation has to be introduced. This is clearly a case of lack of planning and of incompetence on the part of the Minister for Health. The Treasurer (Mr Keating)-and, indeed, I think the Minister has stated similar figures-has stated in the past that we will save $540m per year about four or five years down the track. I have not seen any estimates for savings on the social security fraud aspect of the proposed Australia Card scheme. I gather that the Department of Social Security is not overconfident that there will be substantial savings in that area. Let me just return to some words that were spoken by the Minister-the Minister can refute these words if he believes that are not authentic-and reported in the Melbourne Age of 28 September 1985, only a few weeks ago. Apparently an interview with the Minister was conducted by a Mr Castan, in which the Minister said: As I have said, the card will not be compulsory, but in order to protect the tax revenues of this country and also to protect social welfare claims then people without cards would at the very least be required to establish the same kind of identification information that the card provides for all those people with the card. It would be quite unfair to allow those people to be able to make the transactions we are concerned with, to secure the benefits of the system through welfare or other means, without establishing at the same level the correctiveness of their identity. But if people wish to do that, and people wish not to carry a card, they'll just have to recognise they will have that particular inconvenience. Here again this quite clearly illustrates that the Minister for Health, three weeks ago, did not know where he was heading with this issue. He talks about the card not being compulsory. I would like him to tell the people, the Parliament and the nation-because, after all, this is a Government initiative-whether it will be compulsory for every person in this nation to carry an Australia Card. Surely, as a government introducing a measure it ought to know down which track it is heading. Now it tells us that it really does not know down which track it is heading and has to have a committee of inquiry. I would have thought that all that spade work would have been done before the Minister came into the Parliament and introduced this legislation. As I said earlier, the Minister's second reading speech says quite clearly that the Minister knows where he is going. Yet contradictory information three or four weeks earlier in the Minister's interview indicates that he did not know where he was going. I suggest that he did not know where he was going then and does not know where he is going now. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.41) —I support the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the shadow Minister for Health, and other Opposition members who have spoken in this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. I start by saying that I adopt completely and do not need to repeat the remarks made by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). The date of 17 October 1985 will go down as a very important day in the history of Australian politics, because that little Napoleon of Australian socialism, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), has had to retreat. We should all be singing the song `Bonaparte's Retreat' today because, if ever a Minister has capitulated, it is this Minister. This is the Minister who went in as bold as a lion to the National Taxation Summit. On 17 October 1985 we see that the lion has turned into a mouse. We are now going to have an inquiry into his proposals. As the honourable member for Petrie says, as of this minute the Minister cannot tell us whether the Australia Card will be compulsory or not. Mr Hodges —He has lost his way. Mr HODGMAN —He has absolutely lost his way. I know it is bad form to quote oneself but I quote something I said in the Parliament on 18 September because I think the words need repeating. Mr Reith —A good speech! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member. I said that when the Wahlvorbereitung or, as it is otherwise known, the Parteitagung-which is German for caucus-of the Habichtsozialistherrschaft had made the decision to force upon the people of Australia the Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card, it took this country down a step towards an Orwellian Australia. One cannot have a socialist republic, which the Minister is working so hard for, aided and abetted by others, unless one has the citizenry regimented by way of identification cards. The Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card is a vital concomitant towards an Orwellian, socialist, republic Australia. Honourable members should consider the lun- acy that is now being afflicted upon the people of this country. As the honourable member for Flinders points out, it will cost $127m to set up the identification card system and $100m a year to run it. Those figures are rubbery. One could virtually double them. The geniuses running the Hawke socialist Government or, if one prefers, the Habichtsozialistherrschaft, have said that there will not be photographs on the card. I want to ask a few questions. If we are not to have photographs, will we have Christian names? Let us take a few examples. The name Robin can be masculine or feminine. Chris can be masculine or feminine. Julian can be masculine or feminine. Mr Goodluck —Bruce can't. Mr HODGMAN —No, Bruce Goodluck cannot. Jo can be masculine or feminine. Peter, Nicki, or Bobby can be masculine or feminine. We can turn to some of our ethnic friends. The name Marian can be masculine or feminine. Mischa, Jan and Gabriel can be masculine or feminine. So we are to have these magnificent cards without photographs on which the name could be either masculine or feminine. This is the Minister who said to the people of Australia through Press statements, and was promptly picked up in a brilliant speech by the honourable member for Barker, that the proposal had had widespread distribution. The Melbourne Age of 28 September quoted the Minister as saying: What I am saying is the IDC report has been widely distributed, so people can see the basis on which the Government has made its judgment. Mr Reith —What a joke! Mr HODGMAN —Quite right. What did the honourable member for Barker say? He said in this House on 15 October, as the shadow Minister for Health-he will be a very good Minister for Health when we get rid of this crazy Hawke socialist Government: The Minister was referring to an IDC report on the identification card proposal. He stated two or three times during that interview reported in the Age that that report had been widely distributed. Frankly, I was surprised when I read those comments, because one of the matters which have been concerning me is the lack of information coming from the Government about its proposal. Naturally, when I read that the Minister was suggesting that the report had been widely distributed, my office rang the Minister's office to request a copy. Two weeks later after I had received no response-on Monday of this week-we asked again for a copy of the report but we were told that it was a confidential paper not available to the public. Clearly, the Minister has a rather unusual definition of what constitutes a wide distribution. The Opposition has had to rely therefore on the sparse and inadequate material which the Government has made available. I note with interest the fact that the Minister now says that he will table the IDC report and the other documents which the Government has had before it. I ask the Minister bluntly: Will he table the lot? I want the people of Australia to see with their own eyes what I spoke about in the Parliament on 18 September this year, which neither the Minister nor the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has had the guts to deny. It is the truth. I now put it on the public record again: Not only will it be compulsory for ordinary Australians to carry the Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card at all times but also the Minister had another proposal in black and white before him; and since my removal from the shadow Ministry information has flowed to me from the Government side of the House like water tumbling down a waterfall. The proposal, and I challenge the Minister to deny it, was: `Minister, if you are going to make it compulsory you must start off with stiff penalties'. The Minister was told that in a memorandum. I challenge him to table it. The memorandum proposed that the Government would be able to enforce the system only if there were stiff penalties. Let me tell the people of Australia what the proposal was. The proposal was that for failing to carry the Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card the conviction for a first offence would be a fine of $10,000 or 12 months' imprisonment and, for a second offence, a fine of $25,000 or five years' imprisonment. Mr Reith —The same for children? Mr HODGMAN —Of course. There is no age limit. As a matter of interest, this is the same Government which is moving down the track in relation to reform of the law to take away presumptions about what 14-year-old boys and girls can do. We will talk about that matter on another occasion. To the Government age is irrelevant. Let us look at the Sex Discrimination Act. `Female' means a person of the feminine gender of any age. So a five-year-old can have a person up before the Human Rights Commission according to the star chamber procedures the Government has set up. But we will come back to this matter. I am not saying that the Minister necessarily endorses what that great enthusiastic zealot said and what is in his interdepartmental committee report. Is he game to produce it for public gaze? Is anybody connected with the Hawke socialist Government prepared to advocate that the penalty for not carrying a Hawke Schutzstaffel identification card should be for a first conviction, $10,000 or 12 months' imprisonment and, for a second conviction $25,000 or five years? As I said to the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) when she rudely interrupted me in my contribution to the debate on 18 September, let us see how those penalty proposals go down at the Canberra nudist society. This matter would be funny if it were not so serious. We are talking about a country for which over 120,000 Australian servicemen and women laid down their lives in defence of freedom. Do we want or need this 1985 Blewett, Orwellian, Hawke poppycock? It infringes basic Australian liberties. It will not work. It is something which the Minister, committed to the socialist cause, the high priest of Australian socialist dogma, is determined will be his epitaph. He is half right. It will be his epitaph. It will be his political epitaph. This proposal alone will confirm what has been lurking in the minds of millions of Australians since he has been a Minister-that there is something radically wrong with him. Many of us carefully watched the position in relation to Medicare. We have closely watched the Minister perform in other areas. Mr Hodges —He should seek some advice. Mr HODGMAN —He should seek some of the psychiatric advice-it is not even free-available under that magnificent scheme he brought in whereby one never knows which hospital one is going to be in or what person is going to put his hand on what part of one's body. Quite bluntly, this is the final straw. The Hawke Schutztaffel identification card is very bad news. I commend the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker, for fighting it as he has. I say to the Minister that today is the day of the little Napoleon Bonaparte's retreat. May he continue retreating until finally he is removed from office. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(11.51) —I rise to speak on Part IV of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), which is now before the Committee. This Part proposes amendments to the Health Insurance Commission Act of 1973 to empower the HIC to take such steps as are necessary to plan and develop the organisation required for the implementation of a national identification system which the Government is calling, in true Orwellian fashion, the Australia Card. I certainly welcome the decision of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to have an inquiry into it because the Government's proposal is nothing short of a blatant assault on the freedoms and the liberties of every Australian. I say this because in one fell swoop the Government is proposing to alter the basic relationship which has always existed between the Australian people and their government. This is being done by the Government demanding the right-I add, it is a right which it does not and should not have-to intrude forcibly into the lives of every man, woman and child in this country. Government and bureaucratic convenience is the only justification which is being presented by this Government for the Australia Card proposal. This Hawke Labor Government is showing the typical crass insensitivity for which it is well known in the way that it is dealing with the Australia Card. It seems necessary to remind this Committee of one of the fundamental principles of demo- cracy which the Government appears to have blithely ignored. That principle is that the sole purpose of government is to serve the people and, upon their instruction, to facilitate the provision of a number of services for the common good of society. The Australia Card proposal, on the other hand, inverts that principle and asserts that bureaucratic and governmental convenience is the paramount reason for government action. The Australian people are no longer sovereign. They will no longer control their own destinies. Instead, the Government proposes nothing short of a bureaucratic coup d'etat in which the Australian people will become serfs to ministerial and bureaucratic dictate. The system proposed by the Minister, which he outlined at the tax summit, would both tie all government information sources together and demand that each Australian carry a form of identification in order to have access to the services of government. As computers are the principal source of record retrieval used within the Government, there are a number of factors which the Minister seems to have ignored. First, a computer system is only as good as the operators who use it. Human error, which the Minister cannot guarantee will never occur, will ensure that people will experience difficulty in relation to government entirely because of erroneous information being placed into the Government's computer base. As the old computer adage says: Garbage in, garbage out. Further, there is no computer system in which a system of absolute security, either of access or information, has yet been established. If 12-year-old computer enthusiasts are capable of breaching the security of the United States Defense Department's strategic planning computer, what guarantees can the Minister provide that the Australian Government network is not capable of being tampered with or broken into? Finally, the Minister cannot guarantee that material in storage will neither be added to nor altered or deleted illicitly. I believe that the Australia Card proposal is nothing more than a naked power grab by bureaucrats which Ministers in the present Government have enthusiastically seized upon for their own long term socialist purposes. I remind the Committee of some history. Australia's only experience of a form of identity card was during World War II when an identify system was introduced for manpower allocation purposes and for the issuing of rations. The history of that time shows that Australia experienced a flourishing black market, with many people avoiding the manpower planning obligations. History also tells us that the Government will establish a new growth industry in Australia, namely, the organised criminal growth industry of forgery. Every nation that has introduced a system of mandatory identification has had an illicit trade in papers. In fact, even in Australia today there are cases of individuals who have had not only forged Medicare cards but also multiple cards in different names. We have to look no further than the gaols of New South Wales, where there has been a flourishing forgery industry in birth certificates and drivers licences. There are so many instances of forged passports that there can be no guarantee that the Australia Card will not be forged as well. There are at present 55 nations which have national identification systems. Forty-one of these are in countries which have either communist regimes or single party regimes in Third World countries. In these nations the identification systems are used not only for bureaucratic convenience but also for internal control of citizens. They are instruments for depriving individuals of their freedoms and liberties. Honourable members opposite have forgotten that over the last 50 years many people have come to this country because of the freedom and liberty which it has offered its citizens. They voted with their feet against the repression which is inherent in systems such as those which use identification cards to control the people. Honourable members opposite also have forgotten that 40 years ago this nation ceased a long and bloody conflict against enemies for whom identification systems were part of an over-weaning oppression. Honourable members opposite should talk about identification cards to people who were in Holland, Norway, Denmark and France during the 1940s. I do not understand how Government members of parliament, who are members of a political party that has long prided itself on its commitment to freedom for the individual, can sit quietly and permit their Ministers to bring this proposal before the House. Honourable members opposite display an absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy when they sit in this place silently supporting an identification card system, whereas during the next sitting they will support a Bill of Rights which falsely purports to guarantee the freedoms and liberties of every Australian. Are honourable members opposite such cowards that they will not loudly defend the people they represent? I remind the Committee that many individuals over many centuries died in the struggle to ensure that freedoms and liberties were enjoyed by every Australian. The proposal for an Australia Card is nothing if not a complete contempt of their sacrifice. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.59) —I join the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and my other colleagues in welcoming the Government's decision to follow the lead of the honourable member for Barker in establishing a joint parliamentary committee on identity cards. That at least is progress on this issue. It is, however, noteworthy that of the 82 members of the Australian Labor Party who sit in this chamber only one is in the chamber to hear this discussion in Committee on an issue as important as the introduction of an identity card. That one person is the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is responsible for its introduction. He sits on the other side of the chamber like a shag on a rock. The Opposition has made it perfectly clear that it thinks this identity card should be judged against three criteria: Cost savings, effectiveness in combating fraud and whether the Government will ensure that privacy is protected. The one thing we can conclude so far is that the whole concept of the identity card has not been thought through. There is insufficient hard information to be able to establish whether this card meets any of those three criteria. Let us take the cost savings argument. As honourable members well and truly know by now, there have been two interdepartmental committees established to investigate this aspect of the identity card, as well as other aspects. On top of that, we have had the Treasurer's tax statement of 19 September announcing the introduction of the card. The first of these interdepartmental committees reported in June, the second on 29 August and we had the tax statement on 19 September. Let us look at the way in which the establishment costs of the identity card differed in these three reports. The first IDC estimated that the establishment costs would be $38m. The second IDC, which reported just two months later, estimated that the costs would be $266.9m, a staggering increase. Then the Treasurer's statement of 19 September estimated that the establishment costs would be $297m before there was any revenue yield. Let us now look at the annual operating costs. The first IDC said that the annual operating costs would be $49m. The second said they would be $111.8m, which is more than double the first estimate. The Treasurer's statement, which was fairly similar but not the same, said the figure would be $100m. The estimate of revenue gains is the nub of the whole argument in favour of the identity card but these figures differ as much as the other estimates. The first IDC estimated that the revenue gains would be $980m. The second estimated that they would be around half that figure, $574m. The Treasurer's statement said that the revenue gains would be $454m. In other words, the Government has no clear idea at all of the costs and benefits of the identity card. It has no idea and nor for that matter does the Public Service, as is so clearly demonstrated by the confusion and contradiction in the IDC reports and the Treasurer's own statement. The proponents of the ID card-and I assume the Minister is the only proponent because he is the only member of the Australian Labor Party, with the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who has just walked into the chamber, who has attended this debate-claim that it will help eliminate tax and social security fraud. Let us examine what the interdepartmental committee reports said: The key to the integrity of the system is the photograph. In other words, if the system does not have a photograph it does not have integrity. We know why the photograph has been dropped and I am glad that it has been. There has been Caucus opposition to it and it is good to see that Caucus can do something constructive, at least occasionally. Also the Australian Electoral Office pointed out, as the Government knows, that the whole concept of a photograph would be `entirely unworkable'. The fact is that the Government's own departments, its own interdepartmental committees, have said in effect that if the system does not have a photograph it does not have integrity. That is what the departments have said, so there is hardly very much point to this exercise if it will not have any integrity. Of course the Government must now depend on the State registers of births, deaths and marriages. In the first place there is the issue of whether Queensland will provide that information to the Commonwealth. Clearly that would be one obstacle for the Government. There is also the question as to how effective these particular registers are. How open are they to abuse? The Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking looked into passport fraud and when it reported in 1982 it pointed out the very great difficulty experienced by the Department of Foreign Affairs in establishing any proof of identity. All that Department had to go on was the State registers of births, deaths and marriages. Of course this raises very serious questions about whether the identity card system will have any integrity at all. The effectiveness of the Australia Card in the fight against fraud has been challenged by the Federal Police, by Mr Costigan of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and by the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a very fine organisation as I would remind the Minister, although I am sure he would know that. It has also been challenged by the Department of Social Security. Officers of that Department who appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure said on 23 May this year: The overseas experience tends to suggest that systems of identity cards themselves in many instances build in fraud or means of fraud, whether it is by creation of similar cards, theft of cards or whatever. That is what the Department of Social Security thinks of this system. The same officers from the Department went on to say: There is a great risk, if that system is not foolproof, that all you are doing is building in an easy avenue for fraud. We know that the system is not foolproof because the IDCs have pointed that out quite clearly. They have said that the system has no integrity. It is not foolproof and the Department of Social Security clearly has no confidence whatsoever that this system will do anything to challenge social security fraud. Overseas experience only confirms the views of that Department which, in my view, has taken a very sensible position on this issue. In Sweden, for example, the system of identity cards was established, as the Minister knows, in 1947, yet the Swedish taxation board has said recently that 20 per cent of tax revenue is lost through tax fraud. Twenty per cent is lost, but they still have an identity card system. To look at this issue from another angle, the United States Government Accounting Office has estimated that 4.2 million Americans have more than one social security card. I am sure that the Minister will remember reports recently about the American parachutist who was killed when his parachute failed to open and there were six social security cards on him at the time of his death. This issue of the falsification and duplication of cards is clearly very serious and it has not been properly addressed by the Government. The United States Department of Justice, for example, estimates that false identity cards are costing American business $1 billion a year. That is a staggering figure, which just points to the major problems that can be associated with fraud in this area. I quote the United States Department of Justice briefly. It says: The criminal use of false identification is a multi-million dollar national problem. A growing army of criminals and fugitives is using a screen of false credentials in welfare fraud, illegal immigration, drug trafficking, passing bad cheques and phony credit cards and in hundreds of other crimes-- The Department went on: Organised crime would take advantage of any national ID system because of the presumption of validity surrounding such a large system. The overseas arguments against the identity card are irrefutable. The fact that the Government has not considered this issue properly, has not organised its arguments and has not received any conclusive evidence from departments through interdepartmental consultations shows that this measure should at the very least be given careful reconsideration by a parliamentary committee. The fact that the Government has agreed to the establishment of that parliamentary committee is only a concession on its part that the issue has indeed not been thought through. In conclusion, let me commend- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.09) —I thank members of the Opposition for their contributions to this debate. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to participate in this debate. There have been no members of the Government here, other than the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and two other members who have just come into the chamber. That shows an abysmal lack of interest in this important proposal to set up a committee of inquiry to look into the Government's proposal for an Australia Card. As I was about to say at the conclusion of my previous contribution, the Opposition looks forward to participating in the committee of inquiry. We do so on the understanding that the Government has now moved an amendment to restrict the role of the Health Insurance Commission. The Minister's words were that the amendment will `make it absolutely clear that the Australia Card function given under that legislation to the Health Insurance Commission is limited strictly to the planning function and does not involve any authority under which the Commission may proceed to the implementation of the Australia Card proposal'. We welcome that new undertaking. It is a change of heart by the Minister who, as I have already outlined, said in his second reading speech that this Bill would enable the Health Insurance Commission to undertake not only planning but also development work on the card to enable it to meet what the Minister then indicated to be a fairly tight schedule to ensure that the issue of the card commenced in March 1987. I repeat that we welcome the Minister's statement now that the Health Insurance Commission will not undertake that work, at least until the committee reports. On the basis of the negotiated agreement, we are prepared to allow these amendments to pass, to enable the Health Insurance Commission to undertake the work necessary to provide the committee with the evidence needed to support the Government's proposal, if that evidence can be established. I repeat that the Opposition does not believe that it will be necessary for the Health Insurance Commission to expend the $3.5m originally intended to be spent under this legislation before this amendment was introduced by the Minister. I would think that $250,000 would be more than ample for the Health Insurance Commission to establish the evidence and to prepare submissions for the committee of inquiry. I make it clear that the Health Insurance Commission is on notice in this matter. Already it has allowed itself to be used by the Government when it undertook work and expended taxpayers' funds illegally. It did that from 1 May, or from some time before the Tax Summit, until now. It has been undertaking work, apparently on the instructions of the Government, and it has undertaken that work quite illegally and beyond its powers. That is why this legislation is retrospective. It has effect back to 1 May this year. The Health Insurance Commission is on notice that we will watch closely to ensure that taxpayers' funds are not expended on planning for the Australia Card before the committee reports. Otherwise, the committee's work will be entirely wasted. That was not the basis of the undertaking given by the Minister. The committee's review should be preliminary to any decision by the Government to implement its initial proposal for an Australia Card. Any further expenditure by the Health Insurance Commission beyond the preparation of submissions for the committee could well be totally wasted if, for example, the committee of inquiry unanimously did not support the Government's decision and the Government subsequently decided not to go ahead with the decision to introduce an Australia Card. I say to the Health Insurance Commission: `Your reputation has suffered already as a result of the illegal work you have undertaken. To damage further your reputation by working on the implementation of the card proposal before the committee reports certainly will not escape our attention when we further develop our plans for the future role of the HIC which we will implement after the next election'. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.14) —I wish to comment briefly on the amendment and to congratulate the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), on the constructive role he has played in pressing the Government for more facts and in suggesting this amendment. He suggested this idea earlier on, in the second reading debate. The Government refused to accept the constructive idea put to it by the Opposition, but the Government and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) have had to eat humble pie. They have egg on their faces. Here we have the amendment. The Government could have saved itself some trouble. This is an example of a constructive role of an opposition, and I congratulate the shadow Minister on the part he has played in that, in leading the Opposition's debate on this Australia Card. The thing that worries me at the outset is the initial cost of this card, which I think is underestimated. As one of the earlier speakers from my side of the House pointed out, it is an idea on the run from a government on the run. As honourable members will remember, the whole idea of the Tax Summit was an idea of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when pressed on a Perth radio station. At the last minute it was decided to have a Tax Summit. At the last minute the Government had to have some ideas; so the Australia Card was one idea that came out of the Summit and is now in this infamous taxation package. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Mr Hurford —Another piece of rubbish; absolute rubbish! I will make sure this speech is distributed in Higgins. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs interrupts me. I say to the Minister, who is at the table, that this debate shows the inadequacy of the Government's case. Here we have an amendment moved by the Government on an initial idea of the Opposition, for which the Opposition should get some credit from the Government. We have had speaker after speaker from this side of the chamber and we have had but one or two supporting speakers for the Government. The Government is ashamed; it does not have a decent case to put. Government members are bitterly divided. There is a bitter debate going on in the Australian Labor Party and the Caucus on this issue. They are split down the middle. There is no Government back bencher in the House supporting the Government on this issue at the moment. The Minister is on the run and the Government is on the run. It was a stupid idea made up on the run. Let us look at the initial costs. These are a gross underestimation. The total establishment costs are expected to be $127m of taxpayers' money and operating costs on an annual basis are expected to average around $86m per annum and go up to $100m in 1992-93. That will be chicken feed if this measure comes in. It represents more regulation and social control. The identification card is a measure for social control by a socialist Government. It will control the lives of ordinary Australians. That point needs to be made more and more. My friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made a very good point in the debate, namely, that not only is this a measure of social control but it will involve massive fines for people. What will happen if someone is caught without his ID card? What measures will the Government introduce to force people to carry this card? I make a point in this debate to those who favour an ID card on the basis that it will remedy other wrongs in the community. I say to them: Two wrongs do not make a right; do not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is tax evasion and social security fraud in this country. We on this side of the chamber want to get rid of and solve the problems of tax evasion. Everyone should pay the proper amount of taxation. We have to get rid of social security fraud. But I do not believe, and I have not been convinced, that an ID card is the way to do that. We have to have proper and effective taxation laws and we have to enforce them. That is the way to solve the problem of tax evasion. The social security bill has to be brought under control. As I understand it, an ID card will not help substantially. It may help at the margin, but the bulk of social security expenditure is on unemployment benefit. So if people could be brought back into the work force, by policies we would institute, we would rid ourselves of the need for that expenditure. As I understand it, most of the fraud in the social security area involves people who are already known. They are on benefits and they have made false declarations in regard to those benefits. A large amount of money is spent on the single parent's benefit, where expenditure has increased in 10 years from nothing to about $1 billion. The major amount of social security fraud is carried out by people underestimating or understating their income or their assets in forms submitted to the Social Security Department. An ID card will not solve that problem because the names and identities of the persons who are engaging in social security fraud are already known to the Department. We do not need an ID card; what we need is an effective and efficient enforcement and investigation procedure in the Social Security Department. I remain unconvinced by any of the arguments put by the Minister and the Government on the need for an ID card in this country. I see it as a form of social control, an expansion of the socialist state, and I am deeply concerned by the Government's measure. The proposal is not a practical one. It is just hopeless. The opportunity for forging will be enormous. With regard to the identity cards that are required by those under 18 to get into hotels, I am told that out in the market place one can get any sort of forged ID card. Those who want to forge cards, those who want to evade and involve themselves in criminal activities, will have a field day. Mr Reith —It will be a sunrise industry. Mr SHIPTON —As the honourable member for Flinders says, it will be a sunrise industry for those in the business of trafficking in and forging ID cards. The Government has a silly idea; it is throwing out the baby with the bath water. This proposal entails more Government expenditure-I have talked about the costs involved-more bureaucrats, more taxation and more re- gulation over our lives. It is a measure that I believe ought to be defeated in the fullness of time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(12.23) —Mr Deputy Chairman- Mr Downer —He is looking around for help. Mr Shipton —There is no one there. Dr BLEWETT —The first person I will turn to for help is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who said on the Sunday program on September 15: I think that there is merit in giving the identity card favourable consideration. I am not concerned that we have had a series of fantasy speeches this morning. I am also not concerned that no member of my Party is present. I am not concerned by the allegations that have been made about members of the Australian Labor Party not being present in the chamber because practically everything that has been said by the Opposition is irrelevant to the Bill before the Committee. This Bill is not a substantive proposal about the Australia Card. Many of the things that were said this morning would form a real part of the debate on the substantive proposal and would be dealt with and answered on that occasion. The Bill before the Committee is concerned with enabling the necessary planning so that we can give answers to most of the questions that have been raised this morning. Let me turn to that planning. I have made it quite clear in what I said in the second reading speech and in what I said this morning that we are concerned simply with planning and getting answers to a whole range of problems in this area. It has always been clear, or should have been clear, to all honourable members on both sides of the House that a full and substantive Bill, with all the detail of the Australia Card proposals, would be brought into this chamber and an opportunity given for all the points that are now being made to be made. The Government believes that to provide the detailed answers to those points there must be a body in the Commonwealth bureaucracy to do the planning, and to work out what is the best way of implementing this proposal so that it is its most effective. The Government has made its decision to introduce the Australian Card only in principle. That planning work has to be done. All we are asking for in the measure before the Committee is that we allocate a group within the Commonwealth Government to carry out that task. One could say that that could have been done through the Health Department or the Treasury. It is our belief that the most appropriate body to carry out the planning for the Australia Card is the Health Insurance Commission, for a whole host of reasons, the chief of them being that if the Australia Card comes into application that will be the body that will run it. The HIC group would be reporting back to both this Parliament and this Government, with the final details of the scheme presented in the Bill. We had to have this legislation simply because, as honourable members have pointed out, it was not a function of the HIC to carry through such a task. To do it openly through the Parliament, we had to bring in this legislation to get approval for the HIC to carry out this function. The nature of this task is massive. No one is pretending that it is not a major challenge to the Government. If we are to answer the questions that have been put and if we are to have detailed and full legislation, a lot of resources need to go into that planning. That is the sole intention of this measure. In fact, we have put a sunset clause into the legislation, to which none of the Opposition members referred, which made it quite clear that unless an implementation Bill were brought into the Parliament and passed through both Houses the function would simply lapse. I believe that this Government has acted openly and properly in this matter. The very fact that so many tales and stories and worries have been presented this morning by members of the Opposition simply indicates that, unlike the previous Government, we have been prepared to be open in the development of this proposal. We learned nothing about most of the proposals brought in by the Fraser Government until the substantial legislation was brought before the House. In this case the Government's thinking and development of the idea has been done fully in public, many months ahead of the substantive legislation. That compares very favourably with the record of the Opposition when in government in the way it developed its proposals. I realise that the very fact that we have been prepared to be open in this way and to have a public discussion about this issue infuriates members of the Opposition because they are still not used to the idea that they are not in government. They think, therefore, that they should be involved in all this detailed planning by the Government in bringing a Bill before the Parliament for discussion on the substantive proposals. Honourable members opposite boast about their achievement in getting the Government to agree to an inquiry. I point out that the Opposition's proposal would have denied to the HIC the ability to go on with its planning and, therefore, to provide any of the answers either to the Parliament or to the inquiry. The original proposal from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) was completely destructive. It had the effect of saying: `No, you shall not do any of this research. You shall not do any of this planning. You cannot have money to do that. We will have a parliamentary inquiry'. We could not have answered the detailed questions that inquiry might want to ask without this research and planning being done. The understanding with the Australian Democrats, who I must say are much more reasonable and rational about these matters, was that they will support this measure so that the research and planning can be done at the same time as the committee carries out its inquiry. We are perfectly happy with that arrangement. Had the honourable member for Barker been prepared to come to the Government and say `We will support the legislation but we want a parliamentary inquiry' we certainly would have been open to a real consideration of that proposal. But that was not his proposal. He proposed a despoiling, destructive operation. Mr Hurford —To support the tax cheats. Dr BLEWETT —That is right. What we had from the Opposition was simply a despoiling tactic, an effort to deny the Government the resources to do the planning for this scheme. Fortunately, better counsels have prevailed and, as a result, we probably have something which will benefit honourable members on both sides of the House. The Government will be able to continue with the planning and that will enable the answers to be given to the Parliament. At the same time there will be a parliamentary committee which will enable members of parliament interested and concerned about this issue to get a lot of the hard information that the Government already has, but we need much more before we can introduce a detailed proposal to this House. I believe also that, when the information and planning material is available, most of the worries raised by honourable members in the Opposition can and will be answered. But the appropriate time to do that is when a substantial measure is before this Parliament. I believe that the decisions we have made will contribute to a substantial measure-- Mr Hodges —Why do you need the $3.5m now? Mr Hurford —Shut your trap. You are only supporting tax cheats. Be quiet. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) — Order! I think some repartee is appropriate to give colour to the debate but I think it has gone too far. Dr BLEWETT —Let me say for the benefit of the rather excitable honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) that, if he had had any real administrative experience, he would understand that the planning and research required in this matter cost a considerable amount. I have already indicated that we will do our best to restrain costs in that area until the committee of inquiry reports. Finally, I hope that the range of substantive issues which have been raised by honourable members will be raised by some of those honourable members if they are involved in the inquiry. As I have said, I believe that we will be able to give answers. I look forward to the debate on the substantive measure as it will give the Government an opportunity to answer a lot of the fantasies, a lot of the dream tales, which were raised this morning. Amendment agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 October. Schedule 2. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed expenditure, $696,217,000. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $535,978,000. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.34) —I wish to speak on the appropriations for the Department of Housing and Construction. Mr Deputy Chairman, it is no secret to you, or to honourable members of this House that this portfolio deals with industries which are currently in a degree of trouble. These industries are affected by a number of factors; including, firstly, the recently announced changes to taxation laws such as those affecting capital gains and negative gearing; secondly, the dramatic increases in the overall level of interest rates; thirdly, the increase in bank and building society home loan rates; and, fourthly, unsympathetic tenancy legislation by State governments. As an example of how these industries have reacted to recent speculation on those factors, I advise the House that the number of permits issued for flats, units and townhouses in Victoria in May and June fell 18.2 per cent compared with the same months last year. As a further example, the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, in its August 1985 bulletin, predicts a fall in the value of engineering construction turnover from 1982-83 to 1985-86 from $4.9 billion to $3.1 billion; a decrease of over 35 per cent in dollar terms in that three-year period and much more in real terms. Furthermore, the Minister for Housing and Construction, the Minister, (Mr West), in an address to the Master Builders Federation on 2 October, acknowledged that housing commencements in the current year would be significantly lower than last year. Advice from the industry suggests that the numbers will be even lower than the Minister has forecast. The President of the New South Wales Real Estate Institute said a few weeks ago that the New South Wales residential property market was in a serious state of decline. One of the chief reasons for this situation is the high level of interest rates. Perhaps the best source to quote on this matter is the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who is a member of the present Government. He said in the other chamber on 17 September: Interest rates are higher now than they have been throughout most of Australia's history. The basic cause of high interest rates, largely the responsibility of the Government and its Australian Council of Trade Unions masters, results from the Government's lack of discipline over its fiscal and wages policies. Mr Hurford —That is absolute rubbish, and you know it. Mr BEALE —The Minister should listen and he will learn something. We cannot deregulate our exchange rate without deregulating our labour market. Whatever the Government may say about its so-called accord, it cannot defy fundamental economic laws. At last the Government is starting to learn its lesson through the harsh reality of the interest rate markets. Unfortunately, while the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Minister for Housing and Construction and the bureaucrats of the ACTU go through their slow learning curve, the families of Australia are suffering by virtue of increased housing loan repayments and those without houses find that that dream of buying their own house is further away than ever. One of the great ironies is that under current Government policies which are to keep interest rates high and so support the value of the Australian dollar-if the dollar fell dramatically again, it would shatter the accord-the genuinely needy in our community are unable to meet the qualifications to buy their own home. This Government has overspent and overborrowed and therefore sent interest rates up. In an attempt to alleviate the damage, the Government is trying to spend more on welfare measures but the funds usually end up in the hands of the powerful pockets of privilege in our society denying help to the needy and sending interest rates up even further. In answer to a question I asked the Minister for Housing and Construction a couple of weeks ago-I now welcome the Minister to the chamber-he said: The future of general interest rates and indeed of housing rates will depend on the outcome of a whole range of policies including monetary and fiscal policy. `It will depend on fiscal policy'-those are the Minister's words. Do we see a glimmer of economic sanity returning? If so, the Minister should take it upon himself to go forthwith and discuss the matter with his Cabinet colleagues so that he can instil in them the lesson of economic reality. We will see over the next 12 months whether the Minister appreciates the significance of his remarks and whether he can deliver on the high hopes I have for him. As the appropriations testify, the expenditure for the Department in 1985-86 is $2.115 billion. The Government should address itself to the vast quantities of public money it hands over to the States for housing purposes to ensure that this money is well spent. The size of the appropriations documents and the restriction on time in this debate preclude other than a few isolated comments on how funds are being spent. I make a few observations. Firstly, the appropriations do not properly reflect the total expenditure by the Department as rent, for example, is excluded. We need to turn to page 31 of the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services to determine that the Department of Housing and Construction rent for the current year is forecast to be $7.4m. Apart from noting that the Commonwealth's total rent bill has gone up from $177m to $248m-a massive 40 per cent increase in one year-I feel compelled to ask the Minister whether it is possible to reduce the rent of his Department. I believe, for example, that the Minister should give his attention to the situation in Australia Square in Sydney, for example. There the Department has 12 floors each of, say, 10,000 square feet, at an average rent of $30 per square foot, which totals $3.5m a year. Why not move that office to Parramatta, Chatswood or Hurstville, where the rent is only two-thirds, thus saving the taxpayers $1m a year? We note that the Department is spending $361,000 on alterations in Australia Square. That is one of the few places where funds of the Department are being spent or administered in the Sydney area. There is work at Sutherland, Hornsby, Liverpool, Penrith, Dee Why and Parramatta, but very little in the central Sydney area. This is a gross waste of taxpayers' funds-and it will be no surprise to learn that Australia Square has a canteen. Secondly, it appears to be a matter of some pride to the Department that it is represented on over 140 industry associations, organisations and committees. We ask the Minister why he permits so much administrative time to be spent interfering with the private sector. He should let that sector get on with the business of creating prosperity for all. Page 63 of Document B of the Appropriations deals with the payment of equity capital to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in 1984-85. The Minister has stated that he expects the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation will break even in the current year. Under those circumstances, presumably no further funds will be necessary, which is confirmed by the estimates on that page. However, can the Minister now stay silent and claim that the Corporation will not lose money in the current year? Can he now stay silent and claim that he has no knowledge of certain engineering deficiencies? Can he now stay silent and claim that significant retrenchment payments have not been made to former employees who have since been re- employed on long term contracts? Can he now stay silent and claim that the Corporation will need no further funds this year? It is time to remind the Government yet again that its deliberate policy to keep interest rates at a high level is starting to have a significant depressing effect on the industries associated with the Department of Housing and Construction. It is time to remind the Government yet again that interest rates can come down only if the burden on monetary policy is relaxed. It is time to remind the Government yet again that one cannot deregulate financial markets without deregulating the labour market and exercising restraint in government expenditure. The more governments spend, the more they borrow, the more pressure they put on financial markets and the more they depress the housing and construction industry. It is time for the Government to get off the back of the housing and construction industry, create an economic environment for greater incentives and allow the entrepreneurs in those industries to create prosperity for us all. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.45) —The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) has once again overlooked many of the advantages which have come to us from development of a succession of policies, not only through the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) but through the previous Minister, presently Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), and the shadow Minister when our Party was in opposition, now the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). The truth is seen in the figures. In my electorate of Eden-Monaro alone, 1,147 applications have been received under the first home owners scheme and 958 applications have been approved, that is, $4.5m has been approved and so far $2.8m has been paid out under the first home owners scheme. This is the record of the Government under the appropriations which we are discussing today. I wanted to particularly mention today the fact that many young people, particularly in this region, are inadequately housed. What I want to say today is that measures are now being taken to ensure that access to long term accommodation and emergency and even crisis accommodation are seen by the Government as major housing needs of young people. From May 1986 people aged 18 and over who have been on unemployment benefits for at least six months will become eligible for rent assistance of $10 a week. As long as people aged between 18 to 24 are not living with their parents or guardians, they will be eligible. The Government recently undertook a review of its crisis and youth accommodation programs and, following this, in January 1985 the Government established the support accommodation assistance program which involved youth support, general support for people with accommodation needs and funding for women's emergency services. Each of these sub-programs provides a range of support accommodation which is long overdue in this region. I think particularly of the City of Queanbeyan where increased construction in the region-and this contradicts much of what the honourable member for Deakin was saying-has resulted in a demand for more accommodation. The Australian Capital Territory authorities and authorities of the Queanbeyan City Council and the Yarrowlumla Shire are now being pressed for calls for increased accommodation and I believe they are also being pressed for provision for young people. It was not so very long ago when a survey was performed in Queanbeyan on the needs of accommodation for young people. It is quite interesting that the Queanbeyan City Council community workers went out late one night and had a look at the number of young people who were not at home but were sleeping out under bridges, in parks, on car seats-and this was mid-winter. They found 21 young people who did not have their own accommodation. It is true that this area attracts young people to jobs, but sometimes accommodation is too expensive for the incomes they have. The youth support accommodation program and the women's emergency service program will be one means through which these people can be accommodated. In 1985-86 the Government intends to spend an additional $4.4m on the program and has committed itself to an extra $5m for new and improved services. In renegotiating the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in 1984, young single people who were previously not eligible for public rental housing in some States were made eligible. In addition to general rental and home purchase assistance, the new agreement contains a number of specific housing assistance programs which provide assistance to young people: The mortgage and rent relief scheme, the crisis accommodation program and the local government and community housing program, the latter providing low cost rental accommodation through local governments and community groups. Before I conclude I want to mention that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which comes under the Department of Housing and Construction, has also been the subject of Opposition attacks in recent months. In fact, the honourable member for Deakin told the people of Cooma that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation was, on the one hand, losing too much money and, on the other hand, operating at an advantage compared with private business and ought to be sold to private enterprise. The truth is that much of the decline of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which coincided with the decline in construction generally, is due to the fact that this enterprise has not been able to operate with the advantages of private business, particularly in the areas of taxation, staff arrangements and tendering. Earlier this year legislation was put to the Parliament which allowed SMEC to be more competitive and I would remind-- Mr Beale —Three hundred jobs too late. You have lost 300 jobs out of the Corporation in the last three years. Mr SNOW —The Opposition was in government for seven years and did nothing about SMEC but cripple it. At least credit must be given to this Government for taking the initiatives it has. The honourable member for Deakin talked about SMEC favouritism in the jobs that it achieved. I suggest that he and the Opposition look at some of the jobs that have been achieved via SMEC. The north-south by-pass of the City of Newcastle is one of the major projects that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation authorised in the first quarter of this year, and the honourable member cannot tell me that that job was granted on favouritism. It was granted on fair tendering. The project, at a cost of $1.6m, involves construction management by the Corporation. The national water resources strategy is being developed by the Corporation. The strategy will establish the number and identity of hydro-electric stations which form the national network, and it is being done for the Department of Resources and Energy. I believe that the widening of the powers and the functions of the Corporation and progressive introduction of the firm to overseas markets through joint ventures and other works will bring benefits not only to SMEC itself but to people who work in this region and who have association with the Corporation. I also refer just briefly to new jobs overseas that have been recently taken up by the Corporation. They include irrigation and flood control in Indonesia; land and water resource development services in Saudi Arabia; and a project for the World Bank in Malawi. It is providing specialist engineering advice in Ethiopia for rural integrated program development under the United Nations and its work is often profitable, as the Minister pointed out when he introduced the legislation originally, and is based on sound commercial principles. The Corporation, as well as being an enterprise which can seek and find business in Australia, is also a flag carrier for Australia. I believe it is important that we play our part in world development, particularly in the Third World. The appropriations for this Department are well substantiated, not only in the enormous amount of work that is being done for housing in Australia but also in the enterprise, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, which it has fostered. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(12.54) —I want to talk on local government in a more technical sense, if I may. The Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance is due to present its report about now, mid-October. With the Commonwealth providing more than $1 billion in assistance to local government in 1985-86, this report and the manner in which the Commonwealth deals with its recommendations has the potential to be perhaps the most significant event in local government's history. Whether this potential will be realised is, however, questionable, although the Commonwealth is committed to consulting with State and local governments before determining the manner by which it will implement the inquiry's recommendations, this process is scheduled to take place over the period of a few weeks. Failure to complete consultation, to form decisions and to draft these into a Bill ready for the 1986-87 revenue sharing arrangements could lead to the shelving of the inquiry's report and the whole thing could prove to be futile. It is therefore essential to expedite the process whereby Parliament considers a report and, where necessary, to ensure that adequate time is allowed for transition towards any fundamental change in these arrangements. Of particular concern to local government is the form of general revenue sharing. In the case of State GRS arrangements, historically the form used is changed roughly every seven or eight years through consultation and discussion at Premiers Conferences, and it never went beyond that in earlier years. Further, the number of parties involved under those circumstances, of course, is small. For local government there is no regular forum for discussion and consultation and the number of parties involved is large. At present there are 834 local governments throughout Australia, give or take one or two. For these and other reasons it is essential that the form of revenue sharing used in arrangements with local government be easily understood by the community at large and be eminently visible and predictable. Revenue sharing based on a known share of the Commonwealth's total tax collections meets these criteria. Local government is also concerned that, in dealing with the inquiry's recommendations, attempts may be made to place conditions on the use of allocations made under its revenue sharing arrangements. Apart from the obvious need to make these allocations through the States and on the recommendations of local government's Grants Commission, no conditions whatsoever should be placed on local government's revenue sharing entitlement. To do otherwise would be to make these grants general, not specific purpose, and would certainly be contrary to the agreements reached on this matter at the recent Consititutional Convention. I turn to a number of matters which are in the orbit of local government but which more particularly affect the development and the continuance-if you like, the survival-of northern Australia. I refer particularly to the sugar industry. As I move around the sugar producing areas for which I am responsible I see a grave apprehension by local authorities which is realistic and which says: `If the sugar industry does not survive we are not going to be able to get enough rates to continue to exist'. This might sound like an extreme sort of statement. No one would be more aware than you, Mr Deputy Chairman, of just how real this apprehension is. Before I proceed I would like to refer to some of the humbug and hypocritical empty rhetoric oozing out of such people as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). I wish he were here. He has bleated forth in this House statement after statement expressing concern for areas that he has visited very briefly, if at all, areas that he galloped through like a brumby with his tail on fire. He has said, in effect, that his Government has treated people in these areas with the contempt for which it is so well known. If he and others like him were in any way sincere, he would resign from the Labor Party or he would get into Caucus and tell the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government that they have done now as they have always done-hammer people in these areas into the ground. Let us take for example the sugar industry: I have been here for 19 years and never have I heard such a meaningless flow of humbug as was presented by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in answer to a question by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). What amazes me is the contempt and total lack of consideration he had for that particular member, the honourable member for Leichhardt. How on earth did the honourable member for Leichhardt explain to his sugar growers that his Minister again refused to persuade his Government to give one cent for the survival of the sugar growers and the tens of thousands dependent on them? The honourable member for Leichhardt may agree with the likeable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) who suggested that the growers were phonies and that they really had blocks of flats, and so on. In fact, one could have gathered from my friend's comments that sugar growing was just a hobby to many of my people in the sugar industry. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member is straying somewhat from the Bills before the House. The Primary Industry Department has been previously addressed. I ask the honourable member to maintain relevance. Mr KATTER —I will taper off by just saying that there is only one way out, that is, to provide financial assistance right now, or the thousands of people dependent on this industry will go by the board. May I point out that the matters I mention here are very much within the orbit of local governments and their sense of responsibility. I think it could be well and truly argued that any matters affecting northern Australia more particularly, where local government is so more significant, where the people have an understanding of their people, are close to them, and can interpret their particular problems, are very much within the orbit of local government. One matter affecting local authorities and the people in the far and distant areas of this nation is the price of fuel. We were told that, with the advent of the Hawke Government, we would see a reduction. There was hardly a candidate, if any at all, who did not go around the country saying: `Elect us and fuel will be reduced by 3c a litre'. Let me say this: About that time we were paying some exorbitant fee-I guess about 45c to 50c a litre. Now we are paying up to 70c per litre in these country and remote areas. If this is again a case of a broken promise, it is a pretty explosive one. Another matter of concern which comes strictly within the orbit of local authorities is air fares. The Independent Air Fares Committee was admittedly created by our Government, but I have not seen a single example of a reduction in fares. It could well be argued that the air fares paid by people who are not in the golden triangle between the capital cities are probably the highest air fares in any part of the world-again an imposition on the people in the country areas. I would like now to get to the matter of local authorities securing constitutional recognition. More and more our local authorities are being depended upon to govern in the intimate manner of which only they are capable. They pipeline through to our Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) and to the Department the actual responses, the way of life, of these people, and they have no satisfactory recognition. It is high time that all of us, all parties, closed ranks behind local authorities and secured what they are justly entitled to, that is, constitutional recognition. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(1.04 p.m.) —Honourable members will be aware that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has responsibility for public works and, in that regard, has a wide-ranging interest in projects for both government departments and Federal Government instrumentalities. However, that responsibility stops far short of any interest in, let alone responsibility for, projects wherein Federal Government funds are in no way provided for construction but are allocated only for specific recurring costs once a particular project is operational. I felt obliged today to stress that point because of publicity given in the last few days to the promise of the Queensland Premier and his Health Minister to construct a public hospital in the Redlands area of my electorate where a State by-election is presently under way. Last Monday evening for the fourth time the Queensland Premier promised the Redlands area a public hospital. The previous three occasions were, as honourable members may well guess, during the last three election campaigns. In his announcement the Premier, either because of a major deterioration in his mental process-and sadly this could be so due to his age-or because he is prepared to blatantly mislead and confuse the electors, accused the Labor Party of being responsible for the fact that this hospital has not been constructed before now. In his campaign opening he said that the double standards of the Australian Labor Party were the only reason the electors did not already have a public hospital because of the withdrawal of Federal Government assistance. He said that it was hypocritical of us to talk about the need for a hospital there and that it was our Party that had denied Queensland those facilities. I have, therefore, taken this opportunity during the consideration of the estimates for Housing and Construction to endeavour to make it quite clear to the Queensland Premier and to his Health Minister that it is not the responsibility of this Government or this Minister. The Health Minister, following the announcement of the Premier, went on to say: The capital costs of this new hospital will be provided solely by the State Government because of the complete lack of financial support from the Federal ALP Government. While I might be able to use the excuse of the Premier's age for the reason that he misled the electors, I certainly cannot do that in respect to his Health Minister, Mr Austin, who seems obviously by habit to lie at every opportunity simply because of his own incompetence in handling his responsibilities for hospitals in Queensland. Just so that it will be abundantly clear, let me go on to say that the fact that that particular project has not been proceeded with is not the responsibility of this Minister or of this Government. The fact that Federal funds for hospital construction are no longer available but were withdrawn by a Federal government is the responsibility of the gentlemen who sit opposite because those funds were withdrawn during the period of the Fraser Government. It must be that Government that he is mistakenly talking about when he refers to the present Government. Direct funding for hospital capital works was ended by a decision of the Fraser Federal Liberal-National Party Government. I do not recall him criticising that Government at the time the funds were withdrawn. Since well before the Hawke Government came to power, hospital construction in Queensland, as in all other States, has been the sole responsibility of those State governments. Let me in conclusion say that Queensland, in fact, has done very well for health funds under the Federal Labor Government after years of financial starvation under the previous Liberal Government. Commonwealth funding for Queensland hospitals has increased from $93m in 1982-83 under the Fraser Government to $180m in 1984-85. Queensland has done very well out of health funding under Medicare by this Government. I conclude by making this point in regard to construction of hospitals in Queensland. It does not appear really that the Queensland Minister for Health is genuine in his concern about the lack of hospital facilities in that area, as in many other areas in Queensland, because in April this year the Hawke Government announced that the States would be given $50m extra each year for the next three years towards upgrading hospital equipment. This is in addition, of course, to all Medicare grants. From this grant Queensland was to be given more than $7.7m this financial year and over the next three years was to receive $23.1m. But the Queensland Government, which seems to be forever crying poor when asked about hospital spending, has not even replied to that offer. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member is straying a little in respect of relevance. Mr KEOGH —I appreciate that that may be so. With that in mind, I again repeat to honourable members that my main purpose of entering this debate was to endeavour, if possible, to make it abundantly clear to the Queensland Premier that, while the responsibilities of this Government through the Minister for Housing and Construction are fairly widespread, they do not go as wide as providing funds for construction of projects that are not covered by Federal legislation, and that applies to the again-promised new hospital in the Redlands area. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(1.11) —It is an ill wind that blows no good, and one of the most pleasing aspects of my recent recycling out of the shadow Ministry was the elevation of my friend and colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) to the position of shadow Minister for Housing and Construction. Might I say from the outset that the honourable member for Deakin has moved very quickly and very effectively into his new position. He is now putting the Government under very great pressure in an area of policy deficiency which the honourable member is pointing out with very great force and with very great effect. I join him in condemning the Hawke socialist Government, whose housing and construction policies are now in absolute and total disarray. I have to make the point-indeed, the honourable member for Deakin made it at the commencement of his address-that almost every promise made to the industry by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), aided and abetted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the former Minister for Housing and Construction, has been dishonoured. We remember the Prime Minister and the Treasurer running around Australia late last year saying that housing interest rates would come down in 1985. Mr Beale —It is a joke. Mr HODGMAN —It is more than a joke. They went around Australia conning the home owners of this country, in particular the prospective first home purchasers, that housing interest rates would come down in 1985. Mr Deputy Chairman, they have gone up. The Prime Minister promised that the first home owners scheme-and I quote him verbatim-`would be kept as it is'. Yet within 16 weeks of his re-election the Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and every other member of the Hawke socialist Government, savagely slashed the scheme and changed the eligibility criteria. They absolutely took a stock whip to the scheme which the Prime Minister had praised. Mr Beale —It was shameful. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Deakin is correct; it was a national scandal. The Prime Minister promised that the level of new housing commencements for 1985-86 would be maintained at least at the same level as 1984-85. The Government's own advisers, its Indicative Planning Council-the Minister is back in the chamber; I have flushed him out of his burrow- told it that that promise cannot be honoured. The situation is that in 1984-85, there were 151,000 new housing commencements right across Australia. The IPC says that at best there will be 140,000 new housing commencements in 1985-86. Mr Beale —At best. Mr HODGMAN —At best, and the Minister himself now concedes that even that estimate might be a little on the high side. So where are the at least 11,000 new houses which the Prime Minister promised? The people ought to understand this: He promised quite clearly that the same level would be maintained in 1985-86 as in 1984-85. We will be lucky to make 140,000 new housing commencements and those 11,000 new homes now have disappeared off the horizon, breaking the hearts, the hopes and the aspirations of thousands and thousands of young Australian prospective first home purchasers. What is it going to do to the industry? I notice the presence of my colleague and friend the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) who has worked in underprivileged areas to get young people and older people into homes. The queues for public housing are growing longer by the day under the disgraceful performance of the Hawke socialist Government. What do the unions say about the impact on the building industry? Nobody could accuse the honourable member for Franklin, the honour- able member for Deakin, myself or the shadow Minister in the chamber, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), of being fellow travellers of the Building Workers Industrial Union the BWIU. But the BWIU in New South Wales, to its great credit, has a very good economic section. That economic section has done its predictions on what is going to happen in the building industry under the policies of the Hawke socialist Government. The BWIU has publicly stated that there will be: `41,000 jobs lost in the building industry in 1985-86'. One of the leading building unions in Australia has picked up that, because of the Government's broken promises on interest rates, its broken promises on the first home owners scheme, and its broken promises on the number of new housing commencements, 41,000 in the building industry will lose their jobs this year. Let us be conservative and say that the figure is 25,000. Twenty-five thousand people presently working in the industry are going to be out of a job thanks to the Minister, thanks to the Prime Minister, and thanks to the Hawke socialist Government. It is a scandal and it is a disgrace. Mr Beale —They won't be able to buy homes then, will they? Mr HODGMAN —That is the next point, of course. One cannot now buy a home in this country unless one is a two-income family with no children. That is the reality. Mr Goodluck —The interest rates are too high. Mr HODGMAN —The interest rates are too high. The deposit gap, instead of narrowing, is broadening. We were the country which had the highest level of home ownership in the world. That was maintained, but it has dropped. The Minister wriggles on this one and says: `It has not dropped'. It has. Look at the statistics. The proportion of home ownership in Australia is lower today than it was when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister. We can add to these things I have mentioned the other little nasties that the Government has on order for the housing industry, all of which have been referred to by the honourable member for Deakin in a very effective manner. I refer to the capital gains tax. The Minister was warned, as was the Prime Minister, back in March of this year. His own working party on public housing and private rental accommodation told him that speculation about a capital gains tax was causing the supply of private rental accommodation in this country to dry up and that at the same time to quote verbatim, `rentals rising faster than inflation'. Not satisfied with that, the Government proceeds with a capital gains tax proposal, but the Treasurer says we are not going to see the legislation until March next year. As the honourable member for Deakin has pointed out, the fact that millions and millions of dollars of investment in private rental accommodation have been put on the back burner is a scandalous and shameful indictment of a government totally out of touch with the industry. Not satisfied with that, as the honourable member for Deakin has pointed out, the Government is going to move to quarantine negative gearing. I say, on the basis of information that has come to me from the industry, that between $500m and $1,000m, or in other words, $1 billion-worth of investment in private rental accommodation, will not now be going ahead in 1985-86. Mr Beale —What does that mean for rents? Mr HODGMAN —It means that rents go up because the supply dwindles. The queues get longer. The Minister on the other side can laugh, but he has been told by the industry that the situation in Sydney is catastrophic. The supply of rental accommodation has dropped. He takes out quarantining of negative gearing, he imposes a capital gains tax, the investors say `We are not going to invest in this because there is no money in it' and at the same time the poor damn tenants cannot pay the rent. They almost have to take out hire purchase agreements to pay their rental. In the remaining minutes I have to relate the situation concerning the Government's decision, announced last week, to evict people from government houses in the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, eviction of tenants from government houses has been in the news a bit lately and it seems the Victorian trend is coming to Canberra. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that shabby little man, that Oliver Cromwell of Australian politics, that little midget in Victoria, who removed disgracefully Sir Brian and Lady Murray from Government House, Melbourne, has given him the lead to start evicting people from government houses in Canberra. I had a term as Minister for the Capital Territory and I will say, here and now, that the question of eviction of persons who cannot pay their rent is a very difficult one. I would like to talk a little longer on Government House, Melbourne, but I might just get a little off the mark. The more that comes out about that scandal, the more I say that Mr Kennett is quite correct, as is Mr Ross Edwards when he says that Premier Cain-the despicable little man-is going to have to live with this for the rest of his life because he got rid of one of the greatest State governors this country has ever seen and one of the finest governor's ladies this country has ever seen, and he did it with mealy-mouthed, philistine, puritanical zeal. But his chickens will come home to roost, and he will be removed from his horrible little lodge, the Premier's office, and the sooner the better. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member was quite right. He did become irrelevant. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(1.21) —It was very surprising to hear some of the comments made during this debate on the estimates of the Department of Housing and Construction. The point is that one has to accept that this Government has been extraordinarily successful in the housing and construction area. With regard to housing, despite what speakers on the other side have said, this Government has achieved 152,700 new commencements in 1984-85. This stacks up against the miserable 105,000 achieved in 1982-83, the final year of the former Government. The point has been made by the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), that the Indicative Planning Council has estimated a moderate fall of about 7 per cent to 140,000 commencements for this year. All I can say is that that is in line with the long term trend of underlying demand in the industry as estimated by the industry groups, including the Indicative Planning Council, and compares very well with the massive fall from 149,000 commencements to 105,000 commencements in one year under the former Government. So I am certainly able to inform this chamber that, despite an expected moderate down-turn in commencements, there will be nothing near the fall we experienced under the former Government because, I am happy to report-and this fact did not come out in the debate-that approvals for 1984-85, which of course are an indication of future construction rates, were at 160,400 the highest since 1973-74. The approvals already given in 1984-85 are a good indication that we can expect fairly strong and stable activity in the housing commencement area. So of course, employment in housing and construction is up to 470,000-odd at the latest reading-up over 80,000 in two years. The unemployment rate in the industry has fallen to less than 6 per cent compared to 14 per cent when we took over government in early 1983. Mr Hollis —A magnificent record. Mr WEST —Yes, it is great; it is a good scene. I do not really know what those opposite are whingeing and whining about. On the public housing side, we provided $654m this year, up 60 per cent on the figure for 1982-83, only two years ago. All that money is provided as grants. In addition to that, the States are able to nominate a percentage of their loan funds for public housing at the concessional rate of 4.5 per cent, and almost $500m will be available through that avenue to the States in 1985-86. That will mean a massive $1.7 billion-the Commonwealth will put in about $1,154m and the States put in the rest-for public housing. When we add to that our record on the first home owners scheme-we spent $290m last year and we have voted in this appropriation $290m for this year-already we have helped 162,000 through applications approved and I expect it to be moving towards 230,000-between 225,000 and 230,000-by the end of this year. All up, we have already paid out $500m and approved $771m for the first home owners scheme. They are the reasons why the housing industry is running fairly strong. Sure, there are a few areas where problems may evolve, and I will come back to that in a moment. But overall I am very optimistic and pleased about the results we have achieved. The effect that our tax changes may have on the industry has been mentioned by Opposition speakers. The effect which the quarantining of negative gearing, the application of the depreciation allowances-a straight line of 4 per cent-and the application of a capital gains tax which excludes the family home and which is completely prospective and only imposed on real gains may have on investment in the residential rental market has been well touted in the community and in the House. As I said at Question Time the other day and I want to make this point very strongly: We believe it will still be quite profitable to invest in the private rental market, provided that the level of investor equity is reasonable and that there is a reasonable rate of appreciation over time on the property. When I say `reasonable', I mean if the real rate of appreciation is about 2 per cent and equity equals 20 per cent. If the property is sold after seven years, according to our computer modelling, there would still be an after tax return of between 14 and 15 per cent. It is not really bad, is it? It is a lot better than some investors are getting when tax is paid on the complete nominal return on interest rates. Of course, that is not what we have proposed for a capital gains tax. The capital gains tax will apply to real gains only. If one can invest in new rental housing, in new building for rental accommodation, and get between 14 and 15 per cent on one's money at 20 per cent equity, even after we have knocked negative gearing on the head, that is a pretty fair return. To those who still complain about the quarantining of negative gearing I say this: It is not a viable proposition to argue that, because investment might be needed in a certain area, the rest of the tax paying community has to pick up the tab. Let me be explicit. Why should a person with virtually no equity in a property be able to borrow, say, $500,000, pay $60,000 interest per annum but get only $30,000 in rent, and then claim the other $30,000 against his or her income as a specialist, a Qantas pilot or whatever? Mr Duffy —There is no justification at all. Mr WEST —No justification at all. In many cases these loans are interest only, and he is a great investor if he has got either no equity at all or 10 per cent equity! It is very easy for a person, provided he can get a loan, to call himself an investor, borrow a bank's money, negatively gear the loan and have the taxpayer pick up the tab. If those opposite want to argue for that sort of tax shelter, we will oppose their argument and explain our actions to the community. We will get support from the majority of taxpayers because they will be very clear in their minds that they are the ones who are picking up the tab. What we have done is to replace a tax shelter with a legitimate investment allowance as far as the negative gearing arrangements for investment in rental property are concerned, and the investors in rental residential accommodation will now get this 4 per cent straight line depreciation allowance that has hitherto been available to the non-residential property investment market. I turn now briefly to the construction side of my portfolio. At a time of general economic restraint, a time when the States are co-operating with the Commonwealth to restrain the total amounts borrowed in the public sector to put a cap on future interest repayments by the public sector in the interests of keeping a correct fiscal policy and keeping the interest rates down, we are very proud of the level of public expenditure that we have been able to attain through our civil capital works program and our defence capital works program. This year the total expenditure for civil Commonwealth capital works by my Department is up from $164m last year to $208.4m for this year. That is part of a total program, over a number of years, of $574m, as it stands now. Similarly, in the defence area the expenditure is up from $206m to $229m this year as part of a total program of $647m. All up, when we add other capital works and services by the Commonwealth we find that our total ongoing program is now worth $1.5 billion, with this year an expenditure of almost $580m-up from $518m-odd last year. This is a pretty good record in terms of stimulating the public construction sector at a time when we are imposing general budgetary restraint. I close now by dealing with the facile remarks by members of the Opposition on the question of interest rates. It is very interesting to hear their remarks, considering the ambivalent, hypocritical and incoherent line on interest rates that they are running at the moment. They are prepared to sit back and attack the Government by asserting that general interest rates are too high, that housing interest rates are too high, and that we are in imminent danger of a drying up of housing finance because the Government will not deregulate. The Opposition demands deregulation of housing interest rates so that banks can charge, say, 15.5 per cent instead of 13.5 per cent for their housing loans. They criticise us for running a firm monetary policy, completely ignoring the fact that, if we were to run a monetary policy even firmer than we are at the moment and to deregulate housing rates at the same time, we would have even higher housing interest rates. We have run this argument before but it has not lost any of its validity. The Opposition is just running all over the place on interest rates and does not know where it is. Let me say quite firmly again, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have said several times in the House, that we do not intend to deregulate housing interest rates, at this time. It is completely the wrong time to do so. We do not intend to lift the ceiling from 13.5 per cent. On the latest figures that I have, the deposit growth rate of the savings banks was running at 8.6 per cent for the year to August, up slightly, from 7.8 per cent, on the year to July last. I think the general community out there, particularly the people sitting out in the suburbs in their new homes on which they are already paying fairly high repayments, do not take too kindly to suggestions by the Opposition that, at a time when the banks are enjoying record profits and are getting an 8.6 increase in their deposit growth yearly, we ought to deregulate and send the interest rates up another 1 or 2 per cent at the banks' behest. I think we can hang on a bit and see what happens in the interests of all those people out there, because what will happen in the future regarding housing and general interest rates will be determined by a whole number of factors. We think we have got the economic settings very largely in place, as the Treasurer keeps telling those opposite at Question Time. Everyone has applauded the fact that we got the domestic deficit down to $1.4 billion and thus reduced the pressure on public borrowing. Everyone generally, except the Opposition, has applauded the fact that we have been able to obtain wage discounting for depreciation in the next wage case. Everyone has applauded that we are getting plus 5 per cent growth in gross domestic product compatible with only a moderate inflation rate. Of course, that is possible because the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Government have been able to continue the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We have very good employment growth-almost 500,000 new jobs in three years, over 80,000 of them, I might say, in the housing and construction industry. All of those indices come together to point to a reasonably long term scenario as far as the economy and interest rates are concerned. We know that the Government and the Reserve Bank at the moment are running a pretty firm monetary policy. Everyone knows the reasons for that and they have been stated in the House. Obviously it is being done for balance of payments and exchange rate reasons. We are very confident that over time the benefits of the depreciation will be reflected in the trade figures. It will take time because in the early stages of a depreciation, whilst the volume of imports is the same or even goes up because of an increase in the total value of imports in the initial sense before it starts to decelerate, their actual volume can cause a deterioration in the balance of trade in the short term. Mr Beale —Let's hope that the J-curve doesn't become an L-curve. Mr WEST —I am not looking for an economic lecture; I am saying that we expect the situation to improve in time as a result of all these successful policies that I have outlined. I am confident that when over time we get the benefits of our fiscal stringency, the benefits of our wages and accord policies and the benefits of growth, together with moderate inflation a continuation of the accord when we are able to ease monetary policy when all of this comes together as it will, we will see the benefits recorded in a downward trend in interest rates. Having said that, I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised during the debate. I conclude on the note that this Government is very proud of its record over three years in housing and construction. We have done very well on housing commencements, very well with our civil and defence works programs, very well with the first home owners scheme and very well with our housing industry policies generally. I have no doubt that that is very well appreciated out there in the community, especially by the extra people now in public housing and by the 162,000 households who are in homes as a result of our first home owners scheme. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(1.38) —I want to make a few remarks in reply to the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). In his contribution he raised the Self Inquiry into Local Government Finance. I want to give a clear understanding in relation to that inquiry that we will certainly make available time for discussion with local government authorities. I have seen a draft of the inquiry's report. The inquiry is having its last meeting today. I hope, with the agreement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), to distribute the report even before we return to the Parliament because of the urgency of the debate in local government authorities. I want to take both the State and local government as much as possible into the full discussion. The honourable member for Kennedy raised the question of pressure on local authorities, particularly in the cane fields and the sugar industry. I want to incorporate in Hansard the amount of moneys paid this year by the Australian Government to local government through the sharing of income tax with local government, ranging from the Douglas Shire in the north to the Maryborough Shire in the south. This year we made available $15.85m as against $14.08m last year, that is, an increase of over 12 per cent. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted for incorporation? The table falls within Mr Speaker's guidelines so it will be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PITS GRANTS: QUEENSLAND SUGAR INDUSTRY REGIONS Local Authority 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ Cardwell Shire... 510,000 591,000 Douglas Shire... 308,000 333,000 Johnstone Shire... 978,000 1,007,000 Mulgrave Shire... 1,154,000 1,264,000 Burdelin Shire... 907,000 1,002,000 Hinchinbrook Shire... 801,000 887,000 Thurringowa Shire... 588,000 693,000 Broadsounds Shire... 516,000 572,000 Mirani Shire... 265,000 307,000 Pioneer Shire... 1,199,000 1,367,000 Prosperine Shire... 394,000 443,000 Sarina Shire... 263,000 285,000 Gooburrun Shire... 301,000 347,000 Hervey Bay Shire... 497,000 596,000 Isis Shire... 243,000 281,000 Kolan Shire... 253,000 273,000 Tiaro Shire... 149,000 167,000 Wooloo Shire... 153,000 212,000 Woongarra Shire... 290,000 333,000 Mackay City... 715,000 748,000 Maryborough City... 559,000 602,000 Eachan Shire... 330,000 375,000 Miriam Vale Shire... 187,000 217,000 Maroochy Shire... 1,191,000 1,338,000 Albert Shire... 1,331,000 1,610,000 TOTAL... 14,082,000 15,850,000 (+12.5%) Mr UREN —That table sets out very clearly the magnitude of assistance of the Commonwealth to local government authorities. The last point I want to mention briefly is in relation to the Constitutional Convention. The honourable member for Kennedy called on the support of this Parliament and this Government for the constitutional recognition of local government. At the recent Convention in Brisbane the Australian Government delegation voted as a whole in support of local government constitutional recognition, and it should be placed before the next Premiers Conference as a matter of priority. Regrettably, the Opposition party led by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) opposed such a proposition. Only one Opposition member in fact supported that proposition. That was the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) who, in fact, supported the Australian Government in its move to constitutional recognition of local government. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $179,898,000. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $78,946,000. Department of Territories Proposed expenditure, $181,715,000. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.42) —I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks concerning my newly-acquired responsibilities as shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, particularly to such an interested and vibrant Committee! Firstly, I would like to thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) for the courtesy and co-operation that he has shown me and the assistance he has afforded me since I have taken on this job. He mentioned to me the assistance he had from Sir Philip Lynch when Sir Philip was the Minister, and I hope that co-operation continues. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and the officers of the authorities under the control of that Department, for their co-operation. This Government, I believe, has contributed a good deal towards sport, recreation and tourism. It has certainly raised the level of funding and it has raised the profile of sport and tourism in this country. For that, I congratulate it. I do not agree with everything it has done and I believe there are some very important areas where nothing has been done. I wish today, in a few minutes, to concentrate on those areas. One of the things that concern me is that I am having difficulty getting accurate figures. I hope that the Minister will hear what I have to say and give me some figures on the increase in the numbers in the Department and in the statutory authorities under his control. I note that, according to the report for 1982-83, there were then 62 members of the Department. That figure has now gone to 149. On top of that we have 40 in the National Sport Centre, 20 in the Australian Sports Commission, 119 in the Institute of Sport and 100 in the Australian Tourist Commission. That comparison might not be accurate-it probably is not accurate-but what I would like the Minister to do is provide me with the accurate figures on all those in his Department and those other institutions, because there is no doubt that there has been a considerable increase in that area. Let me just deal briefly with the subject of sport in South Africa. It is a controversial subject, to say the least, which is understandable when we consider the events that are now taking place in that country. The Opposition has opposed, and does strongly oppose, the principle of apartheid. Institutional racism has no place in our philosophy and we support the Gleneagles agreement. Successive governments in this country have undertaken to strongly discourage national sporting contacts with South Africa. But in the end, when it is not a government matter, it is still the individual's right to make up his or her own mind. If people wish to go to South Africa and play sport, they must make the decision and live by the consequences. We believe it is grossly unfair, having made that decision, to single people out for government pressure and criticism, as the cricketers have been subjected to and as footballers have recently been subjected to. In the end, when it is not a national sporting team and discouragement has been given, it is their decision and they must live by it. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who were involved in the World Cup athletics recently here in the Australian Capital Territory. It was a very successful meeting of a very high standard, both in athletics and in organisation. There is some criticism about the time it was held, a long weekend in Canberra when most people in Canberra like to get away; and, of course, the numbers were down. I think probably in retrospect it would have been a nice touch, certainly on the first day, to have taken a lot of school children along to see that level of athletics. However, those things are minor criticisms of a very successful meeting, and all credit goes to those involved. I turn to the subject of the Sports Commission, which has been somewhat controversial. As it is now in place, we want to see it succeed and we will see what we can do to make it succeed. In the end, the Sports Commission will live or die by its success in raising money from the private sector, because if it does not raise substantial funds from the private sector there really is not much point in having it. It will do that through the Sports Aid Foundation. The great worry about that Foundation is that, if its tax concessions to encourage people to give are too generous, sponsorship which is now going through other avenues into sport will be diminished. We do not want to see that happen. I ask the Minister to take particular care how the Government frames the concessions to donors to the Sports Aid Foundation. Let me now turn briefly to some matters of tourism. I think the Government should be pleased with the state of the tourism in this country, particularly international tourism. The Hogan program in the United States of America has been outstandingly successful. I point out to the Government that it cannot run with only the Hogan campaign for ever, and I very much hope that it is giving thought to what happens in the post-Hogan era. I also hope that the Government is looking to the development of our other markets, particularly Japan which has had to take a back seat for various reasons while the program has been undertaken in the USA. The most important thing that we will do as far as tourism is concerned when we return to government is to deregulate the labour market so that employment opportunities are given to young people in this huge and growing industry. It is just not sensible to constrain this seven-day-a-week industry within the web of outdated laws, awards and agreements. In Queensland alone some 60 awards pertain to the tourist industry. There are 380 State awards altogether and some 2,000 Federal awards. Of course, there are many other views, but we are saying: `For God's sake, let us free up the labour market so that in tourism in particular we get away from outdated concepts about the hours which constitute a working day and let people talk to employers and come to some agreement over and above a base wage as to how and when they will work'. That will be the biggest contribution that we can make to this great and growing industry. Of course, all of that will include the problems of penalty rates. It would be impossible not to mention tourism without mentioning the effect the tax package is having on the restaurant and catering industry. It would appear that some 6,000 people have already been put out of work in this industry. I think what is most objectionable is that the restaurant and catering industry is being blamed for what is being described by the Treasurer as a tax rort. It is not the industry that is the problem. The industry has grown to meet the demand. If people are abusing the system, let the Treasurer take to them through the Tax Commissioner and make them validate their expenses, as would happen for any normal business expense. On the subject of tourism, I must mention Senator Jones who has recently attacked the Queensland tourist industry. As a Queenslander, it is beyond me why he would want to attack a growing industry in his own State. I very much hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from the remarks made by Senator Jones about the tourist industry in his own State. Why he would want to be negative about this most successful industry in Queensland is beyond me, and I hope the Minister will ask him just what he is on about. Finally, let me mention the subject of rural tourism which, I believe, in this industry provides the greatest opportunity for growth in this country. If it is properly promoted it will give a chance to people who are finding it very difficult in rural areas to make a living from traditional methods to increase their income. It has saved the depopulating areas of Ireland and England and a lot of European countries where this whole new industry has grown up and given people in those areas new hope. I hope that the Minister and the Department will look to that aspect of the tourist industry and give it some support and encouragement. In conclusion, I applaud the Government's successes. I hope that it will go from strength to strength and take some note of the criticisms which I have voiced today. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(1.52) —In speaking in support of the estimates for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, I express my appreciation to the Department and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) for the work they have done with regard to the better management of environmental contaminants. The establishment of the environmental contaminants division within the Department was a welcome initiative by the Government. A total of $1.5m has been allocated for environmental quality protection programs for the three years commencing 1983-84, including the year 1985-86. Funding has also been provided in support of the Australian Environment Council and the estimates include an amount of $69,000 for 1985-86 year. The Australian Environment Council at its meeting in May of this year endorsed a proposal from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment that there should be a national consultative process on hazardous waste management in Australia. A national conference on national strategies for the management of hazardous waste is to be held in November in Melbourne and I am pleased to say that I will be chairing a session at the conference as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The Standing Committee presented two reports to the House on hazardous chemical wastes in March and December 1982. The first report dealt with the storage, transport and disposal of wastes and in the second report the Committee dealt with general problems in relation to hazardous chemicals, including transport. Mr Speaker, the Minister and the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr Howe), were members of the Standing Committee at the time and they should all be congratulated, together with other members of the Committee, for producing an excellent report. It is particularly commendable that the Victorian Labor Government has acted on a number of the recommendations of the Standing Committee. The Australian Environment Council has produced an interesting discussion paper on long term means of disposal of stable organo-chlorine and related chemical wastes, which will be discussed at the November national conference. The recommendations of the Standing Committee's report on hazardous chemicals dealt with the need for a national disposal strategy and specifically recommended that: The Commonwealth urgently seek the views of the States and the Northern Territory on the question of a single, national incinerator. As the discussion paper points out, one well known group of organo-chlorines used in industry, namely the polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, resist normal disposal methods because of their remarkable stability and resistance to degradation by heat. The PCBs and many other organo-chlorines are highly dangerous in respect of human and environmental contamination and must be destroyed by high temperature incineration. One of the conclusions of the discussion paper is that the total quantities of stable, organo-chlorine wastes presently stored and being generated, warrant the construction and operation of an on-shore high temperature incinerator. The Victorian Minister for Water Resources, the Hon. Andrew McCutcheon, has drawn attention to the fact that one of the major challenges for advanced industrial cities in the past 100 years was the provision of efficient and safe sewage disposal. For modern developed nations the new challenge is the management of hazardous industrial waste. One of my particular concerns has been the accidental spillage of contaminated water from the Ranger uranium mine containing an ore sludge cast off after uranium has been chemically extracted, or tailings as the material is commonly known. I was most pleased to see that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has called for stricter supervision of the Ranger mine operations. The spill came from a broken pipeline and resulted in 25 to 50 cubic metres of contaminated water leaking into nearby bushland. The spills occur constantly, the latest incident being on 30 September when contaminated water from the mine's tailing dam was accidentally allowed into an irrigation system which was subsequently used to water a mine site lawn. It was said that the low level radioactive water had been mixed with irrigation water as a result of a valve in the production pipes being left open. The Age has reported that Mr Bob Fry, Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers region, has said that the incident `confirms my view that Ranger should lift its game in relation to what might be described as basic housekeeping practices'. Incidentally, I note that the appropriations show an allocation of $4.5m for the Office of the Supervising Scientist and I am concerned that the allocation may not be sufficient to provide the facilities to enable the Supervising Scientist to undertake his responsibilities under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act. I view the spillages very seriously and I cannot help wondering whether the management of the mine is treating the problem with sufficient seriousness. Under its originating agreement, Ranger is not permitted to release any water into the environment from within an area which incorporates most of the mining complex. The Ranger mine authorities have now sought permission to release polluted excess water into the nearby Magela Creek. I am glad to say that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has advised the Ranger mine that the Government is totally opposed to the proposal and will use all its power to prevent it occurring. Additional evaporation ponds are obviously needed but it appears that Ranger is not prepared to incur the expense of constructing additional ponds. It seems to me that the criticisms that Ranger has deliberately failed to examine the various options for water management are well founded. Apart from controlled release and additional ponds there are many other possible options for water management. These options include more sophisticated evaporation methods, improved methods of collecting uncontaminated rain water, treatment of the water to remove contaminants, including selective spraying, sinking bores to minimise ground water seepage and the use of dry management techniques for the tailings. The Victorian Minister for Water Resources, in the invitation to the management of hazardous waste conference, pointed out: We need to ensure we have the right technology, right expertise and right policies to manage our hazardous waste in a co-ordinated and efficient manner. With Australia presently holding a stock in the order of 10,000 tonnes of intractable chemical wastes with an additional 1,000 tonnes being added to the stock per annum, the conference has quite a task before it in proposing solutions to the disposal problem. The conference will also have before it for consideration the draft industrial waste strategy for Victoria which was issued in July 1985 for public comment. Again, the Victorian Labor Government is to be congratulated on the production of this most comprehensive draft report on the complex problems associated with the disposal of industrial wastes. The glossary of terms contained in the report is, incidentally, most useful, as all too often specialists in the field expect laymen immediately to understand the meaning of such obscure terms as petrescilla, chemical fixation or leachate. I was also pleased to note that the main aim of the strategy was to achieve the cradle to grave control of potentially hazardous industrial wastes with the waste producer meeting the cost of such control. One of the main difficulties which occur in matters relating to the conservation of the built and natural environment relates to the constitutional responsibilities of the State and the Commonwealth. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101 I shall report progress. The honourable member for La Trobe will have leave to continue his remarks later. Progress reported. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. How much higher will the Government have to push interest rates in order to achieve the Treasurer's new target of the current account deficit falling to 4 per cent of gross domestic product, which he announced last night? Mr KEATING —It is not that I announced it last night; I said it implicitly in the Budget statements-- Mr Sinclair —You defend it. Mr KEATING —The honourable member would not know what the current account deficit was. I made it clear in Budget Paper No. 2 that the current account deficit, while falling modestly in year average terms, would fall faster on a through the year basis, and all I did last night was quantify it at around 4 per cent of GDP. The people opposing us here seem to think that they can on the one hand say that they want to see market outcomes in the setting of interest rates and other things and on the other hand deny those outcomes every day in the Parliament. They will have to be tested against their views. Either they stand for market determined outcomes for interest rates or they do not. The fact is that we are running a firm monetary policy. We are not prepared to see inflationary influences rising in the economy, and the monetary policy which we are running at the moment is certainly appropriate. But let me make a more important point. A lot of pessimists in this country believe that Australia cannot grow faster than the world economy and that in some way we have to have a recession to deal with the current account deficit. I make the point that Japan's economy has been growing faster than the world economy for years because it has achieved a very large pool of domestic savings by pulling down Budget deficits and lifting growth; which is precisely what this Government is doing-lifting growth and pulling down Budget deficits. But if we get to the stage where we damn ourselves to a permanent recession just to contain the current account deficit, of course we would be damning ourselves and damning a substantial part of the Australian population to unemployment. The fact is that whilst we have a Budget forecast of 5 per cent for non-farm growth, we have a 3 per cent forecast for domestic demand, and it is domestic demand from which imports key off, not activity. The reason for the disparity between activity at 5 per cent and domestic demand at 3 per cent is that more of our local demand this year will be satisfied by domestic production rather than imports-that is, that the depreciation of the dollar means that a greater level of import substitution is taking place in the economy this year. That is still in the context of a more modest domestic demand figure of 3 per cent. That is why the simple comment that 5 per cent non-farm growth is too strong, will suck in imports and negate the influences on the current account and the depreciation, is basically groundless. It is also why Australians should not heed this pessimism that we cannot grow faster than the rest of the world without needing to damn the place to a permanent recession. The people on this side of the House have all of those policy checks and balances in place, and one of them happens to be monetary policy. We will run an appropriate monetary policy in terms of both the state of the inflationary outcome in this country and, as I have said before in this House, in response to the foreign exchange market. If the honourable member for Mackellar does not like the outcomes which are being determined by the market, the next time he gets up to address some gathering in Sydney or Melbourne he ought to tell the people there that the market is wrong about interest rates and he is right. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Acting Minister for Community Services aware of the fact that certain nursing homes in Victoria, such as the Villa Franka at Werribee, are charging some potential future patients up to $8,000 in order for those individuals to be added to waiting lists or to enter a home, and that such fees are refundable only on their death or discharge from a home? Is this practice illegal? If so, what steps will the Minister take to stamp it out? Dr BLEWETT —I inform the honourable member for Grayndler that the Department of Community Services is aware that allegations have been made that some private nursing homes in Victoria, including the one mentioned by him, have been engaging in the practice of making charges for gaining access to waiting lists for nursing homes. It is clearly the view of the Government that such practices are offensive and discriminatory and possibly illegal. Admission into a nursing home must be according to need and not according to a person's capacity to make payments to get on to a waiting list. The Department is investigating the matter and will ensure that charges are not levied as a condition for placement on a waiting list. Mr BEALE —Does the Treasurer agree with various assessments in the professional accounting world that a combination of a higher company tax rate, the foreign tax credits system and the particular approach to the imputation of dividends provisions of the tax package, could lead to a worsening of the balance of payments problems, as the measures combined provide an incentive for Australian companies with operations off-shore either to cease those operations off-shore or to move off-shore entirely? Mr KEATING —I do not think we ought to take too much notice of people who worry about what they may see, erroneously I can assure them, as the negative influences of not repatriating dividends accruing abroad. When we look at the modest repatriation of dividends to Australia accruing abroad and compare that with the sorts of borrowings we have seen by major companies for takeovers, in terms of balance of payments effects the question is hardly worth answering. Mr Carlton —That is an interesting line. Mr Sinclair —It is original at least. Mr KEATING —Oh! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honour- able Treasurer to ignore the disorderly interjections. Mr KEATING —They just insist on being mugs, Mr Speaker-absolute mugs. We have heard a few negative comments from the Opposition about the foreign tax credit system. I think it fails to understand that this measure, in combination with the imputation system, means that the repatriation of dividends to shareholders makes no difference in terms of the return to the shareholders' hands. For what it is worth, I have here a Treasury example, which I am quite happy to table for the benefit of the honourable member, showing quite clearly that whether a profit is repatriated from any one of a number of countries, either with company tax rates comparable to those in Australia or at difference with those of Australia, the return to shareholders combined with the imputation system is the same. It is an important change in the tax law. The foreign tax credit system will only bring Australia up with most other countries. It must be borne in mind that it applies only to dividends which are brought back to Australia; it does not impact upon dividends retained overseas. Many of our companies operate in countries in which the company tax rates are comparable with our own. We have made it quite clear, as my colleague the Minister for Trade said the other day, that in certain markets near Australia where the Government sees an advantage in Australian companies operating, in terms of the double tax agreements we can and will be prepared, in some cases, to make provision whereby Australian companies can enjoy the beneficial effects of those discriminatory tax treatments which might be available there. The importance of the measure is that people taking income to tax havens for the purpose of minimising Australian taxation will now be brought to book under these arrangements, but that this arrangement, in combination with the imputation arrangement-the biggest reform to the companies tax system since its implementation-will mean that shareholders are not disadvantaged. I add that in respect of imputation generally-leaving the foreign tax credit system to one side-shareholders are greatly advantaged by the imputation system introduced by the Government. Mr SPEAKER —The Treasurer has tabled the paper. Mr MAHER —I direct my question to the Minister for Communications. What progress has been made in relation to a settlement of the current postal dispute in New South Wales? Mr DUFFY —The current situation in relation to the dispute in New South Wales is that, as I understand it this morning, the night and morning shifts have returned to work and, as indicated at some length yesterday, negotiations between Australia Post management and the unions are continuing. The likelihood is that the matter will probably return to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. At this stage there is nothing further that I can add to that. Mr HUNT —I direct my question to the Treasurer. Will the proposed capital gains tax apply at the marginal rate when leased agricultural and industrial equipment, tractors and machinery are bought for the residual value at the end of the lease and subsequently sold for a profit or traded on other equipment at an increased value? Is the Treasurer concerned that this new tax burden would increase costs and add to the debt structure of farmers and plant operators already sagging under the Government's record high interest rates? Mr KEATING —I think I need to put this whole farm cost issue back into context and just remind my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party that the biggest problem facing rural Australia is the softness in world commodity prices, over which, broadly, the Government has no control. What the Government has control over is reducing labour costs in the economy, and we have given the whole economy the best two years of back-to-back wage restraint in 30 years. That control of costs and lower inflation has been as much of advantage to the farm sector as to any other sector of the community. As well as that, perhaps I may say that the policy of the former Government in overvaluing the exchange rate, dramatically reducing returns to farmers, and over the years increasing protection for manufacturing industry, did mortal damage to the farm sector. The overvaluation of the exchange rate particularly not only robbed farmers of income but robbed them of markets. With the change in the floating of the Australian dollar and the dollar finding its own equilibrium, and with a depreciation of this order of magnitude, Australian dollar earnings of the rural industries of this country have risen substantially over the last 15 months-the last 12 months since the depreciation and, of course, before then by the restraint in prices. It is important to put this whole question of farm costs in context. The question came from a member of a government which raised wage costs by 17 per cent in one year, sent thousands of small business people to the bankruptcy court, and pushed thousands off the land into rural poverty. The National Party might not want to hear that, but that is its sorry record. That is its contribution to the farm sector of this country. It drove farmers into poverty. It wrecked their markets. So I do not think any Opposition member should stand up with any virtue asking this Government about farm costs. The capital gains tax is highly concessionary. In the first instance it exempts all existing properties. All existing properties are exempt. To make it even more concessionary would be to not have it. I should contrast this tax with the one proposed by the Opposition, in which it would seek to tax the full nominal gains at the full marginal rate without washing inflation from the system. So obviously the tax the Government intends to impose is much fairer in its impact than is that proposed by Senator Messner on behalf of the Opposition. In respect of the question, I would need to take some advice as to-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —I am not running a seminar for the jugheads on the other side of the Parliament. However, I know that some motor car leases are designed in such a way that the lessee can walk away with a tax-free profit at the end of the process because the lease payments are structured in a certain way. If such a payment were to be structured in that way, the capital gains tax would certainly apply; but that may not be the kind of example the Deputy Leader of the National Party is now proposing for my examination. If he wishes to write to me about it-I would prefer that he did that-so that we have a clear idea of the matters he is raising, I should be delighted to give him a reply. However, more generally, why any farmers in this country would fall for the jokers on the Opposition benches, who wrecked their lives, their farms and their businesses over the last 10 years, has got me wet. If there are still some loyalists for the National Party in the bush, those die-hards with their National Party tickets in their pockets, they have a loyalty which certainly transcends their financial interest. Mr HOLLIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Where does the Government plan to site the new munitions storage depot to be located in the Jervis Bay area? When is work on the depot likely to begin? What are the implications for the local community? What steps will be taken to minimise environmental damage? Further, will the Minister also outline the process of study and consultation to be undertaken before a decision is made about establishing a naval base at Jervis Bay and indicate when a decision can be expected? Mr BEAZLEY —The Navy has a preferred site for the armament depot, which is in the northern environs of the Jervis Bay area. The area was indicated in the notice of intention issued as a preparatory document for the environmental impact statement. Any decision on the site will be subject to the outcome of detailed studies and the EIS. It is not an approved project at this stage. Tentative planning envisages commencement of the facilities works in the late 1980s. The depot would create a large and continuing employment requirement in the Jervis Bay area. Approximately 230 civilians could be employed full time at the depot. Employment prospects will also be created during construction. The depot is essentially a benign facility which will include a buffer zone. A number of steps will be taken to minimise environmental damage. The environmental impact statement will detail the necessary arrangements, including a land management plan. The study we are looking at-after we have taken a proper costing on it, a preliminary costing on it, if you like-is an internal defence study which will identify inter alia the costs and social and environmental implications of any proposed relocation of the Fleet. The New South Wales Government will be approached to co-operate in the study. No final decisions have been taken on proceeding with it, although I expect to be able to say something about it fairly shortly. If the study were to commence it would take about six months or so. However, I say at the very outset that any decision we take to shift any facility to Jervis Bay will be taken following an appropriate environmental study of that proposition to ensure that the facility is operated in accordance with what is a very pleasant environment in that area. It is a question we will take very seriously. Of course, other factors will influence our decisions in regard to this whole process, including the costs that would be involved in such a shift. I say in a preliminary way that there are very substantial and sound defence reasons as to why the very old decision that a major naval facility should be located at Jervis Bay ought to be proceeded with. That decision will dovetail with several decisions which would need to be taken in any case in regard to the substantial upgrading of facilities in Sydney, some of which in the contemporary environment in Sydney simply would not be possible. So there are some very sound reasons, both in defence terms and in terms of maintaining a consolidated naval presence on the east coast of the country, that would justify sending that matter for more intense study. However, before that is done we want to have at least some preliminary idea of what costing is involved. Dr WATSON —I refer the Treasurer to his statement on the reform of the Australian taxation system. Will beneficiaries of mutual funds, such as superannuation funds, receive tax credits for dividends paid to mutual funds on their behalf when, as superannuitants, they receive their lump sum superannuation payments or their annuities on which they will be taxed? If so, how will this be accomplished? If not, will this form of superannuation coverage, which is the norm for Australia, be at a taxation disadvant- age as compared with an investment made directly by a taxpayer on his own behalf? Mr KEATING —There are tremendous costs to the revenue and concessions available for superannuation in this country. As someone said the other day in a very pithy comment, it will remain about the only tax shelter in this country, and an important one, because over the years governments of all persuasions have sought to shelter income from taxation for the purpose of having to provide for a retirement income. That whole process may have been degraded by the lump sum taking which the Government has sought to move on now by its tax treatment of lump sums. The tax treatment of the relative position of competitive advantage which tax exempt bodies have had in respect of tax paying bodies certainly will be diminished as a result of the imputation measures. It will mean that the tax treatment of taxpayers will be relieved versus tax exempt funds. Mr HAND —Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs noted reports of refugees from Vietnam languishing for long periods in camps in places such as Hong Kong and the Philippines? I further ask him: Is there anything Australia can do to help these people? Mr HURFORD —I am grateful to honourable members from both sides of the House, the honourable member for Grayndler, the honourable member for Dundas and others, who are taking a keen interest in the very difficult refugee situation, particularly in the boat camps. Traditionally, we look after refugees in preference, or priority, from Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. However, as the honourable member has suggested, there are problems with long stayers in the camps in the Philippines and Hong Kong. The problem of long stayers causes particular difficulties because so many of them have not met our selection standards. I believe-this would also be a bipartisan approach-that there are good reasons why we should maintain our selection standards. We are now exploring the possibility of world-based voluntary organisations helping us with skills and language training in these camps. There is a precedent for this in the Pulau Bidong camp in Malaysia which the honourable member for Dundas visited the other day and which is under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We want more of that sort of skills training. I believe that when we have that skills language and training we can do more about long stayers in these camps. Incidentally, our Australian record is bipartisan in relation to our own region of the world and is second to none. Although some people would prefer that Australia took more refugees in the current year, we believe that our figure of 6,000 is commendable, particularly as we are now putting more emphasis on family reunions. There is a limit to the number of people we can easily settle in this country. However, that figure of 6,000 will not only continue to take care of our special responsibilities in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia but I am happy to say, after looking at the Hong Kong camp in particular a week ago today, we are also responding to a special request from the United Kingdom Government and the Hong Kong authorities to increase the numbers we take from the Hong Kong camp. We are increasing that number from 400 to 600 and we may be able to increase it further to 800. I repeat: It will still be within our overall limit of 6,000. In regard to the Philippines we had already decided to increase our numbers. It is a modest number of 350 because we consider that the countries which have the main responsibility for the Philippines camp are the United States and Canada. In concluding I issue a word of caution. There is increasing evidence now that the more recent arrivals of boat people in some of these camps, particularly the Hong Kong camp, are economic rather than political refugees. There is a limit to the number of refugees we can take from any one part of the world in perpetuity. As I say, we have a record second to none. But the feeling amongst those who are involved with the refugee responsibility, both the United States and Canada as well as Australia, is that a screening process possibly will have to commence in regard to people arriving in Hong Kong from Vietnam with a view to repatriation just as that screening process takes place in regard to Chinese people arriving in Hong Kong. We have a big job to do in the area of family reunions over succeeding years. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Melbourne in his question, we have a big job to do in taking the long stayers in the camps now. Therefore, we must have another look at the most recent arrivals to see whether they should be amongst those to whom we give priority. I hope that what the voluntary agencies will do with our help to train the long stayers-this should be a priority for us-will enable those who want to help for compassionate reasons to make a better effort in that regard. Mr PEACOCK —Has the Acting Prime Minister seen allegations that the United States of America's actions in apprehending the alleged terrorists involved in the Achille Lauro incident were illegal? Will he advise the House of the reasons for his statement, with which the Opposition concurs, that the action was legal? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a pleasant surprise to find the Opposition agreeing with me. The issue is a matter of debate with academics who, of course, do not have the difficulty of having to look at it from the point of view of international terrorism. Certainly it is understandable that the Egyptians, from their point of view, feel-I can understand that-that there might have been an invasion of what they regard as their air-space. From the point of view of international law, we start with the question of whether there has been an act of piracy, and in fact there was. I do not think there is any disagreement about that. There are lots of legal opinions to support the view that the United States, particularly as one of its citizens had been murdered, was entitled to protect its citizens and also to follow those who committed the act of piracy. Mr Peacock —It is an offence against mankind. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. The honour- able gentleman must have looked at the same thing as I was about to say that the act of piracy is an offence against the whole of mankind. It is not limited to any territory. Of course we would have to respect the rights of sovereign states which were able to hold those people in custody; but when they are out of custody one can look to the principle which states: Where the apprehension of an international terrorist is the objective, factors of foreign and domestic politics impinge upon the extradition process and often outweigh any concern for extradition as a means of carrying out a state's obligation as a member of the international community to enforce its commitments with respect to . . . international criminal law. One can see also this principle: The principle of universality-the right to assume jurisdiction, despite nationality or place of crime . . . is recognized as applying only to crimes that affect the international community and are against international law. The crime of piracy is one of those. This point of view also ought to be made very clear: The action that the United States was obliged to take did not involve the use of any weapons. The action was taken by the United States as a protection by the United States in response to unlawful attacks in international areas, particularly the seas, by terrorists on the lives of its citizens and other citizens, including the murder of a paraplegic. The force used was proportional and reasonable. It did not threaten greater destruction of international values of peace and security than the protection of human rights at stake. From all those principles it is very clear that the United States had to take the action in accordance with provisions of international law. Let me make it clear that I understand that there are other people in Australia who are well versed in international law and who quite appropriately take the view that that is a dubious proposition. I do not think it is a dubious proposition. Mr Peacock —You are right and they are wrong. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have a feeling that the more the honourable member agrees with me the more he lessens the weight of my argument. I was trying to put the matter on the basis that I have been mentioning. There was no act of piracy or hijacking by the United States. That is one of the views that have been put forward. One must understand the sensitivities of the Egyptian Government. I can understand that. I notice that to some extent President Reagan also is saying that he would be apologetic to what might be regarded as the sensitivities of the Egyptian people. The fact is that the terrorists had left Egyptian soil. They were not in custody. Action had to be taken to bring them to justice. I think everybody in the world would think that that is the appropriate action to take and that justice will be done. Ms McHUGH —Can the Minister for Social Security tell the House whether direct crediting of social security payments to accounts has been successful? Are most payments now paid by direct deposit? What steps is the Government taking to ensure that as many as possible are paid into accounts so as to avoid postal delays and stolen cheques? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. The matter of direct deposits has been of interest to successive governments which have been concerned that problems are experienced by people on social security when their weekly or monthly payments are delayed. The widespread use of cheques also resulted in the fraudulent negotiation of cheques. As a result, the Government undertook about two years ago in discussion with financial institutions a detailed study of the possibility of direct depositing. That study indicated that there would be significant savings to the Government, while substantially improving the service to people on social security. Over the past nine months the Department of Social Security has been converting payments from cheques to direct deposits. The response has been very gratifying. Ninety per cent of all family allowance payments, 86 per cent of pensions and 84 per cent of unemployment and sickness benefit payments are now paid by direct deposit. Last month the Department began following up the remaining few per cent which have not been exempted from direct deposit and this should be completed by next March. The Department has also begun to evaluate, in consultation with affected groups, the possibility of converting the remaining payments. It ought to be said that the shanghai approach to politics which is pursued by the Opposition, which is to pick up any stone that happens to be lying around and throw it at the Government, is reflected in the Press release of the honourable member for Richmond of today about so-called delays to people in New South Wales receiving social security payments because of the mail strike. Apart from the fact that, as I have just pointed out, the vast majority of people now receive their payment by other means, the reality is that, as has been the case in the past, in this case there is an exemption in relation to social security payments. I think the concern of both the unions and the Department will ensure that there are no delays. The fact that a few people might be heard complaining on radio, which means that the poor old honourable member for Richmond does not have to do any research, just indicates, I think, an approach to politics which is typified by the Opposition. It is about time that we had a little more considered thought about some of the policy questions in extremely important areas such as social security. Mr SHARP —Will the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services inform the House of the gross sale price of the Royal Australian Navy's 17 Grumman Tracker aircraft which have recently been sold? What was the net amount received after commissions and expenses were deducted? Did the sale include all the spare parts and engines? To whom were the aircraft sold and for what purpose were they bought? Lastly, who were the agents for the sale? Mr UREN —Negotiations are still under way. There has been no final sale to date. As soon as there is a final sale I will let the honourable member and the House know. Mr KEOGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of statements made by the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Health that the Queensland public hospital system suffers from `a complete lack of financial support from the Federal Government'. Can the Minister advise the House whether there is any truth whatsoever in the Queensland Health Minister's claim that the Commonwealth is responsible for a severe cutback in the provision of hospitals throughout Queensland? Dr BLEWETT —My attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Premier and the Health Minister of Queensland and I can say that as usual with those sorts of remarks, they are simply fantasies without foundation. In fact, there has been a massive increase in the amounts of money paid to Queensland for its public hospital system under the Hawke Government. In 1982-83, the Commonwealth Government paid Queensland a total of $93m in identified health grants for its public hospitals. In 1984-85-that is, two years later-the Commonwealth paid $180m to Queensland for its public hospitals. In two years there has been almost a 100 per cent increase in what Queensland has received for its health system, primarily for public hospitals. I suppose that that is a Commonwealth Government cut, according to the Premier of Queensland. Moreover, because of the pre-existing Queensland public hospital system, there were very few additional costs for that system as a result of Medicare. Therefore, that increase of nearly 100 per cent is mostly an additional increase, and not compensatory moneys. On 25 July this year, the Commonwealth announced that Queensland would receive a further $7.713m for capital equipment in its public hospitals as part of a $50m grant being distributed around the country. That would mean that over the three years of those grants Queensland would get an additional $23.1m for capital equipment. Despite the fact that I made that offer to the Queensland Government on 25 July, as of 14 October we had still received no reply from that Government as to what it wants to do with the money. Thus, those extraordinary remarks made by both the Queensland Health Minister and the Queensland Premier can be seen in the light of the facts provided simply to be excuses for their own failures in the public hospital system. Mr DRUMMOND —Has the Treasurer's attention been drawn to the effects of the proposed tax on non-cash fringe benefits on the non-profit, private school system? I draw his attention to this matter, with genuine concern. Where it is mandatory for teaching staff to live in at boarding schools, will their accommodation be taxed? In cases where staff are sending their children to the school at which they teach, will the school now be taxed for any reduced tuition fees granted to the teacher's children? Mr KEATING —The fringe benefits tax will apply to all taxed and tax-exempt bodies, other than churches. Churches are now exempt under the Income Tax Assessment Act. It will impact upon the school system and the education system both public and private. Mr Hodges —What about charitable organisations? Mr KEATING —Yes, it will apply to charit- able organisations. There is no reason why a charitable institution should give fringe benefits any more than anyone else. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It must be obvious to the House that I am losing my voice and I cannot get above the bellowing that is going on. Frankly, if it continues I will invite the Acting Prime Minister to ask that further questions be put on notice. I ask the Treasurer to continue his answer. Mr KEATING —To judge by the heehaws we have heard, the Opposition believes that, if a charitable organisation seeks to walk around the tax system by providing fringe benefits, that organisation should be in some way exempt. That is an unbelievable proposition. I make it quite clear that the fringe benefits tax is designed to stop the practice of walking through the tax system by winding up arrangements which are purely of a kind designed to evade the appropriate level of Commonwealth taxation. That is the whole reason for the fringe benefits tax. I will just make the point that I stayed home from the International Monetary Fund meeting for two weeks to answer Opposition questions on taxation. This is about the only day that Opposition members have asked questions, and they are pretty pathetic ones. The House can just imagine the sort of priority I will give them when the next session of the IMF comes around. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Prospect. Dr KLUGMAN —Mr Speaker, I will see you later in your room about your voice. Mr SPEAKER —I hope you will not charge me more than the most common fee. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Considering the apparently permanent disastrous situation of Australia's farmers and small businesses, as emphasised by oppositions over the last 85 years, I ask: Are they likely to be adversely affected by an inflation-indexed capital gains tax? Mr KEATING —Quite the contrary; one of the sectors of commerce and industry in this country that has been most advantaged by the Government's policies, is small business and farming. The first and primary thing that government can do for the small business sector is to lift aggregate activity and earnings in the economy and thus provide small business with a future rather than a past. This is preferable to a situation in which there are hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies as occurred under the previous Government. The one thing that governments can provide for small business is a decent operating environment, a chance to make some business and make money rather than going out backwards under massive wage increases, industrial disputation, high inflation and low growth- Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —We are hearing a heehaw from the low growth specialist himself, old Mr Recession 1982-83, who gave Australia its biggest recession since the Great Depression. I do not think that anyone in small business is under any illusion about the situation. If one asks small businessmen whether they are better off in 1985 than they were in 1982 and early 1983, the answer will be a resounding yes. This tax package has enormous benefits for small business. The first and principal one is the abolition of double tax on dividends. This means that if a closely held business is incorporated and the shareholders are the owners-managers-operators of the business and if they distribute all the income to themselves, they do not pay company tax. The effect is to wipe company tax altogether on this enormous small business community. Put another way, it means that if they pay company tax they pay no personal tax on the dividend that is distributed to them. They have been making requests for years for the abolition of Division 7 tax and this Government has now abolished it; so small business is no longer loaded down with that. If a small business is not incorporated it gets the advantage of paying a top marginal rate of 49 per cent instead of 60 per cent, or if it is on the rate below that, it pays 40 per cent instead of 46 per cent. Those are the most significant changes ever made to taxation arrangements affecting small business. This is now being understood. When I addressed a taxation seminar in Sydney this morning, two or three small business people came up to me and said that the Division 7 tax they were paying was a burden to them, and these changes were the most progressive that they had seen. In respect of capital gains taxation, all existing small businesses are exempt and all existing assets are exempt. We are talking only about assets acquired after the date of introduction, and the tax will be on only the real gain after inflation is washed from it. By contrast, the Opposition's capital gains tax is for the full marginal rate to be paid on the full nominal gains-the most savage kind of capital gains tax that could ever be imposed in this country. That is what Senator Messner has in store for small business and the farm sector across this country. I do not think those in the business community, large or small, are under any illusions that this Government is giving them what they need most of all, that is, growth, activity, business, profits and a decent, clean, sane and sensible tax system. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —I have just been advised that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) leaves Australia later today to attend a meeting of the Science and Technology Ministers of the Summit Seven Nations in Canada, returning on 26 October. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will act as Minister for Science and will also represent Senator Button and Senator Gareth Evans in this House. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —I table a policy statement on illegal immigrants, with a covering explanatory paper from me to put the policy statement in context for honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, this is a most unusual practice for a major statement by a Minister, to table a statement and not have it debated- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member cannot make a statement except by leave. If he wants leave to make a statement, he must ask for leave. Mr Cadman —I know that I would not get leave, Mr Speaker. The Government is determined to cut short the business- Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I remind the honourable member for Mitchell that, if he defies the Chair again in that way, he will be named immediately. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Communications annual report for 1984-85. 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 citizens of Australia respectfully shows: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament, remove U.S. bases from Australian soil, keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Robert Brown,Mr Chynoweth,Ms Fatin,Mr Hollis,Mr Langmore,Ms McHugh,Mr Allan Morris,Mr Snow,Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson 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 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 ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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,Mr Ian Cameron and Dr Watson. 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 increases 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 add to farm costs and further reduce 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 Andrew and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not `windfall gains', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr McArthur. 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 decison 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and 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. Recognize 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, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is in appropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize 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 ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the South Australian Country Women's Association Incorporated and the undersigned shall showeth: The necessity to restore the concessional price of fuel in rural areas without which there will be increased freight and production costs. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will restore concessional price of fuel in rural areas for the benefit of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. 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 speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomolies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans', and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase, perpetrates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries, And your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: As residents of the towns of Ayr and Home Hill and surrounding districts, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the sugar industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to that industry to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The unrelenting ever expanding money extortion to which home purchasers are being subjected has exceeded the bounds of all logical reason. It is neither linear or progressive. It becomes transparently clear that the constant edging up of interest rates for investors by banks, lending institutions, and banking consortiums are collectively responsible for the monetary explosion, lack of employment and all that that entails and is causing grave social disruption to hundreds of thousands. Behind it all, the absence of control that is now politically essential in the interest of justice and fair distribution of burden. No government, recent or future should tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the existence of family life, together with all the well known disastrous repercussions that follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to reduce interest rates across the board and that this country needs a five year period to reduce this unwarranted absurdity by tackling it at its source, as follows: firstly a 2% annual interest reduction on home loans, until it is down to 6%. This to come into force immediately subject to the urgent necessary legislation. This would, or should curtail union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures. It would also certainly ease the burden on social securities. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) the 29th April 1985 will be the 33rd anniversary of the operation of the ANZUS treaty (2) that for a third of a century Australia has remained free from an external threat (3) that the strength of the Western Alliance as a whole has helped preserve its freedom and democracy whilst other more poorly defended nations have been invaded and subjugated (4) Accordingly we call on the Federal Government to give its active support to such alliances (5) that the government pursue mutual and verifiable nuclear disarmament; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. 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. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. 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, fulfilling employment, 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. 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, self help development 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, a natural fertiliser, 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 Tickner. 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 Staples. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that does not exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. allieviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Mr Hurford and Mr Wilson. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalties small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductability for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductability for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: 1. Badgery's Creek and surrounding district are unsuitable sites for any major airport due to environmental, conservation and weather factors. 2. Many hundreds of people will be dislocated and many thousands more will be disturbed by the siting of an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. 3. N.S.W. taxpayers cannot afford the cost of a second airport when at a minimum of cost upgrading and expansion of Kingsford Smith will satisfy the needs of N.S.W. air travellers in the foreseeable future. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will not approve an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. 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 Dr Watson. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 12 November 1985, unless Mr Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing failure of the Hawke Government to give support to the United States when it is right to do so, as most recently evidenced by the Achille Lauro incident. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong)(2.59) —We propose for discussion today this matter of public importance because we have seen, through the reactions of the Hawke Government to the tragic events that unfolded through the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, a continuing pattern of change. It is not too much to say that, under this Government, a major transformation of Australian foreign and defence policies is occurring. It is not occurring as a consequence of determining what is in the best interests of Australia, our region or the international community. It is occurring despite a number of statements masking this unravelling. It is occurring because on crucial occasions, particularly during the year of 1985, the Left of the Australian Labor Party, seeking to ensure that its aims are more than registered with the Government, has forced the Government to change tack. As I have said, it is a major transformation, and it is no exaggeration to say just that. As a consequence, the failure of this Government is not that it has accepted those ideas propounded by the left wing and its followers but that by its vacillation, its indecision and its basic weakness in standing up to the Left, the Left has been reinvigorated. Each time the Government seeks to appease the Left, it simply emboldens it. The Government's backdown over the Achille Lauro is not an isolated incident but is following a pattern. The two honourable members who are sitting opposite are the personification in this House of good leftist thinking. They would be the ones mouthing the concerns through the Party as to what would have happened had the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) gone ahead with the statement to which he had committed the Government, giving full support to United States actions. Let me put it bluntly on our part: The American actions in seizing the terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro were right, those actions were proper, those actions were legal. Last Friday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) issued a statement to that effect. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) responded on that day by ducking the issue and leaving for the Bahamas. On Monday, when the Acting Prime Minister was pressed on this issue in the Parliament, he gave his full support to American actions and promised to send a message saying that to the United States Government. What happened? The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) doyen of the Centre Left, flew home. He was not going to give a message of support. Sure, he was going to say that he understood the actions of the United States. He got the Acting Prime Minister to send a message of understanding to the United States. Let us not kid ourselves. There is a world of difference between understanding certain actions and supporting them. Anyone can understand certain actions, but it is a different matter to stand up and say one supports them, to go out on a line and fight against international terrorism. The Foreign Minister was able comprehensively to roll the Acting Prime Minister. We saw in this House the Acting Prime Miniser being placed in the humiliating position of having promised to send a message of support and then the next day having to send what was nothing more than a gutless little message. The message stated: The Government of Australia understands and shares the deep concerns of the Government of the USA to make these terrorists subject to legal accountability. That is a long way short of the views of the Acting Prime Minister, as he floundered around in the Parliament on Tuesday, still muttering that he supported the United States actions and that they were perfectly legal. Why was the Acting Prime Minister not able to send a message applauding the United States action? It was surely worthy of such applause. No violence was used and the terrorists were brought to justice. I ask honourable members to compare that justice with the justice that was denied Mr Klinghoffer when he was shot in the head, the justice that was denied the passengers and the crew of the Achille Lauro. We should have taken a stand with the Americans in this strike against terrorism. It does not matter a jot whether other allies did or not. The crucial thing is that the American actions were right, they were proper, and they were deserving of full support. We are not alone in that view. I refer to the editorial in today's Australia Financial Review, aptly headed: `With allies like these . . .'. A paragraph towards the end of the editorial states, referring to the United States: What it would no doubt like is a glimpse of an ally which would simply give commonsense support for a commonsense action. The editorial, dare I say, also makes mention of the very point about bowing to the Left with which I introduced my remarks. The editorial said there was a hidden message: `please understand we want to keep our left wing quiet and we also like to remain friends . . . We beg for your indulgence!' This Government has been just too damned indulgent on certain matters for too long. I quietly introduced this matter today and said that what had transpired with regard to the Achille Lauro was symptomatic of so many events this year. The commitment to the MX missile was changed. Why? It has not changed because of any assessment of what was in Australia's national interest but because of fear of the Left and Centre Left in the Caucus. No assessment was made of what was right for our country, but what was right in the Caucus. The strategic modernisation plan got no endorsement. The strategic defence initiative got no endorsement-fear of the Left again. The Foreign Minister pleaded last night with this Parliament to show some understanding towards New Zealand, and I want to deal now with ANZUS. Why is the Foreign Minister so quiescent on ANZUS? Why is he allowing the Treaty to become, in the words of the Prime Minister, `inoperative'? The Foreign Minister says it is because he has enormous respect for New Zealand. It has spent a lot of blood and treasure and well it has. He said that we should not be critical of New Zealand; it is a great friend of ours. New Zealanders are very great friends of ours. New Zealand has been tied to us for generations, even before we formalised the Constitution, possibly to become part of this Federation. That is how close New Zealand is to Australia. I know that. Honourable members on this side of the House want close and friendly relations with New Zealand. There are few countries in the world that we admire more than New Zealand; but underneath it all there is a government in New Zealand, a government of one of three countries signatories to a treaty-the ANZUS Treaty. That Treaty is inoperative as a consequence not of the actions of the New Zealand people generally but of the actions of the current New Zealand Government. Whether or not I want friendly relations with New Zealand, I and every member on this side of the Parliament have a primary duty not to our friends the New Zealanders but to Australians. I say to the Minister with great respect, having spent more than twice as long administering the portfolio he has, that it is time he stopped giving me lectures about the need for Australia to be `well regarded' and had a look at the needs and regard of our citizens. The most basic defence treaty of my country and this Parliament's country is now inoperative as a consequence of the decisions of the New Zealand Government. Am I to stand here seeking solace in the sunny friendship of those New Zealanders or is it my duty to say that my country's most basic defence treaty is unravelling? The reason nothing is being done is because the New Zealand Government has taken action to create a nuclear-free New Zealand-the leftist aim. Our Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. When that letter became public, he dissociated himself from all the concerns that were written there. I ask honourable members to remember that the matter of public imortance is in the following terms: The continuing failure of the Hawke Government to give support to the United States when it is right to do so . . . This is no argument for some slavish adherence to a notion that it is the United States right or wrong. We are equal partners in ANZUS. If the United States is wrong, we would say so. For those on this side of the House, we prefer to say so diplomatically and privately-that would be our first preference-rather than publicly. The MX missiles, ANZUS, the strategic defence initiative and the strategic modernisation plan are all examples of backing away from our fundamental ally because of leftist pressure. In the case of ANZUS, it is not just a backing away from that ally but also a refusal to ensure that the nation's basic security treaty is made operative again. The Achille Lauro hijacking is symptomatic of this unravelling of foreign and defence policies throughout this year. The Left has fairly simple aims and it would not disagree with my statement of them. What the Left wants in the field of foreign and defence policies for this country is a scrapping of the bases, a banning of the ship visits, a destruction of ANZUS and an end to the alliance. Those are not the stated aims of the Government. The Minister, who is a good man, tells us that he is fighting to keep the alliance in place. He tells us how concerned he is with what is happening but his actions do not mirror that concern. All the statements he may make about how great the relationship between America and Australia is at present do not override what is transpiring. If any one of the honourable members on this side of the House was President of the United States or the Secretary of State he would be doing his darndest to shore up the relationship with Australia because of the delinquent behaviour of the current New Zealand Government. Of course that would be done. The diplomatic words and actions would be pouring out. The test is whether the alliance between the three countries is in good shape and whether this Government has been prepared to take on the New Zealand Government. It has not. It has said all along that this is a dispute between America and New Zealand. It has nothing to do with us as our own country's basic treaty unravels before us. We have brought up this matter of public importance for debate in the Parliament today because, as the Parliament closes for this period, it provides us with an opportunity to remind Australians that never have members of this Labor Party gone to an election and indicated that they will scuttle our foreign and defence policies in this way. What they are allowing to occur is a brick by brick demolition. Will the Minister get up today and tell us what the Government's position is on the foreshadowed New Zealand nuclear free legislation? Will he tell us what the Government's position is on a review of the ANZUS pact? Are we going to revive ANZUS or are we going to have a bilateral treaty? What is the future? What is the Government's view on the current legal and operational status of the treaty? What is the Government going to do to shore up our security interest in a review process? I daresay that we will have the same platitudes that we have had on previous occasions. I end this quiet little chat on the note that I began: The failure is not that the Government accepts, in its statements, the Left's ideals. The failure is that this Government lacks the courage to take the Left on and, through this weakness and indecision, the Government gives ground. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.14) —It was generous of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) to remind me that he served twice as long as I have in administering the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, I have to observe that he did much less. He did much less because he was too exhausted chasing Aphrodite in North America and gathering paparazzi publicity in the fleshpot spots of the world. That is all that he is remembered for. What is the honourable member for Kooyong remembered for-photographs of a particularly beguiling type in the newspapers? But where were the initiatives in foreign policy? Where were Australia's interests presented proudly and independently? Where did he pursue differences but manage them successfully with friends and allies? That is the mark of running a self-respecting foreign policy. He is remembered in none of those areas. What is he remembered for doing in our part of the world? What were his activities and achievements in South East Asia or even East Asia? He is not really remembered. When we go round and talk about Andrew people think we are talking about Andrew Theophanous. That is how quickly the honourable member for Kooyong has been forgotten in this region. I ask the honourable member not to waste time giving us lectures. He is certainly remembered for his five years as Minister for Foreign Affairs but in a peculiar style. He is now giving us a lecture on how we have failed the Americans. It is not the first time that he has done this. What did the President of the United States of America say only a month ago in Washington, on 19 September 1985, on the occasion that Ambassador Dalrymple was presenting his credentials? The President of the United States said: Mr Ambassador . . . your Prime Minister has publicly stated that our relations have never been closer, and I believe that is truly the case. The honourable member for Kooyong made out that we are sundering or unravelling our relationship with the United States in the particular fawning style that was characteristic of him when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. Yet we have the word of the President of the United States of America that, not only is that not so, but also the relationship is in a better condition than ever before, including his period of administration. Whose word do we take? Andrew Peacock, talking about Andrew Peacock or the President of the United States of America, talking about the relationship between the two countries? I will opt for the latter. I quote from a speech made by the United States Secretary for Defense, Mr Weinberger, on 17 July this year when he said: In contrast, our bilateral relationship- he was referring to Australia and America- with Australia is healthy and I think has rarely been stronger. Mr Armitage, of the same department, said: We have both worked hard at keeping our relationship one of close and constant consultation, professional co-operation, and hearty friendship. It is an alliance we both value and enjoy. The honourable member for Kooyong neither values nor enjoys the relationship which has been established and sustained by this Government with America. The American Administration not only does so but also does so publicly. How much substance can there be to the heart of what the honourable member for Kooyong had to say in the course of his statements to the House? The honourable member for Kooyong also referred to the recent unfortunate hijacking of the ship in the Mediterranean which, effectively, was an unfair and unjustifiable attack on the Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The honourable member for Kooyong said that not enough had been done and it had not been done expeditiously enough to declare support for the United States. This is what the Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General said on 15 October in this Parliament: The United States has not broken any international law. I do support the United States. He said that in this Parliament not only first of all as a statement of commitment for the Government and the members of the Government of this country and, secondly, as the legal opinion of the first law officer of this country endorsing the action of the United States, but also as a statement of endorsement long before any other country. There have been fewer countries than there are fingers on one hand-including America's closest allies-which have declared their open, unambiguous support for what the United States has done. The silence is notable. The assault on the Acting Prime Minister is unreasonable, unfair and unjustified. The honourable member for Kooyong discussed things such as the MX missiles, the strategic modernisation program and the strategic defence initiative. I think a few things could be said about some of those matters. Let us look at the extent to which it has been a problem that we, among almost all of the Western countries of the world, have not endorsed, for instance, the strategic defence initiative. Let us find out what the Americans say, as distinct from what the honourable member for Kooyong has manufactured as their point of view. I refer to what the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, said in Canberra on 15 July, three months ago. At a Press conference, he was asked: Mr Shultz, are you more hopeful after today's talks that Australia may take part in the SDI research? Mr Shultz said: Well, we didn't address the SDI research, the Australians will have to decide that for themselves. But it's not as though . . . We'd like them to be involved if they wished to and the opportunity is there. But it's not something that represents a major point in the US/Australian relationship. It's sort of an opportunity, it's there, if they choose to take advantage of it, fine, if they don't, fine, it's just that. The operative point is that it is not something that represents a major point in the United States-Australian relationship. Why did the honourable member for Kooyong go to so much trouble to try to misrepresent the fact on these sorts of matters? The area of the SDI program is one bristling with contention and difficulty. Many governments throughout the world, like this one, have concerns about the nature of the program, where it might end up and what the commitments might be. Questions have been asked about this-I have asked them myself. Not the least of the concerns we have is the inherent propensity for that program at a certain point not only to lead to a new arms race of a particular quality that we have not seen before, but also to create extraordinary destabilising influences internationally. What would happen, for instance, if it is concluded by one of the two super-powers, watching developments in respect of SDI, that it will have to move quickly to counteract that? For instance, it might contemplate a first strike as a remote but not an unreal hypothetical consideration. What would happen if the other side, for instance, should look at the program and conclude that SDI cannot be 100 per cent effective not even 90 per cent effective, but even less than that and that therefore, as an exclusively defensive operation for deterrence against a first strike, it is not credible, but combined with an offensive deployment of nuclear weapons it becomes very credible as a defence against a retaliatory second strike from a country which is attacked? If one follows that argument, which is crucial to the debate taking place in the United States of America today, one will understand why there is a very proper hesitation on the part of this Government and so many governments in the Western world. There are other qualities about the debate related to SDI which cause us to hesitate and to ask questions. To this point the honourable member for Kooyong probably has not caught up with one simple fact, that is, in the United States within the past week there has been a re-interpretation of the meaning of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I quote Mr McFarlane, the head of the National Security Council in the United States, who said: . . . they- `they' being the advisors to the Administration- make clear that on research involving new physical concepts, that activity, as well as testing, as well as development indeed, are proved and authorized by the treaty. The implication of that is that everything short of actual deployment now is covered or is permissible with this new interpretation of the effect of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. This is a remarkable alteration to the attitude of the Administration of the United States, which up until very recently had been declaring that it had been interested exclusively in research, because to go beyond research would be to violate the provisions of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. If we lose the anti-ballistic missile treaty we will lose the critical link in applying deterrents between the nuclear super-powers. We will, I believe, create a situation of greatly heightened instability and tension internationally. That is why we have reservatioins, we have large and justifiable questions, we hesitate, and we raise those matters publicly. Without any intelligent analysis at all, without any justification in this Parliament or anywhere publicly in detail, the Opposition has jumped on the band-wagon, saying: `We will support it. We will support the SDI program; we will support the strategic modernisation program; we will support anything'. If that is a bone of contention between us, it will continue to be, because we do not support just anything that comes along in the area of nuclear arms. We will not support things that we believe will provoke an acceleration of the nuclear arms race. We will hesitate, raise questions and seek to persuade in particular areas where we feel that initiatives in new areas may well result not only in an acceleration of the nuclear arms race but also in grave instability developing internationally. They are reasons-simply stated, shortly stated and only some of them-for our hesitation. If the Opposition wants to creat polar conflict on this particular issue, we are very happy to join in on it, because we believe that the course we are pursuing is the proper course. The course we are pursuing is simply that we accept our moral commitments within the system, of deterrents. We support the facilities operating in this country, which we host jointly with the United States of America. We support them because deterrents of verification are important contributions. They give us stability in an otherwise very unstable world, but the situation is far from satisfactory. We will pursue the course of arms control and disarmament without any apology at all. On the final matter raised by the honourable member for Kooyong-the alleged quiescence of the Government on the matter of ANZUS let me put the record straight, as I did last night. The honourable member for Kooyong attacked the Government's role in respect of New Zealand. He was saying effectively that we ought to heavy New Zealand in the jargon of the street corner, we ought to thump a bit of commensense into New Zealand. New Zealand will thump back and we will lose a very good friend and ally. That is not the way to go. If that is the diplomacy that the Opposition practised, that is not very intelligent diplomacy. Mr Peacock —You are a dill. No wonder the Yanks called you a jerk and the officials won't see you. Mr HAYDEN —Ooh, ah! I have stunned him and it hurts. If the honourable member thinks that the course we are pursuing is wrong, he is insulting the United States of America because we are on all fours in the course we have conducted to this point. We collaborate closely with that country. It agrees with us that this is the best course and that we should not deviate from it. The members of the Opposition once again are making a pack of clowns of themselves by proposing that they are the best friends the United States has ever had, yet they want to go in different and unhelpful directions. What has been proved by the statements I have made? Rather than unravelling the relationship with the United States of America, the President of the United States of America has said that it has never been in better shape. Whose word do we take-the honourable member for Kooyong or the President of the United States of America? I know what intelligent people will say. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1985 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1985 Medicare Levy Bill 1985 Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985 Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the tenth report for 1985 of the Committee, relating to the construction of a Commonwealth Law Courts Building, Parramatta, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —This report recommends the construction of a purpose designed Commonwealth Law Courts building at Parramatta to house the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Reporting Service. The major occupant of the new building will be the Family Court, which is at present housed in leased premises at Parramatta. The Committee inspected these premises which quite frankly are severely deficient in security, courtroom sizes, speech privacy and waiting areas for the public. The report states that the often unenviable tasks carried out by judges and senior court officials in attending to court processes in the existing facilities involving contact with members of the public are not assisted by the location, design and standard of functional areas, the level of amenity offered and by the atmosphere these deficiencies project. The Committee believes the new Commonwealth Law Courts building will be a facility which will foster the dignity of the law as well as catering in a more humane and understanding manner for the needs of the people living in the western suburbs of Sydney for the foreseeable future. Debate resumed from 10 October, on the following paper presented by Mr Young: Reform of the Australian Taxation System-Statement by the Treasurer dated September 1985, together with attachments. and on motion by Mr Cohen: That the House take note of the paper. upon which Mr Carlton had moved the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `this House, whilst welcoming the promised relief of double taxation of dividends and the promised reductions in marginal taxation rates, believes that the tax package presented by the Treasurer falls well short of the fundamental and lasting reform of our taxation system so frequently promised by the Government, and more specifically- (1) condemns the proposed introduction of the new capitals gains tax; (2) notes that under the Government's proposals the share of revenue carried by personal income tax will continue to rise; (3) condemns the arbitrary nature of the attack on fringe benefits and entertainment expenses; (4) expresses grave concern over the effects on enterprise, investment and employment due to the additional cost burdens on business arising from the capital gains tax, the higher rate of company tax, the fringe benefits tax and the loss of deductions for legitimate entertaining expenses; (5) regrets the package will have an adverse and discriminatry impact upon rural Australia; (6) notes the particular discriminatory nature of the attack on the deductibility of farm losses against non-farm income, and (7) condemns the proposed foreign tax credit system as likely to discourage investment by Australian companies in our region.' Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.31) —In speaking in support of the amendment in relation to the Reform of the Australian Taxation System I would like to make a number of observations about this taxation package. I observe that within a few days of the tax announcement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 19 September, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) rather boldly declared that those measures had been well received by the public and that there would be no political backlash against the Government. Once again, I think it is fair to say-borrowing a phrase that has been in vogue recently-that the Prime Minister was erring on the side of generosity. He was being over-generous to his Government's tax package and underestimating the latent hostility of the Australian community to many elements of that package. The Government's arrogance about the tax package is really quite breathtaking. Firstly, we have the Prime Minister blithely asserting that everybody loves the taxation package, and we could tell by the stunned looks on the faces of the back bench of the Government today, when the Treasurer was dumping it on charities in Australia, just how much they love this package. The Treasurer then comes into this Parliament day after day, Question Time after Question Time, abusing and vilifying the motives of anybody who dares to raise any aspect of criticism about any element of the tax package. I inform the Treasurer that not everyone who has a problem with his tax proposals is either a bludger or a rorter of the Australian taxation system. He ought to learn that abuse and vilification are no substitute for rational argument and advocacy. From 19 September he has given us nothing but abuse, vilification, smear and bad mouthing of anybody who dares to raise any objection. He can barely descend to answer a question that has been asked of him. He ought to heed the advice of the Melbourne Herald editorial of 10 October 1985, which states: Our world champion Treasurer, after promising so much and delivering so little, seems to be feeling the pressure. As the fraud of his tax `reform' becomes increasingly obvious, Mr Keating has called his critics `whingers' and when questioned by the Opposition suggested he should not waste his time `giving a decent answer'. That's not only arrogant, it's a touch defensive . . . Perhaps, Mr Keating, it is time to stop insulting your critics, and listen. You might just learn something. The measures the Treasurer announced on 19 September do not represent a fundamental reform of our tax system. They do contain some measures that we support but in total the Government's approach is flawed, it falls well short of the goal of lasting reform and it represents the ad hoc remnants of the original tax reform proposals put forward by the Treasurer several months ago. The Government now has grappled with tax reform for almost a year. It went to the 1984 election campaign with no tax policy. The Prime Minister thought he could bluff his way through that campaign without having a policy but he found to his ire that the Australian public wanted to know where he stood on taxation and he therefore produced his much-vaunted nine principles. He committed himself to a tax summit. Oh, how he must lament that particular slip of the tongue in Perth. We all know how the National Taxation Summit degenerated into a shambles, with the spectacle of the Prime Minister going cap in hand to his union masters who were staying at the Canberra International Motor Inn to be told that the preferred option of the Treasurer would be thrown in ruins on the floor of Parliament House. For the Government it has always been a question of how best to raise a given level of taxation. It was never a matter of considering how the total taxation burden might be reduced. Expenditure reductions should have been at the top of the agenda at the Summit but instead they were totally absent from it. At the Summit the Government passed up a rare opportunity to engage the Premiers of all the States, business and union leaders and others, in discussions about ways and means of cutting government spending. Perhaps if the Government had tried a little harder, if it had even tried at all on this front, public and business cynicism about the whole tax reform exercise would not have been so great. The first and most important thing to understand about this tax package is that it does not in any way lighten the total taxation burden. Measured as percentages of gross domestic product, both spending and taxation have reached higher levels under this Treasurer than under any peacetime Treasurer in Australia's history, and nothing that he has said since 19 September, or will say in the future, can gainsay that fundamental fact. The Opposition does welcome in principle the moves to relieve the double taxation of dividends. The proposed imputation system will, however, be a mixed blessing for many companies which could well experience cash flow problems if they continue their dividend practices of the past. The system requires the payment by companies of a compensatory tax of $49 for every $51 distributed to shareholders in return for the relief of tax or dividends in the hand of the shareholder. However, this system has its problems. The compensatory tax must be paid when the dividends are distributed. Thus, even a company that makes a loss in a particular year and would normally pay no tax must still pay the 49 per cent when it distributes dividends out of its retained funds. In addition, many companies, for quite legitimate non-rorting reasons, pay an effective tax rate below the existing rate of 46c in the dollar. Those companies will have to pay the full rate on any dividends they distribute. Many companies will simply not want to pay the additional tax and, as a result, will retain a higher proportion of earnings and as a consequence dividends may well be lower even though, when paid, they will be exempt from tax in the hands of recipients. So it may well be cold comfort for some shareholders to be told that the dividends they get will be exempt from tax, but they will not get such large dividends because of the manner chosen by the Government to introduce this system of imputation. The reductions proposed by the Government in marginal rates of tax are also welcome but their ultimate delivery depends upon maintaining present levels of economic growth, which are extremely unlikely in the face of the very high levels of real interest rates that we now have. Moreover, there must be real doubts about whether the Government's revenue estimates are going to be realised. A BIS-Shrapnel Pty Ltd survey released yesterday suggested that the net gain to revenue from knocking off entertainment expenses would be only $61.5m, against the $310m estimated by the Government, because of the adverse effects on business activities and employment of that measure. These things having been said, I have seven quite specific criticisms of the tax package. Firstly, the proposals do nothing to reduce Australia's excessive reliance on personal income tax as a source of revenue. If anything, the measures produce an even greater reliance on that source. There has been a steady rise in the proportion of Federal revenue coming from personal income tax. That process will go on unabated, and without the fundamental shift away from reliance on income tax lasting reform simply cannot be said to have been achieved. Secondly, the measures include the imposition of a capital gains tax. This is being imposed at the worst of all times. It will hit farmers and small-businessmen alike and it is entirely inappropriate for a capital scarce country such as Australia. At a time when there is mounting concern about the level of our overseas debt, it seems to the Opposition a grievous contradiction, to say the least, to introduce a new tax which will discourage the accumulation of domestic savings. Let me make it plain, so that even honourable members opposite can understand: There will be no capital gains tax under a coalition government. The Opposition will vote in both Houses of Parliament against the imposition of a capital gains tax and, upon our election, we will seek its repeal. Thirdly, nothing was done in the tax package to improve the position of Australian families. The income splitting and child care deduction proposals, which remain key elements of the Opposition's policy, were totally ignored. Income splitting is not only a matter of equity between single and double income families at the same level of income, but it is also a matter of equity between different categories of single income families. At present, many single income families, many business people, many farmers and others, can quite legitimately-I stress the word `legitimately'; this is not contested, even by the Government, because the Government has said nothing about it in its tax package-split their incomes between husbands and wives. The Opposition says that if it is good enough for them, why is it not good enough for blue-collar factory workers to have the same privilege? It is passing strange to me that a Labor government remains silent on that. The great champion of the so-called downtrodden pay as you earn taxpayer, the Labor Government, is silent on something like income splitting; yet we make it plain that, as a matter of equity, particularly to wage and salary earners in Australia, income splitting is a desirable policy. Fourthly, the tax measures greatly increase the tax burdens of the corporate sector. Some calculations put it as high as a rise of 17 per cent. The fringe benefits tax is, against all principle, levied on the employer. It is a de facto payroll tax. It will have anti-employment consequences and, combined with the projected rise in the corporate tax rate, it will result in many corporations paying a rate of over 50 per cent. At a time when many of our competitors are considering reducing their corporate tax rate, such as even the United Kingdom, to 35 per cent, this Government is jacking it up to over 50 per cent. Yet the Treasurer pretends that this is a marvellous package for the small business community. The fringe benefits proposal is particularly severe on the entertainment industry. It is utterly wrong and discriminatory for the Treasurer to argue, as he has repeatedly in the House this week, that entertainment is never legitimately involved in earning assessable income. The principle should surely be that if expenditure on entertainment is properly and fairly incurred as part of earning business income, it should be allowed as a deduction. It is no excuse to arbitrarily disallow one item of expenditure on earning business income simply on the ground that the Australian Taxation Office finds it too hard to separate the legitimate from the illegitimate. The abuses in the system should be eliminated. The coalition supports all reasonable efforts to achieve this goal. However, achieving this goal need not and should not involve a total ban on claiming some entertainment expenses. The Treasury thinks it is very smart to conduct an emotional crusade against the business lunch. I remind the Treasurer that there are many thousands of small business people who run restaurants in this country who will literally go out of business, with the cost of thousands of jobs, if the Treasurer's proposal goes ahead in its present form. Contrary to the Treasurer's description, they are not all wimps, or bludgers, or whingers, or rorters of the tax system. Mr N. A. Brown —Did he say that? Mr HOWARD —Yes, he did, repeatedly. They are ordinary men and women- Mr Keating —No, I didn't say that. Mr HOWARD —Oh, the honourable gentleman did not say it? Well, they are ordinary men and women who have taken a risk; they have borrowed money; and they are now being written off and told that they are parasites on the business community of Australia because they dare to criticise the tax package of this Treasurer. Many of them must be galled by the double standards of this Treasurer, who says that a local plumber cannot take his best contractor to lunch and claim the cost as an expense. However, if one can afford the $250 to attend a seminar to hear the Treasurer, that is okay. Look at the Australian Financial Review-in bold print, `Thursday' the very thing he went to today. It says, `How the tax package will affect enterprise'. Up in the right hand corner it says: `This seminar is tax deductible'. But it gets better. Who is the keynote speaker? It is the Treasurer. When one looks at the fine print-one has always got to look at that, particularly with this Treasurer-one sees that the registration fee is $250 per person, and that it includes papers and- Mr N. A. Brown —How much is the lunch? Mr HOWARD —Wait for it-lunch and refreshments. So the moral of that story is very clear. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House. The Treasurer is very fond of these Chicago-style allusions, but I have to warn him that those restaurateurs and those employees, and all those people he apparently has in his gunsights in the entertainment industry, are hardly likely to see him as Elliot Ness busting into a Chicago brewery; they are more likely to see him as someone wanting to re-enact the St Valentine's Day massacre. I say to the Treasurer that it is not terribly smart to conduct some kind of emotional campaign against the small business community, and that he ought to understand that many people have expended a lot of sweat and effort and have taken a lot of risk in starting little businesses. It ill becomes him to smear, to defame, to snigger at and to put down the efforts of those people and to brush their concerns aside in such a contemptuously arrogant manner. He ought at least to learn a bit of common decency in manners in replying to them. Fifthly, the proposed foreign tax credit system is utterly wrong for Australia, both economically and strategically. It will not only disadvantage many Australian companies but, more importantly, it will discourage them from investing in South East Asia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has spent a lot of time beating up the importance of trade between Australia and China. This particular proposal, amongst other things, runs the very serious risk of disadvantaging the development of that trade. Sixthly-and of great concern to all members of the coalition-the combined effect of these measures is very punitive on the rural community of Australia. At a time when our rural community is going through probably its most difficult period for a generation, it now has to endure not only a capital gains tax but also the severe consequences of the diversion of a large amount of investment away from the rural sector due to the projected prohibition on deducting farm losses from non-farm income. This measure has been adopted for blindly ideological reasons, and it will have a depressing effect on the whole rural sector. What is more, its impact is more discriminatory and arbitrary than other like measures in the tax package, including, in particular, the ban on negative gearing and the proposed capital gains tax. No plausible explanation has yet been offered by the Treasurer for singling out this form of rural investment for such arbitrary and harsh treatment. Seventhly, the package will have some undesirable community and social effects. However much the Government may deny it, the impact of the changes, particularly in the fringe benefits area, will fall much more heavily on the private sector than it does on the public sector. The sense of grievance felt by many in the private sector will, as a consequence increase. Furthermore, the combined effect of the capital gains tax and the earlier ban on negative gearing will emasculate, if not destroy, investment in the rental accommodation market. This will hurt low income renters more than any other section of the community. Not only is this bad and undesirable in its own right, but also it must lead to increased demands for welfare housing funds which, in all possibility, will swamp any revenue gains from these shortsighted changes. Today's Sydney Morning Herald refers to a report of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales which warns of a 32 per cent fall in sales of home units in Sydney as a result of the proposed capital gains tax. If this prediction is only half right, the consequences for low income renters not only in Sydney but all around Australia will be quite disastrous. These criticisms, which are by no means exhaustive, invalidate the rather empty claim of the Treasurer that his package is the greatest reform ever of the Australian taxation system. The Treasurer has not produced a coherent tax reform package. By his own definition of several months ago these measures merely play at the edges of taxation reform. The deeper one examines the package, the more obvious it is that many of the productive sectors of the economy, particularly small business, must carry undue burdens. The adverse impact of many of the Government's proposals is worsened by the doubt and confusion which will persist until full details of the legislation are available. The Government has done nothing by way of these reforms to alter our disproportionate reliance upon personal tax as a source of revenue. Yet, less than four months ago this Treasurer declared that a change in the taxation mix was fundamental to a lasting reform of the taxation system. Any assessment recognises that that goal has not been achieved. It is timely at this stage to remember the statements of the Treasurer prior to his backdown to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and to the left wing of his Party. There was a time when this Treasurer, if one believed his words, was prepared to go over the top in order to achieve reform as he saw it of the Australian taxation system. On 8 June-we all remember the words very clearly-he declared that, if his original proposal did not 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. The Treasurer is still sitting here. Of course, he finds it a bit galling to be reminded of some of these things. Two weeks later he was so bold as to declare: We're not shrinking violets and we're not about to disappear when the first whiff of grapeshot passes the trench so if any of our colleagues think that there may be some easy road to soft options we're not about the soft path. A lot of grapeshot has passed across the Treasurer's trench since those bold declarations were made. We all know the measure of backdown at the Summit. We all know the measure of the backdown four weeks later and we all know the bones that have been thrown to the left wing of the Party in putting this package together. The Treasurer has been forced by the Australian Labor Party Left and the ACTU to repudiate his firm conviction of only four months ago regarding a substantial shift to indirect taxation when he said : You cut the heart out of the package and with it the opportunity for significant increases in benefits and reductions in tax rates. That is exactly what has happened. Yet he still comes into the chamber and asks us and the Australian public to accept that this package is a fundamental, coherent reform of the taxation system. Even on the capital gains tax the Treasurer has had to eat his words. He had to eat the words he uttered to the ALP Conference in New South Wales three years ago when he was a great anti-capital gains tax man. He was always an anti-capital gains tax man. He always lined them up and said: `Look brothers, we would be crazy to bring in that capital gains tax'. Yet he has had to come meekly into the chamber and defend it, saying how socially just and equitable it all is. Yet he knows, I know and the Australian public knows that it is a useless capital gains tax, and a capital gains tax that will do untold damage to business investment prospects and business expectations. The Treasurer knows in his heart that it is the wrong move for the Australian economy. Does our present Treasurer seriously ask the Australian public to accept that this grab bag is a comprehensive reform of our taxation system? What possible justification can there be, other than blind ideology and the need periodically to throw a bone to the left wing with the carcass to the ACTU, for a capital gains tax at a time when there is, first, almost unrelieved gloom in the Australian rural community, secondly, a desperate shortage of cheap rental accommodation in our major cities, thirdly, a soaring overseas debt, fourthly, the highest real interest rates for over 50 years and, fifthly, when incentives rather than disincentives for new small business investment are urgently required. Despite all of those undeniable facts about the Australian economy at present this Treasurer is forced, out of factional disadvantage and weakness to introduce a capital gains tax against all economic and social reason. Does he offer a plausible explanation? No, he gets up in this place and says: `Other countries have capital gains taxes'. Yet only a few minutes ago the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was pleading as a virtue that in foreign policy one does not automatically follow other countries. The Treasurer has been forced by the left wing of his Party and the ACTU to bring in a capital gains tax. He knows that it will have a bad effect on business investment in Australia. He knows that it will distort the property market, hurt poor renters and discourage investment in rural Australia at a time when it desperately needs new investment. Yet he pretends again that this is a great and marvellous reform. Many of the measures proposed in this taxation reform package will not be known in detail for months. The Treasurer asks the investors in the business community to wait for months. The foreign tax credit system, so I hear, will not be legislated for until March or April of next year. That will affect the business investment plans of many companies that have operations overseas. Heaven knows when we will receive the details of the capital gains tax legislation. Yet it applies to properties acquired after 19 September this year. There has already been the cancellation of a bonus share issue by a public company in Sydney because it does not know the impact of the capital gains tax and the other proposals. Yet this man trots around to the board rooms of Australia posing as somebody who understands the needs of the business community. Well before the next election the coalition will release a detailed alternative taxation policy. That policy will be built upon the principles of taxation policy outlined in the 1984 election and reaffirmed by the Opposition at the time of the Taxation Summit. That policy will address the many areas left untouched by the Government in its proposals. That policy will unashamedly contain a bias in the taxation treatment of family groupings. It will recognise the need to shift from our excessive reliance on direct income tax towards a greater dependence on indirect taxation. It will emphatically reject taxes such as capital gains taxes, death duties and gift duties, which are based on envy rather than reason and equity. Finally, it will recognise the fundamental of taxation reform, which is that no reductions in taxation levels can be achieved without reductions in the total level of government spending. As I said a few moments ago, this Government has been grappling with the problem of taxation reform for more than 12 months. It is now almost a year since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) put in train the processes of having an election at the end of last year. Many of us will remember how the Prime Minister came into this House almost on the last day the Parliament was sitting and was asked a question by one of his back benchers about taxation reform. He got up and said: `I want the people of Australia to understand that we are not going to commit ourselves to anything on taxation. We are going to consider as a government all of the options. We are not going to rule anything out. We are going to go to the Australian people and ask them to give us a blank cheque on the question of taxation reform. We are not going to tell them anything. We are going to keep them in the dark. We are going to ask them to give us a blank cheque. When we get back with our majority of 45 or 50 seats-remember those ringing words of the Prime Minister-`we will then have a blank cheque from the Australian people to reform the Australian taxation system'. History, of course, records three things. It records, firstly, that he did not get back with his majority of 45 or 50 seats. Mr N. A. Brown —He was lucky to get back at all. Mr HOWARD —He was, indeed, lucky to get back at all. Secondly, the Australian people were not going to cop the giving of a blank cheque to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer or anybody else when it came to the subject of taxation. They said to the Prime Minister during the election campaign: `We want to know what your taxation policy is. We want you to say something; we want you to declare yourself on the subject of taxation'. What did they get? They got a miserable nine principles of motherhood which meant absolutely nothing about taxation and they got nary a commitment of any kind. They got a promise to have a Taxation Summit. We all know what happened at that Taxation Summit. For almost a year we have heard of nothing but taxation. The Australian public must almost be bored stupid by reference to the word. But we have had it again and again from the Treasurer and the Government. We will have it for months still because it will take the Government a year to get this legislation through the Parliament. Do honourable members know what the real betrayal will be at the end of the day? At the end of this whole process, with all the reform, words and legislation, the taxation burden will not be one whit smaller than it was almost a year ago. That is the indictment of this Government on its tax reform. Motion (by Mr Willis)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Treasurer speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.03) —The changes which the Government has introduced in its tax reform package are the most comprehensive and far-reaching in the history of this country. They are the most important and fundamental reforms in the living memory of most parliamentarians. By contrast, what we have seen from the Opposition is without comprehension. The person who just spoke is the architect of the demise of the current tax system. The former Treasurer and present Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), is the person who brought the Australian tax system into disrepute. He is the person who allowed the criminal paper schemes to proliferate throughout the 1970s and to defraud the Commonwealth of billions of dollars. He is the person who left all the loop- holes in the system for high income taxpayers to slide through while the great majority of Australian wage and salary earners paid more than their fair share of tax. He was the Treasurer who allowed the whole non-compliance psychology to rut itself into the Australian tax landscape. Yet he has come into this Parliament today and berated this Government for making the most courageous, comprehensive and equitable tax changes in living memory. That puts the matter into the context in which it deserves to be put. We have had the same old nonsense from the Liberal Party of Australia, begging for more concessions and opposing the means of paying for them. The same old Liberal muck dragged this economy through the dirt. We have heard the same old Liberal muck for decades when it has come to having a decent public policy. The Liberal Party has been bleating about the concessions, wanting more concessions, but opposing every means of paying for them. We had today just a litany of excuses, and apologia for leaving these tax concessions in the system. Again we have had another totally irresponsible and wilful approach to taxation policy and public policy. This goes to the heart of the criticism the Government has made in recent days about the whole Liberal philosophy over years gone by. That was to leave all the loopholes in the system because the Liberals knew that their people, the people they represent in this Parliament-the high income earners-could slip through the system without paying their fair share of tax. That is why they put more concessions in the tax system over all of those years. Who were the bunnies paying the tax that the other people were not paying? They were the ordinary wage and salary earners. They were the people upon whom the Liberal Party heaped the taxation abuse, the burden. Those people had to wear the burden and carry the load of taxation while other people bludged their way through life and used all the loopholes which existed. That is why the Liberals are now bleating day in and day out about the abolition of the rorts in the tax system about which they have never spoken. They are prepared to have a debate about capital gains or some other exotic issue in relation to taxation, but they are never prepared to have a debate about all of the real rorts in the system which high income taxpayers were using. That was the unspoken debate, the debate that was never mentioned. This Government has chosen to make the tax system clean and fair and to give the ordinary Australian taxpayer a go. What do we find? We are attacked on the basis that this is not the right and proper thing to do. One of the greatest jokes of all is the fact that the former Treasurer berated the Government for not introducing a broadly based consumption tax and attacked me for not succeeding in getting one through. The former Treasurer can attack me if he likes, but he should not say that I backed down. I did not; I was beaten. There is a lot of difference between being beaten and backing down. If we had not got some leaks from the Cabinet room we would never have known that the former Treasurer ever tried to do anything about moving to an indirect tax system. He never stumped the country trying to get up a consumption tax. Can anyone remember him pressing the case through a White Paper? No, what he did was to raise a couple of mumblings in the Cabinet room and leak them to a couple of journalists. That was his attempt to get indirect tax changes in this country. There was no attempt at all. Mr Howard —He is a bit touchy. Mr KEATING —No, I am not touchy, but I am not prepared to let the Leader of the Opposition say that I backed down because, just frankly, I did not. I would not back down on something in which I believe and I never will. I am not like the Leader of the Opposition. I did not slither out of the Cabinet room like a mangy maggot and then go and leak to the Press a story about how I was beaten by Malcolm Fraser, which was the cry of the former Treasurer. I fought it out in the country and in front of the public under the cameras in a Tax Summit. I do not mind taking the loss. If the judgment is that we cannot introduce a broadly based consumption tax, that there is not enough public support for it and that the inflationary influences of its introduction were too much for the country and the fabric of the economy to stand, I accept that judgment; but the fact is that I tried and the former Treasurer did not. The Liberals promised tax indexation in 1978 and never gave it. They lied to the public in 1978 and continued to lie. Then they refused to provide the tax indexation promised. Through a period of double digit inflation, they simply let ordinary incomes be inflated into higher and higher tax brackets and took people to the cleaners. This is the first major tax change which pulls the 60 per cent rate out of the system and makes it 49 per cent; which makes the 46 per cent 40 per cent in perpetuity; which makes the 30 per cent 25 per cent, as we have already done; and which lifts the tax free threshold. That is a fact. Those rates will apply no matter what the thresholds may be. So the Leader of the Opposition should not be mealy-mouthed and say that it is not a fundamental change. Of course it is a fundamental change. The Government will be handing back more than $3 billion more than it collects in these tax changes. Mr Carlton —If we get it. Mr KEATING —What an inane comment. Of course you will get it. Mr Carlton —It is a good question. Mr KEATING —What do you mean `It is a good question'? We have announced the change, we have said we will do it and we will do it. If the Opposition does the right thing and passes the Bills it will get the money. But if honourable members opposite want to be sleazebags again and oppose everything, as they always do, whingeing and whining about tax ramps, then of course we will have more difficulty than we might otherwise have had. That is the history of the Liberal Party. Liberal members thought that the Australian taxpayers were mugs and that they could rip them off by letting their incomes inflate so that a person doing the same job in early 1983 as he was in 1976 was hit with a higher level of real taxation, even though he was in the same occupation. Why? It was because there was a broken promise on tax indexation and because the Liberals never gave appropriate tax relief. We bring in these proposals and the Liberals seek to attack them. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition talking about capital gains tax. He said: In a capital scarce country we should not have a capital gains tax. He does not seem to understand one simple point: In a capital scarce country one must ration the capital carefully. Therefore, the capital must go to the most productive areas of the economy rather than into overinvestment in real estate or any other non-productive area of the economy, as has been the case over the years. That has been the policy of the coalition. If I opposed a capital gains tax at Labor Party conferences before we were elected to government, it was so that we would have an opportunity to put a capital gains proposal on the table and not be beaten by smears and misrepresentations by members opposite, who have never looked at any argument honestly in their lives. In other words, I was never prepared to see the Labor Party play into the hands of Opposition members. We are always in the business of beating them. We did so and we will continue to do so. Let me make it quite clear that the capital gains tax is very concessionary. All existing assets are exempt. Obviously, it puts a tax on people who seek to take their income as capital. What are members of the Liberal Party saying? They seem to say that people who want to take their income as capital can have it tax free, but every other person who has to take their income once a week must have it taxed at the full rate. Is that what the Opposition is saying? Mr Carlton —Unpurchased goodwill. Mr KEATING —Oh, come on! Do not try to oversimplify it. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that if a person is an ordinary wage earner, an ordinary working person, he can have the tax taken out of his pay before he gets it. On the other hand, if he is a bit smart and can take it as a capital gain, he does not pay tax. That is what he is saying, that income taken as capital should not be taxed. That is what it is about. As usual the Opposition is basically about belting the guts out of wage and salary earners, while allowing through someone who is a bit slick and takes his income as capital. Why should someone who can turn income into capital walk away with the money tax free when people on incomes as modest as $13,000 or $14,000 a year, who are supporting families, must pay the full marginal rates of taxation? I do not know how Opposition members can even put such a view and still hold their heads up. They seem to do it, however, judging by the cacophony of `hear, hears' from behind the Leader of the Opposition when he says that he will not have a capital gains tax. Damn Opposition members for that. Damn them for being the cheats they are in allowing people to take income as capital and not to have it appropriately taxed. Rather than crying `hear, hear', honourable members should be putting this matter into the proper moral perspective, of which they are incapable. The other matter is this: The Leader of the Opposition says that the tax package does nothing for families. Apparently, he thinks that the Government's policy of putting 487,000 people back into jobs in this country does not count. Apparently, those people are Martians; apparently, they do not belong to Australian families. The Leader of the Opposition was the greatest destroyer of family life in this country. He destroyed family life by ruining the harmony of marriages put under the burden of unemployment when he watched unemployment rise by a quarter of a million in 1982-83. At the same time he watched low economic growth all through the 1970s and he watched families break up and marriages break down on an unprecedented scale under the burden of poverty and unemployment. Yet the Opposition has the bloody cheek to talk about families. You have the hide and the gall to come in here and talk about Australian families. You ought to be bloody well ashamed of yourselves. Opposition members should not come in here with humbug about families. You are frauds. You have never protected families in your lives. You sent them to the unemployment queues in their hundreds and thousands yet you come in here talking about families. You people are beneath contempt. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The language being used by the Treasurer is unparliamentary, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw those words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —What particular words did the honourable member have in mind? Mr Carlton —I would rather not repeat those words, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must say that I did not hear any unparliamentary language. However, I think the Treasurer would do better if he directed his remarks through the Chair rather than to the Opposition. Mr KEATING —Honourable members opposite are a joke, Mr Deputy Speaker. They talk about families, yet they have never been interested in Australian families. To come here and talk about allowing income splitting for some families when they have sent 700,000 people to the dole queues-250,000 in one year-is an absolute abject insult to every decent moral member of the Parliament. I will tell the House what we have done for Australian families. We have given jobs to young Australians. We have vastly improved Australian's access to housing. We have put 160,000 families into houses which they never had before. We have given families Medicare, which the Opposition still wants to destroy and which has been a massive benefit to low and middle income families. We have improved social security benefits, concentrating them on children. The tax package continues this trend with a major improvement in the position of families who were locked in the poverty-traps the poorest families with children. We have doubled to $12 a week per child the payment in the pension-free area. We have lifted the tax-free threshold for a taxpayer and dependent spouse with three children to $180 a week under the new scales. This threshold was $154 when we took office. That is apparently not regarded as important by the Opposition because we have heard some proposal from the Opposition about income splitting which will cost $2 billion. The Leader of the Opposition has not mentioned how it will be paid for. He said that he would give full family taxation income splitting which would cost $2 billion. All that will do is lift the tax treatment of everyone else. At the same time he has tried to disparage the Government about its tax treatment of families. The fraud and humbug of those remarks are beneath contempt and I do not know why he bothers to traffic in them. Let me deal with another of the phoney statements. We have talked about negative gearing. All of a sudden all the 60 per cent taxpayers who are running losses against their income are now philanthropists. They have actually been in the business of providing cheap rents for people, according to the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot believe that any leader of a major party would come into this Parliament and seek to have restored one of the most blatantly abused tax shelters in the system where people can minimise their income by running interest cost deductions against property. To try to defend this behaviour, this outrageous rort, on the basis that it helps some renters is extraordinary. The great majority of rental properties are not affected by negative gearing and negative gearing has not succeeded in providing an adequate number of rental properties. By contrast, the Government has introduced accelerated depreciation for new rental buildings. In other words, we are encouraging developers and builders to build new accommodation. The Leader of the Opposition would allow all the high income earners to run interest costs against their income, swapping flats on Bondi Beach which were built 40 years ago. That is not adding to the stock of housing or to the stock of rental accommodation, it is not really assisting families who need rental accommodation. By contrast, we have wiped out that outrageous rort and introduced accelerated depreciation for new buildings or major renovations in order to create more rental property and more opportunities for renters. One does not hear anything about that from the Leader of the Opposition. All we hear is a further apology for the tax ramp which has been blatantly abused. Yet the Leader of the Opposition wants us to accept that he has bona fides in taxation and that he is the leader of a major party with a moral tax policy. He wants us to believe that Honest John is going to put an honest proposition about taxation. It is nonsense. That speech was nothing more than an apologia for tax dodgers and bludgers, which the Liberal Party has always supported in all of the years that I have been here. This is the first government to skin all of those rorts out of the system and give all Australians a fairer go with lower rates of tax. To come in here barracking for negative gearing is the absolute bottom of the barrel. It is the absolute bottom of the barrel to come in here scraping away for the reintroduction of negative gearing. I wonder how he can hold up his head and say it. Then, of course, we have the proposition about entertainment expenses. We had the crocodile tears from the Opposition about entertainment. Again, it is all part of the pattern. It was one of those concessions. The Opposition knew that the high income people could slip through the tax system and enjoy a standard of living that other Australians could not enjoy. The Opposition sought to put words in my mouth to attack restaurateurs. I do not attack restaurateurs. I attack the people who use this concession. Mr Carlton —What about the Lodge? Mr KEATING —Here is an irrelevancy. The contribution to the debate this afternoon from the great economic thinker, the great Liberal dry, is: `What about the Lodge?'. That is his limitation. Talk about irrelevant! We on this side of the House do not call him `Carlton light' for nothing. He is Carlton light and dry; he is appropriately named. Let me make this clear about entertainment: With an unenforceable provision, the Commissioner of Taxation cannot discern whether two people sitting at a luncheon table are talking about business matters or not. That is obvious to anybody. It is obviously a matter that cannot be policed. With a choice between, on the one hand, trying to introduce a law which we know the Commissioner cannot administer and which will end up in the courts and then probably be distorted and, on the other, making a decision to abolish all entertainment deductions, the Government has opted for the latter, and quite sensibly. Instead of the Liberal Party supporting a bit of moral fibre around the place, a bit of decent tax law, what does it do? It defends the free lunch while every other Australian has to live on sandwiches, cut lunches, rolls or meat pies. Members of that mob ensconce themselves in restaurants while the rest of the taxpaying population is supposed to subsidise them. That is fairness from the Liberal Party. I now turn to farm quarantining. Everyone knows that everyone who has a quid in this country has sunk some of it into rural property because of the enormous tax advantages in securing a capital gain and running down income. Because of the abuse of this, as with negative gearing, we have quarantined it. But we have done it fairly, so that people who are on the land in a genuine farming position can write off against their non-farm income. That is a very fair measure. It protects the genuine farmer. Alternatively, $15,000 can be written off non-farm income or, in the case of a husband and wife owning a farm as joint tenants in common, the figure is $30,000. That is a fair test. There has been no mention of that from the Opposition-only the protection of the rort. So, if someone has 50 or 100 acres somewhere close to a capital city and puts a new fence around it, that is deductible. If he puts on a new roof or makes extensions to the house, that is deductible. Tiling is deductible. Water storage is deductible. New roads are deductible. Excavations for water storage on the farm are deductible. The farm can then be sold for a capital gain. Those are the sorts of ramps that Opposition members are into. They talk about things like that but have the hide to say that this Government has not made any changes. They say that all of these things that they object to are not important changes. On the one hand they say that they are unimportant and on the other they say that they are a terrible blight on the tax laws. Is it any wonder that the Liberal Party and the National Party have run out of puff? Is it any wonder that business takes no notice of them? They have no conception of where they are going. They have no guiding principles. They have no foundation for their ideas. They have no comprehension of view. They are regarded with derision and contempt by decent and earnest Australians who want to see a fairer tax system and a better basis for business taxation. I have been around the country talking about taxation for months. The Opposition's views are held in contempt. But Opposition members keep parroting them in the Parliament and coming out with such drivel, trying to protect every lousy rort that there is. We have had the cries about small business and the capital gains tax, even though all existing businesses are exempt. The capital gains tax applies only to assets acquired after 19 September this year. Every existing asset and property is exempt. Despite that, we hear this complaint about small business, as though in some way those phonies in the Liberal Party have some relationship with small business. It was the Liberal Party that drove small businesses into bankruptcy in their hundreds of thousands. The Liberals did not just destroy businesses; they destroyed the livelihood of the men and women who ran them. The Liberal Party drove them into the dole offices because they could not survive in business during the recession that the Liberals brought on in 1982-83. The Opposition claims to have some validity and some basis in its dealings with small business. But only this Government is interested in small business. We are the only government which has restored business profits and provided business opportunity, a growth economy and demand so that businesses could make money. That is the prime requirement of government-to reduce inflation and to provide wage restraint. All of those things are things which this Government has done. This package is the biggest bonus for small business in the history of Commonwealth taxation. It abolishes the double tax on dividends. In the case of a closely held company, with a shareholder-owner-manager, if that person or the other shareholders distribute the income of the business to themselves, they do not pay company tax. Company tax is effectively wiped out in those instances. That is something that the business community has wanted for 30 years. The Liberal Party never gave it to them, but we have now given it. If businesses are unincorporated and not in a company structure, but only in a partnership, the top rate of tax will now be 49 per cent instead of 60 per cent and the next rate will be 40 per cent instead of 46 per cent. That is what we have done for small business. We are making small business vital, important and effective by providing a good economic climate, low inflation and a better tax system. For Opposition members to come in here with the argument that a totally prospective capital gains tax will have some impact on goodwill and that this will change the whole ambient climate within which small business operates is nonsense. Opposition members think that, because some of the small business newsletters have a crack at some of these measures, that is the attitude of small business. They are quite mistaken. If Opposition members rattle in and out of any small businesses in Australia and ask the small business people who has run Australia better and who has given them a future as distinct from a dismal past, they will quite clearly say that the Australian Labor Party has. The Opposition used to protect big business in this country, but it became so arrogant that it did not even bother about them. Now big business does not support the Opposition. Now the Opposition represents neither big nor small business. So Opposition members should not talk about that. For medium, large and small businesses the imputation package is the biggest reform in the history of the company tax system. What it does is to give a substantial advantage to shareholders. It removes the penal double taxation of dividends. We will now have money flowing back into the company system, going back into the equities market and into truly productive things, instead of having money out chasing a capital gain in the lurks and perks market. Instead of having Commonwealth economic policy running one way and Commonwealth taxation policy pulling against it and running the other way, we will now have Commonwealth tax policy lining up with Commonwealth economic policy to deliver the goods in the economy, to promote productive investment and to reward the people who invest and create business, rather than simply rewarding people who sit on their tails and pick up a capital gain because some property has changed in value. That was the sort of tax system the previous Government had. That is why the comprehension which has been brought to this tax package by the Government will produce a tax system which truly improves the dynamics of this economy. It will make the Australian economy much more dynamic, much stronger and much more resilient in the future than it has ever been in the past. Honourable members opposite should go and talk to the captains of business about imputation or about the 49 per cent rate and ask them whether they are not major advances. They will find that the reply is in the affirmative; they are. Yet honourable members opposite believe that in some way they have the answers. It really galls me to be lectured on taxation by the honourable member for Bennelong-the man who let the criminal, contrived paper schemes develop right through the 1970s without pulling them up, despite the fact that the Taxation Commissioner of the day implored him in that now famous telephone book of letters to do something about it. He would not do anything about the blatant, contrived avoidance schemes and he did absolutely nothing about the more subtle things such as the tax shelters which have been in the system for years. Honourable members opposite thought they could pull this off forever, that they could let their mob rattle through without paying tax. That is over. It may come as news to them: Cheating is out. We are making people pay their fair share and we are giving the benefits to ordinary Australians. Honourable members opposite can stand up and attack us if they like, but we will take them on at the next poll and beat the hell out of them. Most Australians know that this Government is truly interested in their welfare and advancement. We are interested in the welfare of Australian families, of Australian children, of the poor, of the earnest people who are out there trying. We are prepared to give even those on high incomes a fair go, but we will not allow them to cheat. In other words, we are trying to make the system fair and decent and reasonable. I would have thought that honourable members opposite, as members of a majority Party with a long history, and in some places a proud history, could have said that this was a fair and decent tax package and that something should have been done a long time ago. Instead, they are attacking it and seeking to put the concessions back in. They are up to their old tricks. That is why they are irrelevant, useless and immoral. That is why they will be swept back into the garbage can of Opposition, into the garbage can of political life, where they firmly and truly belong. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Schedule 2. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Proposed expenditure, $179,898,000. Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism Proposed expenditure, $78,946,000. Department of Territories Proposed expenditure, $181,715,000. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(4.34) —Adequate measures of protection of the natural environment involve co-operation between the State, Territorial, and Federal Governments, and the appropriation of $4,880,000 for the operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is an example of an appropritation for an authority where co-operative arrangements between the Queensland and the Commonwealth Government are working reasonably well. However, having visited the Daintree Rainforest and travelled along the appallingly constructed coastal road from Cape Tribulation to the Bloomfield River, I have to cite this as an example of where co-operative arrangements with that same State Government have severely broken down. I would like to see a review done of all potential world heritage sites in Australia so that desecration such as has occurred at the Daintree might be avoided in the future. There is also the urgent need to preserve the fringing reefs from further degradation from the huge enveloping clouds of silt from landslips off the road during the wet season. I hope it is not too late for the Queensland Government to review its policies in relation to the Daintree Road and that talks could take place between the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment (Mr Cohen) and the appropriate Minister in Queensland with a view to rehabilitating the area. The cost would not be excessive, probably amounting to several million dollars, and the future return in tourist dollars would far outweigh the costs of rehabilitation. Mr JULL(Fadden)(4.36) —In speaking to these estimates, I shall confine my comments to the portfolio of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and particularly to tourism, which has now become one of the great growth industries in Australia. It is worth stating just what tourism means to this economy. In the last financial year tourism was worth $8 billion. It represented some 5 per cent of our gross domestic product. It represented some 340,000 jobs for Australians. It was our ninth largest export earner. Last year, for the first time in Australia we had more than one million international visitors. It would be fair to say that since 1978 the debate on tourism has been fairly bipartisan in its approach, and well it should be. It was from that time, when the late Sir Phillip Lynch was the responsible Minister, that tourism was recognised as being one of the potential growth industries in Australia. That has certainly proved to be the case. Tourism has, furthermore, proved to be virtually the only growth industry, along with the hospitality industry, that is creating jobs for young Australians. I think that this bipartisan approach is therefore correct. I lend my support to the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who said that overall he congratulated the Government on what it had achieved in the tourist industry during the last couple of years. I trust that my comments this afternoon will be taken as fair criticism, criticism that may well be constructive, to make sure that we continue the growth of that industry and that we reach the projected target of the Australian Tourist Commission of two million visitors to Australia by 1988, our bicentennial year. It is all very well for us to stand up in this place and in another forum and talk about the effect of tourism, the growth of tourism, and the number of people who come here. The first appeal I make this afternoon to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is that perhaps within the next 12 months we could start looking at doing something constructive in terms of the collation of statistics as they apply to the tourist industry in Australia. At the moment we have statistics from all over the place. There has been no consolidation of these statistics. Indeed, even the Government statistics, which come from different sources, vary quite dramatically. I am pleased to see that the Minister is in the chamber, and I refer him to the disparity that exists between the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures and those of the International Visitor Survey. This disparity is amazing when one looks at the figures on the growth rate of international tourism attributed to various States. I cite the 1983-84 figures for South Australia. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1983-84 South Australia enjoyed an increase of 10.2 per cent in the number of international visitors. However, the International Visitor Survey statistics for the same time showed that South Australia had a decline in international visitors of 2.4 per cent. In Tasmania there was a similar discrepancy. The ABS said that international tourism to Tasmania in 1983-84 declined by 4.3 per cent, but the International Visitor Survey showed that there had been an increase of 46.6 per cent in the number of international visitors coming into the State. In my home State of Queensland, the ABS said that there had been an increase of 13.6 per cent in the number of international visitors in that year. The IVS said that there had been a decrease of 12.6 per cent. The IVS figures can be related to other figures, and I refer to visitor night figures. Taking the IVS figures and relating them to the number of visitor nights spent in Queensland in those 12 months, one can see that they were up by 18.2 per cent; in other words, the visitors going to that State are staying longer. Even more importantly for the tourist industry and its potential for employment growth, the expenditure in that State in 1983-84 was up by 24.6 per cent. I am not blaming anyone in particular for this because up until 1978 it was virtually impossible to find out anything about the tourist industry in terms of statistics. There is a great need in this country to look towards trying to get some sort of consolidation-indeed, a system that would be reliable and would cover all aspects of the industry-so that we can get proper growth and development in those terms. In looking at the estimates it is obvious that the Australian Tourist Commission will continue its major campaign in the United States of America for American tourists. The Opposition welcomes that move. I understand, though, that the Minister today put out a Press release in which he said that, unfortunately, he would not be able to spend as much as he would like to spend in the Japanese market because we do not have the infrastructure to handle that. I should imagine it is more likely that the Australian Tourist Commission does not have the funds to meet the tremendous costs which would be involved in promoting Australia in Japan to the extent that it would like to. I say to the Minister that, in those prime tourist destinations of Australia, I believe there is certainly a fair bit of capacity that can be taken up by Japanese tourists. One thing for which I give full congratulations to this Government is the introduction of charter flights, which have begun this month, into Perth and into Cairns in north Queensland. I think that is an indication of the tremendous interest in the Japanese market. Those charter flights are really what tourism is all about. Although we are experiencing a very short charter season this year, this is a point of principle that I have been trying to establish in this place for many years. One would hope that, even though direct services have been approved for Qantas Airways Ltd between Japan and Perth and a joint service between Qantas and Japan Air Lines between Japan and Cairns and Brisbane, it will not stop the charter programs in years to come. The charter flights will really be the basis for mass tourism in Australia. It would seem to me to be absolutely essential that we get those charter flights in place if the Australian Tourist Commission is to reach its figure of two million international visitors by the year 1988. Frankly, we have to double last year's figures if we are to reach that target. We have to make sure, because of the very nature of Australia and because of its position at the end of the long haul routes, that we have the capacity to be able to get in, most importantly, at the right price. I know that a lot has been said in this House in the past week or so about the effect of the Government's taxation package on the hospitlaity industry. There is definitely a spin-off for the tourist industry. While it can be argued that those restrictions that have been placed by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the hospitality industry in terms of the restaurant trade will not greatly affect tourism in places such as the Gold Coast or far north Queensland, it really is not true in the capital cities. We hope that we have the capacity to put in place the best possible infrastructure to entertain those international visitors who go to the capital cities. Despite what we may think, the capital cites of Australia are the principal tourist destinations. Any increase in the number of restaurants or the variety of restaurants certainly will not help the tourist industry whatsoever. I also take the Minister to task on a statement he made in this House last week concerning the proliferation of international airports in Australia. He cited the cases of Townsville and Cairns in my home State of Queensland as two airports that should not have been built. There are plenty of overseas experiences which indicate that we need the airport first before we will ever get an international tourist industry. We can look at a number of places, including Bali. Bali had no infrastructure whatsoever. An international runway was built, complete with the international facilities, and Bali now has one of the biggest tourist industries in South East Asia. I think the same can be said for places such as Cairns and Townsville in far north Queensland. It is obvious that there is a market there for international visitors and it is obvious that, if we can get those charter flights in, the future of Australia will be very great indeed. I ask honourable members to look at a question on notice that I asked the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) in recent times concerning the number of international arrivals in Cairns and Townsville. The figures show that there has been a most satisfactory increase in the number of international visitors coming to Australia and entering Australia through its front door. According to overseas surveys the Great Barrier Reef is our major tourist attraction followed by Ayers Rock and then Sydney. It is only right that international visitors should come to Australia through its front door, namely, the airports of Townsville, Cairns and Brisbane, rather than the tradesmen's entrances of Sydney and Melbourne. Mr John Brown —Turn it up. Mr JULL —If the Minister looks at those figures he will see that big increase, and that is what we want to encourage. Overall, it is good to see that the Australian Tourist Commission now has sufficient funds to enable it to promote Australia overseas. It is good to see that the American campaign is working and that there will now be a great deal of concentration on the high income markets in Europe, including the German and Scandinavian markets which, in many respects, probably offer an even greater potential in the long run, certainly in terms of the amount spent by tourists, than the North American market. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.45) —On the appropriations for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment I will, in the main, confine my remarks to the arts. It was claimed recently by a well-known actor and director that politicians knew little about the arts. That might or might not be true. Perhaps, given the multiplicity of matters and issues that all politicians have to know about, compared to economic issues, industrial relations, youth unemployment and defence, the arts do not occupy as high a position in our list of priorities as perhaps they should. But there are many of us who do have a close and abiding interest in the arts. I also suggest that many in the arts community do not know how the political system works. Perhaps some education on both sides might not go astray. This Government and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is in the House, have nothing to apologise for in their approach to the arts. I wonder why those who scream loudest when Labor is in power remain so silent when the conservatives occupy the treasury benches. The critics are not always very accurate in what they state. For example, honourable members were recently supplied with a document in which it was claimed that greyhound racing received more funding than the arts. This is just not true, but it received wide publicity. Criticism of the Government's funding support for the arts has ignored the Government's achievements since it came into office. There has been an overall increase of funding to the arts of over 42 per cent, and one figure not often cited, but of great significance to the arts, has been the amount of funding under the community employment program. Since Labor has been in office over $27m has been allocated to the arts and arts-related activities under the community employment program, thus creating 2,539 full time positions. When these figures are added together it can be seen that this Government has been the most generous to the arts in Australia's history. It is obvious that the Government's critics have been selective in choosing targets for criticism and, in doing so, they have chosen to ignore the full extent of government support for arts and cultural activities in this country. We hear a lot about arm's length funding from various arts groups. It is interesting to note that, in the context of total arts funding, the total Commonwealth contribution to the arts is around 45 per cent. The other 55 per cent comes from the States. We do not hear anyone screaming about arm's length funding by the States. There is a cogent argument to support the view that those who provide the ultimate money to the arts should not attempt to tell the recipients how to spend it. In short, the Government should not tell the opera or theatre companies what work to perform. We do not want to interfere with artistic merit; this should be left to peer assessment. Direct political and bureaucratic interference can be dangerous and our system should continue to avoid it. When we talk about funding, be it arm's length or single line budgeting, we are talking about taxpayers' money. As the Government has to be accountable, we as the Government must be assured regarding the spending of taxpayers' money. If the people of Australia have learnt anything from recent publicity surrounding the Bicentennial, surely they have learnt this. When we speak about arm's length funding let us not forget that even the various councils and their members are not removed from areas of patronage in their funding. The arts in Australia have a vitality and creative energy admired the world over. There have been superb achievements in the visual arts, in films, with the national companies, the Australian Ballet and the Australian Opera. The days of the cultural cringe are behind us and we must ensure that they remain behind us. But we must not encourage a sense of frustration to do with lack of resources, a frustration which at times causes genuine discouragement to those working in the arts; nor is it just a matter of money. Often the frustration reflects a fear that the arts are not regarded in high places with quite the concern needed to sustain them or which their achievements deserve. Too often there is conflict between the expensive national companies themselves, or between these and smaller groups; between the artistic needs of the capital cities and those of smaller communities; between the new and the traditional; between support for creative artists as opposed to the performers and the audiences; between raising standards and keeping prices down to make the arts more accessible; and between quality and quantity. While always being aware of how the taxpayers' dollar is spent, we must ensure that our concern for efficiency is not in danger of driving out concern for artistic standards. I am sure that those lobby groups attacking the Government do the arts community no service by attacking one art form against another. It is sometimes claimed that the arts are a minority interest, but such criticism is unwarranted. Not only do those critics ignore the numbers involved, including vast numbers who enjoy the arts through the media, but they comfortably forget that practically everything in life is a minority interest. Questions have been raised recently about the cost of the Australian Opera company. I do not know that I would go as far as Dr Johnson, who called opera `an irrational and exotic art form', but opera is, always has been and always will be an expensive art form. Need the management of opera also be so expensive? I wonder how much the General Manager of the Australian Opera is paid. I have been told that there would not be much change from $1m for the salaries of the top four people employed by the Australian Opera. By world standards that figure may not be exorbitant, but at least we should know, as we know the salary of the Director of the Australian National Gallery. We should know the salary of the General Manager of the Australian Opera and other details about the cost of management. I would not argue about the need for the so-called flagship companies to be funded-indeed to be well funded-but there must be a balance between funding for these centres of excellence and funding for community arts and local groups. I recently saw some gowns used by Dame Joan Sutherland in various operas, many of which cost up to $10,000. Many local groups, which work so hard, could achieve much with this $10,000. I believe that there is a role for opera, ballet and the orchestras which have brought great credit and distinction to Australia, but we have to encourage young Australians and to shake off the last vestiges of the cultural cringe. I believe that we can do this by seeing that a distinctly Australian culture emerges. Funding for the arts, if it is removed from surveillance, can lead to anomalies. Often those best able to write submissions can obtain funding, or those with the best connections. I had an example of this recently in my own electorate, where an excellent local group applied to the Australia Council for funding. That group is the Bomaderry Players of Nowra, of which I have the honour to be one of the patrons. Mr Cohen —That well known group. Mr HOLLIS —That well known group, as the Minister rightly said. This group is, in my view-I may be a little biased-a centre of excellence, but because it did not have friends in the Australia Council or because it did not have funding previously, its application was rejected. Very little arts money finds its way into the Throsby electorate-I wonder why. There must be more equitable sharing of arts funds between the capital cities and the rural areas. I believe that an economic case can be made for continued funding of the arts but, though economic justification is important, it is not the be all and end all. More fundamental, even if less persuasive politically, is the impact the arts make on our quality of life-something easier to recognise than to define. We know that a satisfactory life means more than food, drink, housing, work or welfare. The physical environment and services make for the smooth running of life; so certainly do the arts. Who can doubt that they enrich our lives; make for more civilised cities and community living; provide happiness when so much else can be depressing; raise our sights and our morale; and, with inevitably increasing leisure and early retirement, they have an ever-increasing contribution to make to our daily life. In supporting the arts we should remember that it takes a long time to bring an artistic enterprise to a high standard, but little time to decline. I believe that Australia can benefit from a nationally conceived arts policy, with a framework of broad priorities, even if much of its implementation is determined by the regions or the States. There must be more access to the arts, in all its forms, for those who live away from the capital cities. We must remove all vestiges of elitism from the arts. Many people think that opera, for example, is elitist, but it is elitist only because of its cost. For instance there is nothing elitist about opera in the park. We must never lose the ability to laugh at ourselves, but there is a difference between this and cynical knocking. The arts in Australia are of world standard and we can take our place in the international arts community. People such as Barry Humphries, in his character Les Paterson, from which he has made a lot of money by knocking Australia and the arts in Australia, have done great damage to the Australian arts. Although many people in the arts field have brought great credit to Australia, such is not the case with Barry Humphries. I believe that we must ensure that the whole spectrum of the arts gets financial support. It will under this Government, so that it can continue with the important role of enriching the life of all Australians. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(4.56) —I wish to speak particularly on the tourism section of the estimates for the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. The tourism industry is extremely important to the Australian economy and this was highlighted recently by a study carried out by the Bureau of Industry Economics. The Bureau found that, in the year ending September 1982, tourism accounted for 5.2 per cent of national employment and 4.8 per cent of the gross domestic product. I do not believe that tourism should be thought of as an economic cure-all or panacea, but the impact of tourism should never be underestimated. As an example, in my electorate of Cowper direct tourism expenditure totalled $265m in 1984. With tourism, and especially overseas tourism, playing an important and expanding role in both the regional and national economies, I am extremely concerned about the apparent lack of candour shown by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Department in the 1985 estimates regarding the number of overseas tourists we can expect between now and 1988. First, I will deal with the anticipated arrival figures for overseas visitors-the much-trumpeted extra one million overseas visitors in 1988-and then the amount being spent on tourism promotion overseas. The estimates state, and the Minister has constantly proclaimed all over Australia, that the target figure for overseas arrivals is 1,225,000 in 1985 and 1,450,000 in 1986, leading up to the one million additional overseas tourists the good fairies are supposed to bring us in 1988. So far, so good. The Minister and the Department have failed to tell the House that the Australian Tourist Commission set these target figures on the premise of an annual sustained increase in overseas tourism of 15 per cent. Further, the House has not been told that the Australian Tourist Commission has a different set of figures-the forecasts for anticipated overseas tourist arrivals-which vary dramatically from the much vaunted target figures. Unlike the airy-fairy target figures which we have been urged to accept as gospel, the forecasts are based on current market research and actual arrival figures. In other words, the forecast figures represent what the ATC considers to be realistic and achievable arrival figures for overseas tourists. The forecasts are based on the assumption of an increase of 7.4 per cent per annum. These forecast figures place anticipated overseas tourist arrivals at 1,124,000 in 1985, which is 101,000 people fewer than the target figure; at 1,210,000 in 1986, which is 240,000 visitors fewer than the target figure; and at 1,440,000 in 1988, which is 560,000 fewer tourists than the Minister's suggested one million additional visitors for the Bicentenary. I would be delighted if the Minister's target figures could be reached. However, for the Minister to represent the target figures as a realistic anticipated result, with no mention of the Australian Tourist Commission's forecast figures, is a gross misrepresentation of the real position. The fact is that there will not be an extra one million overseas visitors in Australia in 1988. This will not happen. The realistic expectation is that we will have an extra 425,000 visitors in 1988, as forecast by the Australian Tourist Commission. Why has the Minister not told us this? If that were not bad enough, one must question the entire basis of the overseas marketing operations of the Australian Tourist Commission. The key to attracting overseas visitors is to invest money in tourism promotion and marketing, and I do acknowledge that the amount spent has increased in the last few years. However, I doubt very much whether the amount being spent will be enough to achieve even the forecast figures, let alone the far-fetched target figures for overseas tourist arrivals. This financial year the Government will spend $32.65m on overseas tourism promotion. This figure includes the much talked about TOPS program. If we achieve the 1986 forecast of 1,210,000 overseas visitors, we can expect a total income from them-at $1,400 per head, which I believe is the Department's new figure-of $16.94 billion. Our total expenditure will therefore be 0.19 per cent of income. In other words, the Federal Government is seriously asking this Parliament and the people of Australia to believe that its forecast tourist visitor figure for 1986 can be achieved by its spending a mere 0.19 per cent of the total anticipated tourist expenditure on promotion. This is laughable. This sum is insignificant when it is recalled that it is common for industries in this country to spend up to 20 per cent or more of their sales revenue on promotion of their goods and services. It is a reasonable rule of thumb that any sizable company wishing to market its products to consumers could sensibly spend 5 per cent of its overall sales turnover on advertising. Attracting tourists is a serious and highly competitive business and we are competing with the world. This being the case, I find it very difficult to understand the thought processes of the ATC when it comes to marketing. New Zealand is our biggest market, providing 23 per cent of all our overseas visitors last year. Why, then, are we reducing our expenditure in that market by 12 per cent? Last year, the United States of America and Canada contributed 19 per cent of our overseas tourists so, in this Budget, we are reducing our expenditure in North America by 12.8 per cent. Where is the sense in that? North America has enormous potential for providing valuable input to our tourist market and I cannot understand why any responsible Minister would allow his marketing organisation to retreat from a demonstrated growth area. It appears quite clear that this Government does not have the remotest idea of how to go about marketing tourism. Of course, everyone is delighted with the success of the Paul Hogan advertising in the United States in the first and third quarters of 1984. It is undoubtedly gratifying that visitors from the United States increased by 15 per cent in 1984, but it is worth noting that the figure also increased by 15 per cent in 1983, without the benefit of Hoges coming the barbied prawn-or dare I say shrimp. I do not wish to denigrate Mr Hogan's contribution, but we should be aware that the number of Japanese visitors to Australia in 1984 increased by 22 per cent, again without the benefit of ocker advertisements. Another matter which concerns me is that, with the Minister running around trumpeting inflated arrival figures, small business men and women will make investment decisions to provide local tourist facilities to overseas visitors who are only a myth in the Minister's mind. The Minister runs a great danger of being directly responsible for many Australian small businesses going broke because they have accepted that he has said there are overseas tourists coming to Australia and believed he spoke the truth. The Minister has a great responsibility to ensure that the community obtains accurate information. Instead, the Minister is promoting ridiculously optimistic figures and then doing very little to ensure that sufficient funds are spent on promotion and marketing to give his wild optimism even the remotest chance of achievement. The Minister has been an excellent salesman in successfully selling himself and erecting a false facade of government concern for the tourism industry in Australia. The Minister has sold himself; how about getting around to marketing Australia to the world. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.05) —It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), heard the remarks made by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) as I did. I suggest that the honourable member for Cowper come to my home city of Perth to see what is happening there. Mr Nehl —A lovely city. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —That is right. The honourable member for Cowper correctly says that it is a lovely city. There is an absolute tourism boom- Mr Cohen —Enhanced by your representations. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I thank the Minister. There is a tourism boom there. It is a really exciting place and a lot is happening. The general thrust of what the Minister has been doing has produced results there. I could talk at length about what is happening to small businesses in Perth. What is happening there is really substantial. The Minister has really got tourism moving. I am not about to make a heavy political point but tourism was one of the industries in Australia that had been neglected. There has been promotion to improve the position. Paul Hogan has made a major contribution and the contribution made by the Australian Tourist Commission and that made at a ministerial level have also been substantial. I believe that the country is on the move. A lot of overseas visitors are coming here but also a lot of Australians are learning to discover many things about Australia. They are getting to know their country. That is a great source of pride to us all. I think we are all very pleased to see what is happening in Western Australia in particular, as well as in my home city of Perth. At the same time as complimenting the Minister, I also compliment the State Government of Brian Burke because he has got things moving in the tourism area. He has provided a focus of interest and created a great deal of enthusiasm. The `Holiday WA' program in Western Australia has been a great source of satisfaction to many of us. People living in Western Australia are having a good look at that State, and many thousands more will follow. I hope that people listening to this debate will take the opportunity to go to Western Australia and have a good look around, because it really is an exciting State. The weather is great, the people are friendly and it is a good place to visit. I would like to make a couple of points about sport. Previously in debates in this place I have spoken about the question of tax averaging for professional sports people. I believe we ought to address this as a matter of priority. There is considerable community support for it. Let me instance why this is the case. Wherever we look-at people in rugby league, Australian rules football, soccer and so on-we see that competitors in general have a very short earning period in which they earn fairly high levels of income. Often prior to embarking upon their particular sporting career, and subsequent to it, they go back to earning very modest incomes. Often their memories are trophies and tax receipts from the Commissioner of Taxation reminding them of the high marginal tax rates they had paid. I believe we ought to be giving those people the same opportunity that people in primary production, authors and inventors get; that is, the capacity to average their income over a period of years, and thereby pay a lower average marginal tax rate. We are all about getting equity into the tax system at the moment, and we ought to be doing that. The second point I want to address is one which I believe is of considerable importance, and that is the area of disputes over sporting contracts. People who follow various sports would be aware that often there are times when a player seeks to leave one club and go to another. This gives rise to a substantial legal dispute and, usually, substantial legal costs. For example, it is not uncommon to find that the costs for a footballer moving from, say, Western Australia to Victoria, can be $100,000 in terms of briefing counsel and court appearances. A simple solution which I recommend that the sportsmen themselves look at is to use the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deal with these disputes. It is very clear from the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the Adamson case in 1979, when Adamson was seeking to go from the West Perth Club to Norwood, that footballers were regarded as employees and the club as their employer. That applies in sporting activity now. We now find that professional sports people are regarded as employees and the clubs that they play for are their employers. As that is the case it makes sense to deal with disputes through the arbitration system. The matter would be dealt with more quickly as it does not require any formal system of awards, simply the negotiation of contracts, and therefore those matters can be dealt with much more readily. It is something I re- commend we look at and it is something I believe the Australian Sports Commission ought to look at as I think there is a lot of merit in eliminating the substantial legal costs. I believe junior sport is something this Government is paying considerable attention to. I believe we ought to be encouraging it at every level. There are lots of examples we can point to. Kanga cricket for young Australians is one. It is with great regret that I note that Dr Edelsten, in all of his coup making attempts with the Sydney Swans Football Club, is not talking about junior football development. All he is talking about is using big money to buy coaches and players to try to do something at the top level. Our concern in this community must be for sporting development at the junior level; absolutely. I commend to the House an event to be held tomorrow, the Deanmore Primary School sports day, which will be an example of junior sport at its best, where young people are competing one with another. I believe that that is where the future lies-in junior sport development. I believe that the example being set by Dr Edelsten, of throwing a lot of money around seeking to buy teams and players, is not the example for Australians. The example for Australians is all about doing it from the bottom up, getting young people and building them up. It is a great regret of mine that Dr Edelsten is seeking to destroy the VFL competition and is not providing a good example for young people but simply saying: `I will trail millions of dollars and hope to pick up the sorts of players who will win the premiership'. What about juniors? I wish he would address himself to them, because the Government is doing that, so is the Sports Commission, and so are many sporting bodies. We are very pleased about that, because it is in the juniors that the future lies. I have also spoken about the question of arbitration. I believe that there have been some approaches to us to remove that restraint of trade provision in the Trade Practices Act under common law arrangements. I believe that a more effective way to deal with common law actions in terms of sporting disputes is to take them into the arbitration area. In Western Australia, incidentally, under section 29(2) of the State Industrial Act, it is very easy for a person under contract to seek to deal with matters of dispute in an area of contract not covered by awards. That is something I would commend to sporting bodies, and I certainly commend the Sports Commission to look at it. It is a major area in which we can save money in sport and we can deal with these disturbing disputes that will always arise in sporting matters. I turn to another matter that I believe is important. Previous speakers have spoken about tourism, and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) had some very sensible things to say about that. On that point, my home suburb of Scarborough is experiencing a substantial impact in tourism. The Bond Corporation is building a major hotel there. The Scarborough Surf Life Saving Club, which will be hosting the national surf titles in 1986-87, will feel that impact. I appeal to the Bond Corporation and to the community in general to try to provide support for the Scarborough Surf Life Saving Club. It is a major issue. There will be thousands of people on that beach and many people living in the hotel who will not have experienced the dangerous conditions of Australian surf. It is being left to this voluntary organisation, the Scarborough Surf Life Saving Club, to deal with the whole issue. I believe that we as a community, the Bond Corporation, the State Government and the Federal Government, should be getting behind the Scarborousgh Surf Life Saving Club to equip it not only for handling those titles but for handling the number of people who will be coming to Scarborough. It is a major issue and it deserves attention. There is one final matter to which I want to pay attention. With the development of the Bond Corporation's hotel site at Scarborough, a substantial problem has arisen. I refer to the question of television interference in Scarborough, which falls within this area of the impact of tourism on areas. We have a particularly serious situation where hundreds of people in homes in Scarborough can no longer enjoy normal television reception because of the interference caused by this high-rise building. When we talk about growth, one of the problems we face is that in terms of our planning we often do not recognise that it has some negative impacts. On this occasion, I am appealing to the Bond Corporation to try to provide some support for the local community, to help us as a community to solve the problem. I have a letter here from the Buchanans of Duke Street, Scarborough, which exemplifies the problem. Mr Buchanan is an invalid pensioner who has had a stroke and cannot do very much except watch television. He now is without that important recreation. It is something I would ask the Bond Corporation to look at. It is something that we as a community should be addressing. I am sure that we can solve the problem. In this debate there are many good things to talk about. I know that the Ministers, in their summings-up, will address some of those. It is a pleasure to be in the chamber to support the Government on these matters. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(5.14) —I listened with some fascination to the early part of the speech by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), particularly as he addressed himself to the subject of tax and income averaging for sportsmen. I think it should be noted that, as well as speaking very eloquently, he was addressing his words very appealingly direct to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is in the chamber. The reason for my surprise is that I should have thought it was unnecessary for the honourable member for Stirling to address those remarks to the Minister, because I understood that that was Australian Labor Party policy. The Minister nods his head; he affirms that it is ALP policy. In that case, I say good luck to the honourable member for Stirling in his endeavours to get the Minister to carry out his Party's policy. It has some relevance to the issue about which I shall speak. Unfortunately, with only 10 minutes to speak at this stage of the debate, one must be confined in one's comments. Mine will be addressed to the appropriations for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. The matter of broken promises by the Labor Party is, of course, one that can be raised in many areas, but notably in the area of the arts. I recall that during the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) also promised to address a Hawke government to the problems of income averaging of artists, which can be quite an extreme problem on occasions. With all the great tax reform that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been trumpeting and praising himself for here in recent weeks, there is no sign of that Labor Party policy surfacing either. That, however, is not the main thing about which I want to talk today. I want to address yet again the question of the funding of arts in Australia, particularly that area of arts activity that is connected with the Australia Council; in other words, I am not talking at this stage about films. I note that in the appropriations this year the Australia Council has received an increase over its 1984-85 appropriation amounting to 5.6 per cent. I also place on the record that in the Budget Papers the Government says that the inflation factor which it is anticipating for the financial year to which this Budget addresses itself is 7 per cent. So funding for the Australia Council will not, as intended by the Government, keep up with inflation this year. That contrasts quite strangely with the 1983 ALP policy on the arts and, in particular, in relation to the Australia Council. That promise was to return, within three years, funding for the Australia Council to the level of the 1975 Budget-the last Whitlam Budget. That was a quite firm promise. When it had not reached that stage prior to the last election, the ALP could say: `Ah, but we have had only two Budgets, and there are three Budgets in a normal parliamentary term'. It had said `in its first term'. So I think the arts community awaited with some expectation the 1985-86 Budget. There had been increases in Australia Council funding in the 1983 and 1984 Budgets, but not increases to the level that would have approached that of 1975. Of course, in this third Budget, instead of having funding raised to that level, it will be effectively reduced because the increase is not even equal to the increase that would be needed to keep up with inflation. I have taken some interest in other speeches that have been made here on the arts. I note that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) seems to be the main advocate for the Government in the area of the arts. On 26 March 1985 he came into this place and stated a section from the ALP arts policy. The part he stated did not contain any reference to the promise to raise funding to the 1975 level. That is not surprising, because later in his speech he said: The present Government and, in particular, the present Minister have a policy of eventually returning funding for arts and culture in this country to the peak level of fiscal year 1975-76. That was the first time I had heard that change of wording-`eventually' raising it to that level, instead of within three years raising it to that level. Certainly the term was not used during the 1984 election campaign. I am not aware that those words have come out of the mouth of the Minister in public. It may be that the honourable member for Grayndler knows more about it than I do. It contrasts rather strangely with this policy that had been proclaimed. The area the honourable member for Grayndler particularly addresses in this place relates to music funding, and that is an area that I particularly want to address in the context of these appropriations. Prior to the 1983 Budget, the so-called flagship companies, the Australian Opera, the Australian Ballet and the Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras, were funded under one-line appropriations and separately from the Australia Council. During debate on the appropriations one year when I was in the Senate, Senator David Hamer moved a motion that these fundings should not be one-line fundings, and that the funding for these companies ought to come through the Australia Council in order to maintain the arm's length principle in arts funding. I was one of the few Government senators who, together with the Labor Party senators, voted for that motion. I say now that I bitterly regret that action. I was certainly critical of the provision of direct government funding to specific companies when I was in government. I now know, because of what followed, why the Fraser Government did it. The funding went into the Australia Council funding, which meant that there was an enormous increase in Australia Council funds. The funding itself was not increased in any way. Funding for the Australian Opera was allotted to the Music Board, as was funding for the Trust orchestras, and funding for the Australian Ballet was allotted to the Theatre Board. Those three flagship companies received increases for inflation in the 1983-84 allocation. What followed was not along the lines of an arm's length principle but the classic two-card trick. Because substantial sums of money were allocated to the Australia Council budget simply because with that money went responsibility for the flagship companies and, because there was added to the Music Board's budget a very large sum of money, it then had to take responsibility for the Australian Opera and Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras, there followed the loud wails of complaint that we have heard in the last two years from people associated with music and the Music Board about what a large percentage of the Music Board's funds the Opera and the Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras take. Let it be made clear in words of one syllable: That money would not have been made available to be allotted to the Opera and the Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras if they had not been included in the Australia Council funding in the first place. If they had remained under one-line appropriations the money would not have been in the name of the Music Board. What followed was a long, very nasty and unfair campaign against the Australian Opera in particular. It is possible that some details of the Australian Opera's operations could be criticised. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), said that, apparently, Dame Joan Sutherland had a costume that was valued at $10,000. I can say only that I cannot make any judgment on that any more than can anybody in this chamber unless he or she is an expert on the subject of opera costumes. They are expensive items. It may be that that area of the Australian Opera's spending is open to some criticism, but, overall it is not. I do not believe that its direction is open to criticism. Apparently the Australian Opera is now to become a part time opera company. I hope that this is not in line with the term used by the honourable member for Grayndler to which I already referred-the `democratisation of the arts'. If that means that one funds the arts according to where most people go, it is a great shame. I have been a rock and roll fan all my life. I also like the opera. But what distinguishes rock and roll and country music and so on from opera is that the former industries run at a profit. Opera does not run at a profit anywhere in the world. It is accepted that if a country is to have opera it must be prepared to subsidise it. The only musicians in the categories that Government spokesmen talk about who would need subsidy are the failed musicians. Failed or would-be opera stars do not get subsidies. The Minister's role in this matter has been very particular. He has much to answer for. There is debate now about whether the arm's length funding principle ought to be maintained. I can say only that it has already been destroyed by the actions of this Government. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.25) —I would like to make a contribution on the estimates for the Department of Territories. The matters I wish to raise are related in part to a news item that appeared in today's Sun News-Pictorial . I make it clear in relation to that article that, as a member of this House, I received certain information about an organisation that operates in the Australian Capital Territory called the Through Art Unity-TAU-Community Association. As a result of receiving that information I initiated certain inquiries on my own behalf to satisfy myself as to whether there were matters I should bring to the attention of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) or of this House concerning the operations of that organisation. Apparently, independently of me, a journalist with the Sun News-Pictorial had received certain information on this matter, was making inquiries and, in the context of those inquiries, approached me. I offered certain comments on the matter. It is appropriate that I should emphasise the history of this matter because I would not have been raising it now were it not for the fact that I was pre-empted. The sorts of investigations and inquiries I would have liked to undertake were in no way complete. When I was asked to comment on the matter I stressed to the reporter concerned that I was very reluctant to be offering comments because the organisation involved was dealing with handicapped people. A member of the Morosi family was also mentioned. I would not want to be seen to be part of any orchestrated comments or otherwise that were designed to rely merely upon those two factors as a basis for commenting on the issue. Because of the matters that had been brought to my attention I initiated certain inquiries of my own and I would like to put them before the House. The first matter I became aware of was that on 11 July a grant was announced by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to this organisation through the Department of Community Services for $82,000 to fund equipment purchases, recurrent funding, with $54,000 for salaries for employment projects for seven disabled people, providing training in clerical work, theatre production and aspects of catering. I became aware that the organisation, Through Art Unity, runs a small theatre in Canberra with a vegetarian restaurant from premises in the old Mort Street motor registry. I also became aware that, at the time of some of the applications involving the organisation, it had some 45 members and certain employees. One matter that was brought to my attention and which has been confirmed by a statement that the organisation issued today is that it rents its Mort Street motor registry premises at a rental which is considerably below the commercial market rental for premises in Canberra. That might not be unusual if the organisation were carrying out only theatre commitments and the like. But the fact is that associated with it is a commercial operation designed to support its other activities. It is claimed by the operators that that puts them in a special position. Being aware of that matter, I am concerned about it and am concerned to know whether, when the arrangement was negotiated, as these people claim, it was negotiated on the basis that all that information was before the Government. I have some doubts about that because of two factors. First and foremost, the lease conditions upon which the premises were granted to this organisation indicated that it was for a theatre and theatre-related activities. The lease spoke about purposes incidental to those theatre and theatre-related activities. It would not have been difficult, if those matters were fully disclosed, to ensure that the lease purpose conditions covered the wider activity of running a restaurant. The objectives of the organisation as outlined in its formal written constitution, of which I have a copy from a search in the Australian Capital Territory's Corporate Affairs Commission yesterday, are all worthy and very appropriate. It also indicates a number of powers of that organisation. If one goes through each of the powers of that body one finds that they are powers to produce, manage and conduct theatres, halls, galleries and the like, to engage and employ persons, groups and bands to facilitate those objectives and to engage in a whole lot of other activities related to the running of a theatre, including the leasing of property, receiving grants and the like. Nowhere is the organisation given power, under its own objectives, to run a restaurant to make profits for that organisation which are to be ploughed back into the organisation. That is very important, because, at the time the organisation was registered, all the documents that would have been available for those who were inquiring into this matter in order to make a judgment on whether to approve of TAU carrying on a restaurant business there and the basis upon which the rental should be set, clearly did not give the organisation that power. There is not a great deal of time available in these Estimates debates to deal with all the relevant matters, but there is one particular matter with which I wish to deal. In relation to the organisation itself, it is obliged to lodge certain returns under the Australian Capital Territory Associations and Corporations Ordinance of 1953. Yesterday, as I have said, I did a search in relation to that organisation. At the time of the search the register showed that there were lodged an authority, a notice of intention to register, an application, a statutory declaration, a certificate of incorporation, notification of the name of the public officer and a constitution. The last document was filed on 25 June 1984. Since that time no accounts have been lodged, neither have any changes of names of office bearers of the organisation. If these have been lodged, they have not been connected with the file. Some of the changes that are advised in the statement that has been issued by the organisation today would indicate that many of the changes of officers occurred a long time ago and that there are breaches of the Associations and Corporations Ordinance in relation to that. That raises certain matters that should be taken into account in any investigation of this matter. We then come to the question of the people who are involved in this organisation. The statement today indicates that certain changes occurred in relation to the chairperson of the organisation. It also indicates that Miss Morosi was elected chairperson of TAU at a public meeting in March 1985. At today's meeting certain reports were tabled as the first annual report 1984 of the organisation. It makes this statement by the organisation's president: May I ask you to welcome the following new members to the committee, each of whom has been appointed since July 1983. . . July 1983 was well before the time when the documents were lodged with the Corporate Affairs Commission. When one goes through the documents one finds certain background information about the committee of management. There we get a different statement which indicates that Miss Morosi was appointed from October 1984. Yet her name and names of certain other people associated with this organisation were not mentioned in relation to the documents. There are a number of other important matters which should be examined in relation to this organisation, but which I do not have time to discuss in full-the questions of operating in excess of its constitution, the question of whether it disclosed full information to the Department and to those people who are considering other grants relating to the question of other funds that it might have been receiving. Those are matters that I hope the Minister will consider carefully and I hope he will initiate an inquiry into this organisation so that we all may be satisfied as to the matters I have raised. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories)(5.36) —The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has raised matters which have been the subject of Press articles published this morning. It is unfortunate that any organisation in the Australian Capital Territory which finds itself involved with a member of the Morosi family should be judged on that basis rather than on the basis of its own performance. Mr Tim Fischer —There is historical record for it. Mr SCHOLES —Unfortunately that is now the case. This morning's article in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial makes that fairly clear. The organisation has been judged. It has been predetermined that because Miss Morosi is a member of that organisation, the organisation is in some way tainted. There are matters which have been under investigation for some considerable time relating to a dispute with my Department over the interpretation of the lease purpose clause. In April this year, my Department wrote to the organisation indicating that the organisation appeared to be in breach of the lease purpose clause. The organisation has disputed that and recently we wrote back to it indicating that we believed our original opinion was correct but we have sought advice from the Crown Solicitor. Originally, as part of its operation, this organisation planned to run a coffee shop, which I would have thought was within the meaning of running a performing arts centre. In fairness to the organisation, I must say that irrespective of whether it has lodged its returns properly-that is not a matter that is within my departmental responsibility-it has been fairly successful in the task that it was established to perform in that it has consistently employed a number of persons in the area, which was stated as being one of the aims of the organisation. The first funding that the organisation received was a community employment program grant for 52 weeks to employ six persons. I think that grant was of the order of $90,000. That is within the realm of CEP grants which are approved elsewhere for that sort of period and that sort of employment. That grant has been completed and the audit and other processes that are consequential upon the grant have also been substantially completed and lodged. Last year an application was made by the organisation for continuing funding through the community development fund. The application was granted in November last year. As well there have been other minor grants from other areas. Some have been successful, some have not. It is unfortunate that the organisation itself has been brought into disrepute in a `guilty-by-association' process. The organisation began in 1983 and it operated quite successfully and fulfilled the purposes of a major grant in the almost 12 months before Miss Morosi became a member of the committee. I have no evidence that would suggest that any of the funds appropriated to the body have been used for a purpose which was not in line with the purposes of the grant. Certainly, there is a dispute over the restaurant. There are restaurant proprietors in the Australian Capital Territory who have initiated complaints against the operation of that restaurant on the grounds of unfair competition. I suppose in reverse we could have said at some stage that those restaurants which were dependent on expense account meals were being unfairly subsidised as against those that did not have that type of clientele. That is not an unreasonable comparison. The grant which has been made by the Department of Community Services is for training in operations of a sort which would apply to a sheltered workshop. We should remember that the people employed in this are handicapped people. They have disadvantages in the work place. The grants for the purpose of employing these people are not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. At the highest ratio on the CEP grant, the rate would be $15,000 per annum per person. For people who are not handicapped, one would find that that sort of ratio and higher ratios appear in numerous CEP grants. As I understand it, the wages have been supplemented from the earnings of the restaurant. Mr Ruddock —There were variations in the grants made on 11 July. I do not know what inferences you draw from that, but there were considerable variations. Mr SCHOLES —The grant in July was not a CEP type grant. It was a recurrent funding grant in respect of a publicly available program. Nine or 10 other grants in the same area were announced on the same date. If the honourable member suggests that there is something wrong with that grant, he should indicate what it is. What I am saying is that we have to consider the matter of the lease which runs out in February and the option in that lease of a three-year extension. There is also the question of the lease purpose clause upon which we have sought a legal opinion. If this organisation is performing the task for which it was set up and is performing that task so effectively that it is a danger to commercial competitors in the same field, it would be most unfortunate if it were to be dealt with differently simply because some notoriety is attached to one of the members of the committee. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(5.42) —I wish to make a few comments in answer to some of the contributions made on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) with regard to my Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer particularly to the remarks made by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull), the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). The honourable member for Fadden certainly has an innate understanding of the tourism industry. It was always a disappointment to me that in the previous Government he was not the Minister responsible for tourism because he knows so much about it. As usual, he made a very constructive contribution to this debate. He mentioned one thing which is worth talking about, which is the market in Japan. I make the observation that the reason we are not having a television advertising campaign in Japan is that we fear that it would bring too many Japanese tourists here at the one time. For one thing, there are not enough plane seats for them and until we get our infrastructure in place, we do not want to be besieged by Japanese tourists. That is what happened in Europe 20 years ago, to the disappointment of the Japanese who did not go back there for another 10 years. I am sure that the honourable member for Fadden realises that three major hotels in Sydney are either being constructed or are about to be managed by Japanese interests. The Japanese are about to complete the new Holiday Inn at Surfers Paradise. Such projects are being repeated all around Australia. Within a very short period there will be sufficient infrastructure to cope with a very large increase in Japanese tourism. In fact, we had a 50 per cent increase this year. But I feel that the honourable member for Fadden made his remarks more in envy than in anger because I know that he is very pleased with what this Government has been able to do with tourism. With regard to the honourable member for McPherson, I am pleased that he, as the new shadow Minister, takes a positive and constructive approach to his task. That certainly was not the position of his predecessor who fortunately has passed to another area, with no sorrow to the tourism industry or the sports community. Unfortunately, the honourable member for Cowper was not here during the previous Government of his parties when tourism was the forgotten industry of Australia and when nothing happened. I am very happy that this Government has seen the scope for increasing tourism in this country. I will just mention two or three things that we have managed to do that have been of great significance to the tourism industry. Mr Tim Fischer —Why don't you let East-West import two more aircraft? Why are you sitting on that application? Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member should ask the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) about that. The simple situation is that this Government has increased the depreciation rate on buildings in the tourism industry from 2 1/2 per cent to 4 per cent, which has had a significant effect. Developments worth $7,000m are being built at this very minute throughout Australia, some of which are in the electorate of the honourable member for Cowper. It is not that long ago that I was up there opening one of the best motels in Australia, Pelican Shores, which has been built as a direct result of that increase in the depreciation rate given by this Government. Of course, we then removed the sales tax on the building of pleasure boats for the tourism industry which, for some obscure reason, was introduced by the previous Government and which stopped the industry stone dead. This has now enabled all the resorts around Australia which need boats to get their tourists around to build those boats. I point out that, for instance, Hayman Island now has the Sun Goddess which was built in Australia at a cost of about $3m. It was about to be built in Taiwan before we altered the rules. It is probably the best tourist boat in the world and it operates in the Whitsunday Passage. It was built as a direct result of the sales tax being removed. We have increased the funds for the Australian Tourism Commission by 160 per cent in two Budgets, from the miserly amount given by the previous Government which was unaware of the potential of Australian tourism. We have introduced the tourism overseas promotion scheme, an export market development scheme which is controlled and governed by the tourism industry and not by some obscure bureaucrat in the Department of Trade. It will be controlled by the tourism industry. There are many other examples of what this Government has done to crank up tourism. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Fadden re-enter the chamber. In fact, we are pleased to see the honourable member for Fadden back in the Parliament. He is one of the more constructive members of this gathering. He has been ill for some time and I am pleased to see him back. I hope he heard my flattering remarks about his understanding of the tourism industry. With regard to the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), the self-confessed rock and roller and poor man's Suzy Quatro, she has only to sit and wait and she will find that tax averaging will be introduced-not just for sportsmen but also for people in the performing arts. That promise will be honoured, if not this year, certainly next year. It is something that is well overdue; I acknowledge that. There were not very many comments made about sport except by the honourable member for McPherson in his role as shadow Minister. Once again, he was quite constructive which pleases me greatly. He obviously exhibits an interest in sport which is very constructive because I like to think that sport is basically an apolitical matter. I must pay tribute to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), one of the better sportsmen with an innate love of the surf lifesaving movement, which came through in his speech. He has a real interest in sport in Australia in all of its manifestations. I am pleased to acknowledge his very constructive contribution to this debate. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.48) —In the short time allocated to me, I wish to address my remarks to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) whose departmental appropriations we are discussing. I refer to one specific part of his administration which is regional art galleries. I seek the Minister's response and views on what role he believes the Commonwealth should play in the funding and development of regional art galleries. I feel very strongly that they are greatly disadvantaged in the funding that they receive from the Commonwealth allocation for the arts. Of course, I acknowledge the involvement of State authorities and the role they play in setting priorities. The Minister has had charge of his Department for two and a half years and there has not been a significant restructuring of funding arrangements that would advantage regional art gallieries, which leads one to suggest that he is satisfied with the present arrangements. I submit to the Minister, as I have done in writing, that regional art galleries, such as the Sale regional gallery, are disadvantaged. They rely almost entirely on local government funding, private donations and public subscriptions, as well as a great deal of voluntary labour and assistance. The contributions of the Commonwealth and of almost all State authorities could be said to be minuscule. I realise that the Minister administers a portfolio where in competing groups, often with no regard for each other, compete for his assistance. It may be that their claims are often complicated by some of the temperaments of some of those involved, which are not always so conducive to the brand of consensus and reconciliation preached by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Notwithstanding those human complications that seem to enter the Minister's responsibilities from time to time, I believe that regional art galleries have made in the past and continue to make very strong cases for increased government assistance. I am not arguing that we increase the size of the cake as much. I argue that we need to reorganise our priorities so that these regional art galleries, which cater within their sphere for areas of tens of thousands of kilometres, receive proper assistance. The Sale regional art gallery has a catchment area of approximately 30,000 square kilometres. It is assisted by the calibre of the artists involved. Charles McCubbin, Annameika Mein, and Anne Greenway are three of the best known artists, but there is also a host of other local artists. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) would know that the La Trobe Valley regional art gallery headed by Prue McColl gives great service to parts of his electorate. That gallery also suffers from a lack of funding, most of which is directed at the Melbourne and the semi-urban galleries. Mrs Gwen Webb, who is the Director of the Sale Art Gallery and is very well known in art circles, assisted me in making a submission, sent to the Minister some 18 months ago, asking for a redressing of the imbalance that exists. I would be very interested to know the Minister's comments and to know whether he thinks that regional art galleries have a role to play in art education and in the appreciation of art in country areas. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.52) —I am at a slight disadvantage in speaking tonight, first of all because of the time limit and secondly because at eight o'clock tonight I will be making a major speech on the arts which will cover all the areas that we talked about. I say to those honourable members who do not get satisfaction in this short speech that they should come in tonight to listen to the full performance. First of all, I pay tribute to those who contributed to the debate. In particular, I single out the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) who is no mean artist in his own right. Mr McGauran —Finger painting. Mr COHEN —Finger painting is one of his skills. He is a folk dancer. I do not know whether honourable members have heard him perform on a gum leaf. Of course, he is also a well known stand-up comic. Any honourable member who has been to Caucus meetings will know what I am talking about. He is known as the Andre Malraux of the Southern Tablelands. I would find it very difficult to fulfil my task without his constant guidance and assistance. He made his usual superb contribution in this debate. However, I take issue with the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) who spent a great deal of time talking about the failure of the Government to honour its third step commitment to lift funding to the Australia Council to its 1975-76 level. I will be dealing with that in great detail tonight. I just make the comment that I really do not think that any member of the Fraser Government, which did what it did to the arts and slashed funding in those areas and made a considerable reduction in funding in real terms to the arts, can criticise this Government. In the short space of 2 1/2 years, in actual figures, funding has been lifted from $33.6m to $47m-an increase of 39.88 per cent, which is of great significance. In my speech tonight I shall concede to and will be admitting to the thrust of what the honourable member for Moncrieff said. But as she pointed out when one refers only to arts funding to the Australia Council one gets a very distorted picture of the whole arts scene. I shall just give the honourable member a quick rundown of the arts organisations that I deal with. There is of course the Australia Council, which I mentioned, but there is also the National Library of Australia, the Australian Film Commission, the Australian National Gallery, the Australian Archives, the Australian Film and Television School, the National Institute of Dramatic Art, the public lending right scheme, the National Film and Sound Archive, the Australian Heritage Commission, the Museum of Australia, the Australian Childrens Film and Television Foundation. These all have arts connections, not to mention the biggest item of the lot that I will be referring to in detail tonight, which is the community employment program, which dwarfs some of the other organisations that I mentioned. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) made a very courteous contribution. I understand and sympathise with his interest. Listening to the two speeches from the honourable member for Moncrieff and the honourable member for Gippsland it was interesting to note that they were a microcosm of the debate that is going on in the community today. The honourable member for Moncrieff attacked me, in a nice way, of course, as only she can, for breaking the principles of arm's length funding. The honourable member for Gippsland attacked me for not breaking those principles, which is exactly the sort of attack I am under throughout the whole community. We provide funds to the Australia Council to the various boards-I will be dealing with this in great detail tonight-the Literature Board, the Theatre Board, the Music Board, the Aboriginal Arts Board, the Design Arts Committee, the Visual Arts Board, the Crafts Board and the Community Arts Board. I think that is the first time that I have got those eight boards right in one hit. The boards and the Council make decisions on where the funding will go. This is described as arm's length funding. What happens is exactly the same as that which the honourable member for Gippsland did. When a group makes an application and it does not get what it wants, it comes to me and says: `Why don't you intervene?'. If I intervene I get attacked by people such as the honourable member for Moncrieff who say: `You have no right to intervene because it is not your role'. So that is the problem. I speak as an individual and as a Minister when I say that I hope that some time in the future we will introduce capital grants funding for the arts. We do not have that at the moment. It is my ambition and that of my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that hopefully when funds become available in the future that is something that we will introduce. I would certainly like to talk privately to the honourable member for Gippsland when he has some time. There are some problems with galleries, particularly if they get heavily into the acquisition area, because it is difficult for them to find the sort of money necessary to buy major works of art and to have enough to keep a large flow of people coming in. Sometimes galleries become the plaything of a small elite group in the community rather than something with broad community appeal, and they are very expensive to run. Regional galleries should concentrate on exhibitions. Some fabulous work is available through our National Gallery and many other galleries. If they did this they could keep good material flowing through. I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I hope he understands the problem with arm's length funding. I will be dealing with it in greater length tonight at eight o'clock. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $482,958,000. Department of Science Proposed expenditure, $494,972,000. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.59) —I wish to speak today more about some of the public concerns with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation than about other aspects of the Department of Communications estimates. I am well aware of and respect very greatly the obligation which governments have to appoint a board of directors to the ABC and not to interfere in any way with the programming of that organisation. I believe that I reflect community concerns when I say that the philosophy of the ABC in its approach to its programming as well as to its management ought to be discussed in this Parliament. There is a major article on page 3 of today's Sydney Morning Herald headed `ABC's National, still going backward, may go forward to 7 p.m.'. It is written by a respected journalist, Mr Graham Williams. I believe that that article reflects an accurate situation within the ABC. It states: The ABC National, with continuing low audiences, is set to revert to the 7 p.m. timeslot early next year to try and win back the traditional ABC viewers it has lost. While the 7 p.m. slot for the National's first half-hour of news is almost certain, the fate of its second half-hour of current affairs is still unknown. The options of running it at 7.30 p.m. or later in the evening, perhaps in conjunction with the Carleton-Walsh Report, are still being debated. Whatever the outcome, most staff feel the National as we know it is in its death throes and say there will be a new combination of news and current affairs next year. Morale among staff is still very low, the program has failed to make any inroads on the commercial channels and has instead lost its own loyal following. An ABC committee of review which is deciding the future of the National meets today and has to make a decision on the program's fate within two weeks. I will not intrude further into the way in which that is being investigated, except to observe that I would have thought that that committee has certain difficulties in providing objective advice. I am not sure that the ABC's controller of news and current affairs will not have to look elsewhere within the organisation for other advice before he makes his final decision. That controller of news and current affairs, Mr Kearsley, is reported in the article as saying: . . . no decision had been made on the 7 p.m. start for the National, staff said it was certain to go back to 7 o'clock for the news program. The main problem, staff said, was in deciding what time to run the second-half current affairs program. Because the National has been promoted as being the great new direction for the ABC I want to spend a little time on it. I believe that the ABC has served Australia extremely well in its coverage of current affairs and news. This is particularly demonstrated on radio, and I will come to that in a moment. In respect of television, the ABC has not had the same success as it has on radio, although I believe that the program Nationwide in its last year was working well and other programs, such as Four Corners, have worked well. While those programs may be controversial I believe that that is part of their responsibility. It is up to ABC management, appointed by the ABC Board-which is appointed by the Government-to ensure that competent producers with imagination, flair and integrity are employed to go out and get stories, to break them, to present them, to stand by the criticisms that are then received, and then to challenge people to get discussion going on sensitive and difficult subjects. One does not always have to agree with a program presentation to stand basically by that very important principle that the ABC has a duty to break stories, to examine issues, and to be substantial in its discussion of problems in a way which commercial networks never will. It also has an obligation to be a training ground for people, many of whom are then employed by the commercial stations. It ought not to be ratings chasing; it ought to be emphasising in-depth coverage in contrast to superficial news coverage, which seems to be the inevitable format of the commercial channels. The Special Broadcasting Service brilliantly covers international news but cannot and should not then duplicate in-depth examination of the domestic issues. We have a very important decision coming up within the ABC which I believe ought to be examined by the Board in terms of its philosophy. Is it in the ratings game or is it really in the business of providing quality? In the course of doing that, the Board has to examine the staff morale question to which the article from which I quoted referred. Staff morale is a very serious matter, especially in respect of television at this moment. If the National is taken to have failed and is to be abandoned and the ABC is to go back to the format of news and current affairs, I strongly submit to the Board and its programmers that they ought not to see what is now known as the Carleton-Walsh Report as a substitute for the current affairs coverage that was previously Nationwide and was then subsumed in the National. I believe that the virtue of the Nationwide format was that State current affairs were also covered. When stories were genuinely national they were covered in all States, not necessarily on the same night. The Carleton-Walsh Report inevitably concentrates on foreign affairs, national economic issues and national political issues. It does it well and properly and I praise the program. In addition to that program there needs to be a segment in each State. We have just had issues concerning the Premier of Victoria, for example, which can be aired in Victoria and, if they acquire national significance, can then be picked up on the Carleton-Walsh Report or other national programs. Premiers and State Ministers are often there to be held accountable to their electors. They will not generally be held accountable by commercial television programs. They may by the print media, of course, and they may by radio, led by ABC radio. I believe, as part of a television service, it is extremely important that the ABC programmers and its Board, in looking at the philosophy of the ABC in its coverage of current affairs programs, now looks again at the creation of a segment of current affairs which can incorporate national stories but can concentrate as well on local and regional programs, which are part of its overall responsibility in the legislation establishing it. I hope I have made that point in a constructive way. Let me now point to the extremely good example already established by ABC radio. We are indebted, and I place on record my personal appreciation to the ABC current affairs and news team, for programs such as AM, PM, the World Today, Indian Pacific, News from Asia-or Report from Asia-News Commentary, Background Briefings, World Wednesday, Correspondents Report, Sunday Supplement, Tuesday Despatch, the Science Show, the Health Report and the Law Report. All those programs are of immense value to people such as ourselves. I do not think it matters whether one per cent, 5 per cent, 15 per cent or even 20 per cent of Australians listen; it is important that those in-depth discussions are held and that the transcripts and cassettes are available where necessary. They can lead the way not only for opinion leaders in various spheres but also for other journalists and, from them, research can be carried out and other stories may come. I wrote down the programs I have mentioned hurriedly a few moments ago. There are more. While we cannot have that many programs on television for cost, production and other reasons, nevertheless we can have regional, State and national programs of diversity. Some of them are fairly low cost, such as the excellent program which Huw Evans conducted until recently on ABC television, and I think it is a great shame that he has parted company with the ABC. That sort of program is terribly important. I raise this matter at this point because I think it is terribly important that we in this Parliament help the ABC out of its problems and point out to the Board and its management the serious question of morale. If they make the wrong decision to exclude State and regional current affairs programs in their new television format we will all be the poorer for that. I wish the ABC well, but I hope that this time it recognises the delicacy of combining national and State current affairs programs and goes back to something like the old format with a brave smile. I hope that next year is better for it and for its viewers than this year. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(6.09) —I wish to speak mainly this evening on the appropriations for the Department of Science. I take this opportunity, while the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is in the chamber, to speak about the problem of subscriber trunk dialling phone calls on the Peninsula. These charges have greatly concerned all honourable members of both political parties who have represented the Peninsula for many years. However, lately the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has attacked the bipartisanship we had in this matter. He had a go at Telecom Australia in a local newspaper and he has also said that the Expenditure Committee, which has spent many hours in that area, is nothing but a political ploy by the Government. I assure the people in the electorates of Flinders and Dunkley that I am working hard on their behalf to make certain that what we have achieved over the past three years in relation to the STD charges is not lost by something that I feel is jeopardising our case for cheaper phone calls in those areas. We are close to getting a result, and I hope that the honourable member for Flinders has not jeopardised the case for cheaper phone calls for many residents on the Mornington Peninsula. The main reason for my speech this evening is in relation to the estimates for the Department of Science. It is a great opportunity to say that I am very pleased that increases have been obtained in this area by the actions of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Within the allocations there is an amount for the development of a local space industry, something I have believed in for many years. To me, the amount of $2.5 million could be the dawn of Australia's move into the infinite opportunities that space offers Australia. I have just completed reading a report prepared by the Space Science and Technology Working Party, chaired by Sir Russel Madigan. It determines strategies for us to ensure that space is not just the province of the larger nations, but also will be accessible by technologically advanced countries, such as Australia. A strategy plan has been advocated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the next five years, which states that one of its priorities will be the development of a space industry. The Australian nation was euphoric at winning a yacht race some years ago. This was achieved by Australian ingenuity, lateral thinking by the designers and a team effort by all of those involved to attain a goal that others could not. Can honourable members imagine the national pride and the boost to the standing of Australia within the world if we could put one of our citizens on the moon; if we built a space station; if we constructed and sold throughout the world satellites; and if we as a nation, with no territorial ambitions, were in a position to assist our neighbours in Asia with benefits such as crop surveillance, communications, weather predictions, mineral location and all other benefits that flow from space technology? We can do that. Australia was an early pioneer in space technology. In 1967 we were the fourth nation to orbit our own scientific satellite. The opportunity to continue with space research was squandered by people who lacked vision and trust in Australian industry; people who wanted only short term gains and could not envisage the benefits that would flow to all Australians from participating in space exploration. A very exciting plan for the development of an Australian space craft which could be re-used has been suggested by the CSIRO. I believe that it could be designed and made in Australia. The suggested name of the space craft is Mirrabooka; an Aboriginal word which I think means `the constellation of the Southern Cross'. As an amateur astronomer, I can assure those who have never spent time looking in awe at the heavens that they have definitely not experienced the beauties of nature just above them. It is interesting also to note that the Madigan report has recommended the creation of an Australian space technology and research authority-ASTRA. It is very close to the word astraea, which in Greek mythology refers to a starry night. Many Australian organisations have the ability to move quickly into these exciting areas of space technology. Some have already, such as the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, which has designed an efficient satellite signal-receiving antenna and associated computer enhanced imaging device, called CSIDA. I have spent many hours at the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and have had the privilege of seeing this device in operation. I believe that currently it is being actively promoted for sale within Australia and overseas. This type of equipment will assist in weather prediction. I trust that the Bureau of Meteorology will have a very close look at and take up this excellent piece of equipment. It is a fine example of Australian engineering and technical skill, which I am sure will be most effective because of its ingenuity and low price. Other sections of the CSIRO involved in space research are the Divisions of Chemical Physics, Mathematics, Mineral Physics and Radio Physics. Tertiary education institutions are involved also. Only one company in Australia has industry involvement in space technology at this stage, and that is Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd. It has gained an offset contract to supply wiring harnesses for the Hughes aircraft company. I believe that the contract for the wiring harnesses is approximately $800,000, which is extremely small. The first recommendation of the Madigan report states: Australia should as a matter of urgency establish a national space policy to facilitate the achievement of an appropriate industrial, technological, and scientific structure for Australia's participation in space. Other recommendations include: In the communications market Australia should, in the near term, concentrate on the ground-station equipment sector . . . The major market thrust of Australian space activities should be in the remote-sensing sector, involving both hardware and software . . . Research institutions and educational establishments should arrange to co-ordinate and consolidate their space capabilities in order to contribute effectively to the development of Australian space science and technology should take the leading role in facilitating the development of Australian space science and technology capabilities through the 1980s. That is a statement with which I agree wholeheartedly. The report states: Australia should actively pursue the possibility of international collaboration in space and, in particular, of joint space initiatives with countries in the East Asian region . . . A major component of the national space programme should be government-funded R& contracts placed within Australian industry . . . The first phase of the national space programme should have the objective of achieving in industry the capability to participate in complex spacecraft either as a subcontractor or with prime-contractor responsibility for a major system . . . The Government should ensure a continuing Australian capability to receive the latest types of earth-observation satellite data, and in particular should allocate funds at the earliest opportunity for the upgrading of the Australian Landsat station; and the upgrading of Bureau of Meteorology receiving facilities . . . An independent Statutory Authority, with its own Board of Management, should be created . . . Those are some of the things that we as a government must do to move into the area of space research. The unlimited benefits which will be accrued by actually participating in space are available to us now. Space is a frontier; a challenge that is still waiting to be explored. We as a nation can join together and determine that Australia will take up this challenge and by doing so take a great step forward into the future. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.20) —In examining the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86, I had cause to reflect that the rapid technological advances of the last decade and the launching of Australia's national communication satellite system will bring almost all Australians within reach of a wide range of national and international television transmissions. Yet at the very time these impressive advances are being made, the standard of service for many thousands of television users is quite unsatisfactory. As the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will know, my particular concern is the lack of effective television reception for thousands of people who reside in the Balmoral, Mosman and Manly area of Sydney and the eastern suburbs area of Sydney. This poor television reception is not imagined. The people of these areas, having lived for many years with daily evidence of unsatisfactory reception are really fed up, and the reason is equally clear. The nature of the topography in the North Sydney and Sydney Harbour foreshore areas is such that existing transmissions cannot be effectively received in the many thousands of residences that do not have line of sight reception. It is also well known and acknowledged that this problem can be rectified at very little cost by the installation of a suitably located television translator tower in the North Head area. The people of these suburbs are not asking for multi-million dollar national satellites or a piece of computerised electronic wizardry. They simply want an inexpensive translator tower to given them the quality of reception which other Sydney residents have enjoyed for many years. I have a file on this subject which, in itself, would go a long way to providing the necessary height for the required tower. I first made representations on this matter in 1976 and I am still doing so today, and I will keep making representations on the matter until we get a translator tower. The facts appear to me to be particularly uncomplicated and I shall summarise them briefly for the benefit particularly of the Minister. A consortium of commercial television stations is willing to install a television translator to improve television reception in the North Sydney and eastern suburbs areas. A suitable site has been identified at North Head. This site, most importantly, is not within the Sydney Harbour National Park, as has been claimed by some of the tower's opponents. It would in fact be located next to the North Head sewerage works, and this in no way would interfere with the environment of the national park or, in my opinion, with the general environment at the sewerage works site. I am not aware that a sewerage works site has a particularly salubrious record as a desirable environment and the tower in no way, in my view, would interfere with the environment that is already there. Because this is a State matter, it is necessary for approval to be given by the appropriate State Minister. The Federal Government has supported the proposition that a television translator be located on North Head, and I express my appreciation to the Minister for Communications for that support. However, the matter does not finish there. The New South Wales Government has rejected this application and the appeals of the Federal Government on the grounds that it does not meet the provisions of its environmental impact legislation. How a modest and unobtrusive tower, located next to a sewerage works, can be regarded as environmentally unacceptable is beyond my understanding. I can only draw the conclusion that this legislation is being used to hide other and so far unstated reasons for the New South Wales Government to refuse this application. On the question of environmental impact, Madam Chair, you would no doubt be aware that in areas with poor television reception the only remedy residents can seek is to erect unsightly television antennae or aerials on very long poles. These are not only incredibly unsightly but also very dangerous. How we can equate that unsightly proliferation of television antennae with the building of a simple single tower is beyond my comprehension. On 22 July 1985 the Minister for Communications wrote to me advising that the North Head site did not appear to be suitable to the New South Wales Government and that, as a result, he had requested the Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), to approach the New South Wales Government with a view to considering a number of alternative sites. Yet, on 10 October this year, an article appeared in my local paper, the Manly Daily, reporting that Mr Bob Carr, the State Minister for Planning and Environment-- Mr Leo McLeay —A good Minister. Mr MacKELLAR —Somebody said that he is a good Minister. Let us hear what he said. He said that he was willing to consider alternative sites but had not yet received any approach from the Federal Government. I am not sure why he had not received any approach from the Federal Government, given the fact that on 22 July the Minister for Communications had said that he had asked his colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to get in touch with Mr Carr. We all know that the Minister for Communications has a few problems with the postal system, particularly in New South Wales and even more particularly in Sydney. It could be that this matter has been held up in the post; but surely not since 22 July? Somebody has not done his work properly. I do not know who it is, but I do know that the problem has not been addressed and certainly has not been solved. If the Minister for Communications has asked his colleague to get in touch with the New South Wales Minister-I am sure I can rely on his assurance that he has-has his colleague followed it through, because the New South Wales Minister says he has not received any communication and he has certainly not done anything? As I have said, we all know that the Minister is having difficulty in providing a satisfactory postal service, but to wait three months for a letter to be forwarded by a Federal Minister to his State colleague is particularly unacceptable. Has the letter been sent? If so, why has it not been acted upon by that good Minister, as someone from the Government benches called him, in New South Wales? Or is this simply another chapter in the almost 10 years of procrastination and delaying tactics by the present New South Wales Government on this matter? A television translator tower is needed to improve reception for thousands of North Shore residents. It is not an expensive project and it can be located by negotiation at a site suitable to meet both environmental and technical requirements. I therefore plead with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment not to wait for the letter to be answered but to have prompt discussions with his New South Wales colleague, Mr Carr, to bring this matter to a speedy and satisfactory solution. We are living at a time of revolution in the electronic and communications industries, with daily advances which are beyond the understanding of the ordinary person. But that person has an expectation, an expectation often fuelled by generous, and even exaggerated, public relations claims that these advances will bring and are bringing improvements in our quality of life. Whether it be at home or business or in the wider community, we are persuaded that this or that will be better, cheaper, faster, more reliable or more efficient. Many of my constituents will tell the Minister that this is not occurring. Certainly, it is very satisfying to watch the Los Angeles Olympic Games on television as it is actually taking place, but it is not much good when it cannot be viewed on a screen without ghosting, distortions and other reception difficulties. In short, the expectations of my constituents are not being realised because this Government has not followed through its request to the New South Wales Government-a fellow Labor government-to do something about this very simple proposition. It has been going on for far too long and it would do great credit to the Minister for Communications if he would follow this matter through to a satisfactory resolution. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —by leave-It is now almost three years since the Hawke Government assumed office. During that period, it has been my responsibility to oversee the implementation of the Hawke Government's policy objectives in the arts. Since the handing down of the August Budget, there has been a concentrated campaign organised by certain critics to attack the Government for its alleged miserliness in its arts funding. Regrettably, many of the critics of arts funding are more noted for their capacity to inflame the emotions than for their ability to conduct research. What actually has happened? How much money has the taxpayer put into the arts and with what benefit to both artists and the public? This is an account of my stewardship of the arts. Let me say at the outset that in dealing with artists, I have taken as my guiding principle a line from Tennyson: . . . careful of my motion like a skater on ice that hardly bears him. One of the tactics of our critics is to look at only one section of the financial package, that which is of sole interest to them, and extrapolate a general comment from that. It is similar to a blind man attempting to describe the appearance of an unfamilar animal simply by feeling its tail. I should remind honourable members that the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment deals with a range of cultural authorities. They include: The Australia Council Artbank The National Gallery The National Library The Museum of Australia and the proposed National Maritime Museum The Film Industry, i.e., the Australian Film Commission and Film Australia The National Film and Sound Archive: A completely new institution set up in its own building in Canberra National Institute of Dramatic Art The Film and Television School Public Lending Right. In discussions of arts funding, the Australia Council receives most attention as it is the Federal Government's funding body for a broad range of performing and individual art forms. The Council, set up by the Labor Government of Gough Whitlam, now has eight boards to advise it on the distribution of grants. They are: the Literature, Music, Theatre, Design Arts, Craft, Aboriginal Arts, Visual Arts and Community Arts Boards. Perhaps I may pay a brief tribute to the Chairman of the Australia Council, Professor Horne. I was delighted when one of Australia's most distinguished sons accepted the offer of the position of Chairman of the Australia Council. In the short time that he has been there, he has been doing a magnificant job. Under the Fraser Government, funding to the arts through the Council was severely reduced. By the time we came to office, the level of funding had fallen by 33 per cent in real terms. The cuts fell most heavily on community arts and on grants to individual artists as the Fraser Government funded separately the national opera and ballet companies and their orchestras, and not through the Australia Council. This was `single line funding', a practice which the Australian Labor Party promised to abolish. The Hawke Government honoured that pre-election commitment and returned responsibility for the funding of the `national companies' to the Australia Council. We also set about fulfilling the other major election promise on the arts-namely, to restore the level of funding to the Australia Council to an equivalent value to that of the 1975-76 Budget. It was hoped that this could be achieved within our first full parliamentary term of three years. In the first two Budgets, steps were taken to achieve this goal and funding of the Australia Council rose by 14.5 per cent in 1983-84 and 16.3 per cent in 1984-85. In this year's Budget, with all areas of government required to show restraint, the Australia Council's appropriation was $47m, an increase of $3.4m, or 7.8 per cent over the corresponding figure for the previous financial year. While the allocation for the Council's expenditure on administration has increased by 5.1 per cent, or $349,000, that for support for the arts has increased by 8.4 per cent, from $36.7m to $39.8m. Therefore, in this financial year, after allowing for inflation, the Government's support for the arts through the Australia Council has not only been maintained but has been increased in real terms. In making this point, I have set aside, as do the critics, the one-off additional payment of $800,000 made to the Council last financial year to assist the major performing arts companies. The facts are indisputable: The Hawke Government has increased funding to the Australia Council by nearly 40 per cent in three years. During this period, expenditure on the arts through the other bodies was increased by nearly $32m or 31 per cent. There are many other bodies concerned with the arts which receive Federal Government funds. With all of these bodies, the Federal Government is a major and in some cases, their sole patron. When one takes into account the funding increases in these areas of my portfolio, mentioned earlier, the record will show that this Government has been the greatest patron of the arts since Federation. Compared with the record of all conservative governments, our performance is stupendous. Let me be specific. It is not generally known that as at 23 September of this year the community employment program-the CEP-has provided $27.861m for arts and heritage employment projects since its inception. These hundreds of approved projects have had considerable financial impact, particularly on community arts. Naturally, the projects have been selected principally for their employment value rather than for their artistic merit. Nevertheless, the benefits to artists have been extensive. A total of 542 separate projects employed 2,577 people for varying periods. I seek leave, Mr Speaker, to incorporate in Hansard a table showing how these projects break down into different categories, and giving examples of the types of group that have benefited. I just pointed it out to the shadow Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Chair has to have some say in this matter. I shall have to inspect it. If leave is granted- Mr Connolly —I am happy to grant leave, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —If it is within the guidelines for incorporation, I shall allow that; but I should like a copy of it so that I can inspect it. Leave granted. The document read as follows- FUNDING OF ARTS AND HERITAGE PROJECTS UNDER THE COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM Community Arts, Community Theatre... $11,796,952 Museums, Galleries, Libraries, Heritage...$ 7,649,197 Youth Art and Education... $ 2,863,821 Aboriginal Art... $ 1,250,422 Film (including Special Womens Projects)...$ 2,049,814 Miscellaneous... $ 2,251,888 Mr COHEN —I should like to read to the House a number of the grants that were provided under the CEP: $ Browns Mart Community Arts (Northern Territory)... 133,847 Women on a Shoestring (Australian Capital Territory)... 152,988 Bread and Circus Community Theatre... 50,431 Q Theatre Group (New South Wales)... 58,559 Shop Front Theatre for Youth (New South Wales)... 123,918 Black Women in Focus (South Australia)... 147,220 Focus-Adelaide Fringe (South Australia)... 197,085 New Patch Theatre Co. (South Australia)... 89,840 Gambit Theatre (Tasmania)... 32,088 Terrapin Puppets (Tasmania)... 72,387 Handspan Theatre (Victoria)... 25,951 Mill Theatre Co. (Victoria)... 72,077 Theatre Works (Victoria)... 107,032 West Theatre Co. (Victoria)... 83,674 Deck Chair Theatre (Western Australia)... 96,096 Swy Theatre Co. (Western Australia)... 68,593 These provide a sample of the funding of just 16 community theatre groups in addition to grants received by these and similar groups from the Australia Council. I now turn to another body, Artbank-set up, to its credit, under the previous Government, by Mr Ellicott. I believe Artbank provides one of the most practical and sensible ways of assisting artists and of bringing the visual arts before the general public. Put simply, Artbank has an annual budget for the acquisition of paintings and craft work which it then leases to government instrumentalities and to individuals or companies at an annual rental rate of 12 per cent of the value of the work. During the past three years Artbank budgets have been: 1982-83, $430,000; 1983-84, $460,000; 1984-85, $480,000. This year, Artbank's budget will be raised to an all time high of $700,000, an increase of 62 per cent since we came to office. One of the benefits of Artbank is that it purchases all of its works from up-and-coming artists rather than from the well-established ones. Most artists, if not all, prefer selling their works for display to receiving a study grant or government subsidy. I mention two construction projects, initiated by this Government, which will become milestones in the cultural history of this country. In a very short time the National Institute of Dramatic Art, better known as NIDA, which has produced some of Australia's most outstanding actors and actresses, such as Mel Gibson, Robyn Nevin, Judy Davis, Kate Fitzpatrick and Hugo Weaving, is about to move into brand new premises not, one might add, before time. The present accommodation in the New South Wales University grounds consists of a number of Nissen huts that date back to World War II and the old totalisator building which was part of the former Kensington racecourse complex. The foundation stone of NIDA's new building was laid by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 11 April 1984 in the electorate of the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). The Federal Government has also contributed $1m towards the cost of fittings for the building. The quality of the buildings does not determine the quality of the Institute's graduates but it does make a statement about how seriously we regard the development of theatrical talent in this country. Honourable members should know that the Federal Government provides NIDA with 95 per cent of its running expenses each year. Similarly, the Australian Film and Television School is about to have its new premises built at Macquarie University at a cost to the taxpayer of $14m. The establishment of the Film and Television School was one of the recommendations of the Phillip Adams, Barry Jones, Peter Coleman inquiry-I am delighted that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) is in the House tonight-that also helped to bring about the renaissance of the Australian film industry. The school is currently located in temporary premises in Ryde. However, in the brief period of its existence it already has a reputation for producing extremely capable people who have little problem getting employment in Australia's burgeoning electronic media industry. The school also provides refresher courses for people already in the industry and for those who wish to add to their existing skills. The school is fully funded by my Department. This year's allocation of $8.5m includes $1.5m for the construction work on the new building. The Parliament House Construction Authority has set aside $6m for the purchase of Australian works of art, including pottery and tapestries, for the New Parliament House. As this figure has been indexed, it will approach $10m in real terms. Furthermore, the Australian Bicentennial Authority, which, as many people are fond of reminding us, is a Commonwealth responsibility-- Mr Connolly —And yours, too. Mr COHEN —I am delighted that it is mine. The Authority will inject a substantial amount of money during the next three years into the arts industry in Australia. A total of $19.6m has been allocated for an arts and entertainment program which is part of the national bicentennial program being developed by the Australian Bicentennial Authority. Mr Hand —It is a great record, you know. Mr COHEN —I appreciate the honourable member saying that, because I do not know anyone who knows and appreciates the arts better than he. In addition, under the Commonwealth-State bicentennial commemorative program, Commonwealth funding of some $7m for projects associated with the arts has already been approved. Projects for which funds are being provided under this program include the Australian Ballet Centre in Melbourne in the electorate of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the Ballarat Art Gallery, the Parramatta and Wollongong cultural complexes, and the Boondall Sports and Entertainment Centre in Brisbane. During 1988 another event, quite separate from the Bicentenary, will also be funded by the Hawke Government. The next Festival of Pacific Arts is to be held in Townsville. This cultural festival, held every three years, involves all the indigenous people of the South Pacific, including the original inhabitants of Australia. As the Queensland Government has declined-I think to its great shame-to contribute any money to the festival, the Federal Government may have to make the major contribution, which could be of the order of $5m. Let me deal with one area of the arts which has had such a very large injection of funds during the past three years-the Australian film industry. There are those who will sniff and say `but film isn't the arts'. Leaving aside that rather spurious debate, I point out to those who argue that tax incentives for the film industry cannot be seen as a contribution to the `arts' that it is precisely artists, writers, actors, directors, composers, musicians, designers, costume makers and so on who work in both the live arts and in making the celluloid version of them. In the financial year ending 30 June 1985, a total of 31 feature films and 24 television mini-series were produced, compared to 30 feature films and 10 mini-series in 1982-83. The level of funds secured for drama production has also increased, from $94.7m in 1982-83 to $151.8m in 1984-85. About 80c in every dollar spent on the film industry is taxpayers' money, either in the form of direct expenditure or in the shape of revenue forgone. It is estimated that approximately 50 per cent of all the money spent on the film industry is paid to cast, crew, writers, musicians, composers, directors and producers. All these different groups move to and fro, from theatre, clubs, radio, television and filmmaking. Some of the savings generated by the recent reduction of the tax concessions, from 133 per cent to 120 per cent have been applied to a special production fund administered by the Australian Film Commission. I pay tribute to the two outstanding men who head the Film Commission: Chairman Phillip Adams, a great Australian; and I think the most brilliant young man in the arts today, Kym Williams. The fund has been increased this year from $4m to $6m, and the Government has made a commitment to continue the fund in 1986-87 and 1987-88. The appropriation in each of those years will be $7m. This commitment will ensure that the AFC can continue to support projects of outstanding potential. As a new initiative, the Government is shortly to make a major announcement about international film co-productions. The announcement relates to a trial two-year program, intended to expand creative and commercial opportunities for Australian film makers. An advertisement in a recent issue of The National Times decried the amount of money provided for the arts by this Government. Many of the people who signed the advertisement are prominent and respected members of the arts community. Quite frankly, I was shocked to see some of the names. They are perfectly free to criticise whomsoever they wish. It seems to me that our greatest mistake is not to have told people how much the Government has spent. That has been our guilt. I accept as correct the criticism that the Government has yet to restore the funding of the Australia Council to 1975 levels, but only as far as it goes. However, I am confident that anyone examining the record of arts funding by this Government will concede that it is second to none since Federation. For the convenience of honourable members I seek leave to table a fact sheet which sets out the total Government appropriations for arts expenditure since 1983. Mr Speaker, I apologise once again, but I provided the details to the shadow Minister. Mr SPEAKER —There is a little confusion. I think the table was the one I mentioned. Tables can be incorporated but written material cannot. Do you want this document incorporated or tabled? Mr COHEN —I seek leave to have it incorporated. I want them both incorporated. Mr SPEAKER —You are quite entitled to incorporate the table. I may have to discuss the other matter with you later. As there is no objection, leave is granted to incorporate the table. The table read as follows- FACT SHEET ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF CULTURAL ORGANISATIONS TOTAL COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY APPROPRIATIONS 1982-83 to 1985-86 Units $M Year 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Increases 1982-83 to 1985-86 Per cent Australia Council... 33.60 38.24 43.58 47.00 39.88 National Library of Australia... 20.27 23.86 30.90 30.10 48.49 Australian Film Commission... 12.03 18.80 19.70 19.70 63.75 (1) Australian National Gallery... 18.10 13.71 14.22 14.80 -18.23 Australian Archives... 10.20 11.80 17.10 15.40 50.98 Australian Film and Television School... 5.87 6.70 6.78... 8.50 44.80 Public Lending Right Scheme... 1.33 1.59 1.78 1.86 39.84 (2) National Film and Sound Archive... - 1.28 2.61 3.40 165.62 Australian Heritage Commission... .76 1.20 1.40 1.55 103.94 National Institute of Dramatic Art... .97 1.33 5.70 1.60 64.94 Museum of Australia... .63 2.36 1.88 3.60 471.42 Australian Childrens Television Foundation... .50 .50 .50 .50 0.0 Artbank... .43 .46 .48 .70 62.79 104.69 121.83 146.63 148.71 42.05 (1) In 1982-83 the National Gallery received a special allocation of $4.85m for loose furniture and display equipment. (2) Funding for the National Film and Sound Archive commenced in 1983-84. Funding under the Community Employment Program Since Labor has been in office $27.4m has been allocated to the arts and arts related activities under the Community Employment Program creating 2,539 full-time positions. Mr COHEN —No discussion of the arts can be complete without reference to the relationship of government to its arts funding body, the Australia Council, and the arrangement under which decisions on funding the arts are made at arms length from the Government. Discussion of this issue tends to generate considerable heat but little light as those involved concentrate on emotive assertion with little resort to reason. Indeed, over time the definition of the arrangement and its purpose has become confused. Many of my critics are enthusiastic and uncompromising supporters of the `arm's length principle', as they proclaim it, when it suits them, yet have no hesitation in demanding my direct intervention when it does not. By far the greatest number of representations to me about the arts involve groups or individuals seeking my intervention to reverse a particular decision of the Australia Council or of one of its boards. Some tell me to abolish the Australian Opera, others to retain it. Some demand that I `save' some particular theatre company. Others concentrate exclusively on the particular, like lobbying vigorously to have a friend appointed to a board of Council or a recent request that I direct the management of a major orchestra to reinstate a sacked tuba player. The notion of `arm's length' funding of the arts was an important concept in the setting up of the Australia Council by the Whitlam Government. The Council was to be responsible not only for furnishing advice to the Government but also for providing support to the arts. In this process the Government provides the funds but has no say in their disposition nor, under the present legislation, can the Government give specific directions or guidance to the Council. As far as I am aware, most other countries with which we normally compare ourselves accept a different democratic principle regarding the implementation of government policy and the expenditure of public money. Governments are elected to govern; to make decisions. If the electors do not like these decisions, they replace the Government with one more to their liking. This principle of Ministerial responsibility is genrally demanded of governments in Australia. In relation to the arts, the present legislative arrangements make it near impossible to achieve. The `arm's length' practice is similar to that which was incorporated in the workings of the Arts Council in Great Britain and later the Canada Council. The view was taken, legend has it, that politicians could not be trusted to make decisions regarding the arts, first, because politicians generally were held to have no taste for aesthetic judgments, so clearly such people had never met either the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) or the honourable member for Melbourne- Mr Saunderson —Or the honourable member for Aston. Mr COHEN —Exactly. Secondly, it was believed that politicians would clearly practise political and artistic censorship and dispense personal patronage. Thus, those writers, actors, producers and other artists who were subversive, compliant, controversial, quiescent, too left wing, too right wing, too advanced, too conservative-in short, too disagreeable to the government of the day-would miss out. Only `approved' artists would therefore get government funds. There had been allegations of partiality by the Menzies Government in the workings of the Commonwealth Literary Fund. It had been said that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation provided comments on applicants so that the Government could ensure that no successful applicant had communist affiliations or left wing leanings. Mr Coleman —Which they all had. Mr COHEN —Well, there is an inspired comment, if ever I heard one. Mr Staples —Don't let him put you off, Barry. Mr COHEN —Not at all, I just wanted his comment included into the record. This censorship, if true, was a blot on Australia's civil rights record and it needs to be condemned. Whether the present legislative arrangements are necessary to deal with this kind of intervention is, however, another question. The related issue-personal patronage-exists unfortunately in any situation where a client receives money from a patron, whom Dr Johnson in his admirable dictionary defined as `a wrench who supports with insolence and is paid with flattery'. Unde- niably, the Federal Government is a patron of the arts, and though it is often regarded as an insolent one, I have seen little flattery in exchange for the large sums of money it provides. The other major patrons in Australia are the State governments and private companies. Neither of these groups practise `arm's length funding'. If an artist accepts money from, say, Esso, I presume the artist also accepts that Esso will want to have some say in how the money is spent. `Arm's length' arrangements do not of themselves minimise either patronage or censorship. This can be effected only through processes which are open to public scrutiny and involve assessment by peer groups. Is there any artist in Australia who can, with hand on heart, say that he or she knows of no unfair exercise of patronage, or further, that no member of the staff or of the Australia Council, that bastion of `arm's length principles', or a member of its boards, has in the last 10 years ever been guilty of seeking preference for a friend, or of arranging for a grant for a supporter? The present system, it can be argued, protects partial patronage and hides prejudice beneath a cloak of artistic integrity. Let there be no misunderstanding. The principle that censorship and patronage must be excluded from individual arts funding decisions is an important one which I and the present Government wholeheartedly support. Equally, both I and this Government support the principle of peer group assessment of grant applications. Briefly put, we support an `arm's length' arrangement which works to limit censorship, political or artistic, of arts activities and we are opposed to unfair, unchecked, unscrupulous patronage and wholeheartedly support the process of peer assessment. My concern, and that of many in the community and in this House, is that the present arrangements allow neither the artists nor the Government to exercise the authority which should be theirs, that is, artists making artistic judgments and governments making decisions on matters of Government policy, and expenditure. Over the 10 years of the present arrangements these issues have somehow become confused and held to be matters for judgment not for Government nor even for a government instrumentality but, rather, for the ill defined arts community. We need to ask another question in sharpening the definition of `arm's length funding'. Why is it that this practice must be observed only by the Commonwealth Government? Some 60 per cent of arts funding is now provided by the States and I hear no great outcry directed at those governments to adopt the practice of `arm's length funding'. Not one word of criticism is directed at the six States about the $60m and $70m that they dispense to artists and performing groups directly from State departments for the arts. It was suggested to me that we do not hear this because the artists are frightened to say anything. If they do say it, they might not get their arts funding. But I can tell the House that in the two and a half years that I have been a Minister I have never seen one letter or had one phone call or had one representation from any person telling me that I must ensure that the States have `arm's length funding'. It has been suggested whenever I make this point that I am against `arm's length funding'. As I have said already, I am not, but I would like more consistency and less hypocrisy. What I want to establish is a clear definition of that expression which at the moment is remarkably elastic with chameleon-like qualities which depend on the success an applicant has had in getting what he wants out of the Australia Council and its boards. We had an example here tonight where the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) was attacking me for what she considered to be interference and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGaurin) attacking me for not interfering. That is a very microcosm of the national debate. Mr Staples —Factional divisions; that is what they are. Mr COHEN —I am afraid they also exist on our side of the House. Mr Hollis —You are not supposed to say that. Mr COHEN —I could not resist it. What then is the role of government in support of the arts? As I see it, to use an analogy, the Government pays the piper in order to have him play. It is not concerned with what he plays. As in other areas of public policy, the Government and its Minister are expected to develop, articulate and implement an arts policy. This involves not only setting objectives and priorities, but also endorsing processes for the control of the expenditure of taxpayers' money. This demands ministerial responsibility to the Parliament, the sound management of this money and the provision of mechanisms and instruments by which the arts policy fits with other policies, such as those involving relationships with governments overseas and the States. If none of this is required, there is no arts policy, no ministerial responsibility. One might simply do away with a Minister for the Arts and ask the Minister for Finance annually to hand a bundle of money directly to the Australia Council. Mr Hollis —Stay where you are, Barry. Mr Connolly —Yes, we love you Barry. Mr COHEN —Andre Malraux he is not. Thus the Government would take the `arm's length' principle to its logical conclusion. Few in the community or this House would be satisfied with that arrangement. The Government is also expected to ensure that the whole spectrum of the arts receives support. There are those who love opera; I am not one of them. Yet I believe that government has a responsibility to sponsor and foster a national opera company to ensure a standard of excellence as near as possible to the best in the world. This is expensive. Presently some $4m goes to the Australian Opera annually from the Federal Government with an additional $1m from the Government of New South Wales. There are those who take the opposite view, who state that the Australian Government should have nothing to do with such an expensive, imported and elitist art form and that these millions would be better spent on community-based activities. We should spend our money promoting indigenous, innovative Australian art forms and those who wish to have an opera should pay for it themselves. Similar, opposing views are also expressed, might I add, about modern dance companies, contemporary painting, the publishing of volumes of verse, and so on. I must stress the point that the Federal Government has the responsibility for supporting all of the arts in our community and for encouraging, through the education system and elsewhere, the artists of the future. Where does all this leave the Australia Council? What is its role? I set this out in a letter of 5 September 1985 to the Chairman of the Council, Professor Donald Horne. I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —Unfortunately, I seem to be obstructing the Minister tonight. It is the practice of the House the tables may be incorporated, but not written material. I suggest that the Minister table the letter. Mr COHEN —I table the letter. I believe that government has every right to make its views on these issues clear. Indeed, if the present legislative arrangements do not allow for this to be done, I believe that they should be changed. Similarly, I believe that the Government's arrangements for dealing with the States and with foreign governments in the arts, as in any other matter, are matters for the Government. Instrumentalities established by the Government should be expected to act consistently with government policy. Again, if the present arrangements do not allow for this, they should be changed also. A depressing feature of the debate on arts funding over the period of this Government has been the resting on assertions from those who feel their particular art form is under threat. This has resulted in a skewing of the debate by the various lobbyists. One finds the performing and non-performing arts out of balance, with the financial resources of the former enabling them to out-gun and out-manouevre the latter. Full page advertisements in newspapers and floods of telegrams are not cheap. They are, however, predictable in their origin and, for the most part, self-serving. They will continue to be regarded as such. To conclude, I would like to reiterate that the record of funding the arts of the Hawke Government is unequalled in the cultural history of Australia. This reflects the Government's strong support for the arts and its belief that support for the arts is achieved through a variety of programs and mechanisms. I believe that governments are elected to govern, to exercise ministerial guidance over statutory authorities and to be publicly accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. The Federal Government too must develop its relationship with foreign governments and with the States unimpaired by institutional restraints which impede a government's capacity to take initiatives and to formulate policies. Under present arrangements, the Government is reduced to being simply a source of money. This is quite inappropriate. Finally, and perhaps this is a test of the maturity and strength of the arts in Australia, if the arts and their supporters in their many forms of cultural activities wish to be treated as an industry, they must expect to be subject to at least some of the tests which governments apply to other industries. Artists provide the life blood for what we feel as a people: It is up to government to ensure that they receive adequate monetary rewards for the fruits of their labours and that they continue to exist and flourish. This demands a clear and important role for the Government in the development of artistic life in this country. This Government will not shirk its responsibilities in accepting this role. I present the following paper Arts Policy-Ministerial Statement, 17 October 1985 Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-I believe that the statement which we have just heard from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) on the Government's policy towards the arts is probably the first statement he has made on this subject in the last three years in which he has been the Minister. I think that is significant. To a very large degree what we have heard tonight is little more than what the French call a cri de coeur, a cry from the heart, of one who feels that he has been misunderstood by his arts constituency who are worried about various aspects of his funding policy because they perceive that the Government's policies, on the one hand, and the Minister's attitudes towards their development, on the other, leave somewhat of a credibility gap. I want to set to rest once and for all the view that the coalition parties are in any sense anti-arts and, conversely, that the Australian Labor Party alone in the firmament of Australian politics is the party which is truly pro-arts. Frankly, I believe that the arts should be an area of policy which crosses all political boundaries and in which we should endeavour to achieve a very large measure of bipartisan agreement. Consequently, the Opposition believes that the role of the Government in support for the arts must be directed at encouraging excellence in all phases of human endeavour. We believe that this goal can be reached but only by encouraging individuals and ensuring that there are appropriate rewards for those who strive for excellence and achieve their goals. One of our great Prime Ministers, Sir Robert Menzies, would have seen this as a positive commitment by government. It was, in fact, Sir Robert who laid the foundations for later arts policies. Prior to that time Commonwealth support for the arts had been limited to the Commonwealth Literary Fund and Commonwealth assistance for Australian composers. Through the establishment of the Elizabethan Theatre Trust the Menzies Government made a concerted effort to put in place an essentially private enterprise mechanism with the objective of supporting the arts through all levels of government and by public subscription. Sir Robert saw the role of government as not being limited to directly contributing funds. More significantly, its responsibility was to encourage the community as a whole to participate in the funding and support as well as the development of the arts. He saw tax deductibility as an effective mechanism by which individuals and corporations could be actively encouraged to support that development. It is worth pointing out that in the Minister's statement tonight not one word did he utter on the question of what support and leadership his Government and he, as the Minister, should give to encourage greater corporate participation in support of the arts. He emphasised throughout his address that it was the Government and the Government alone which had to carry the load. He knows as well as I do that that is a task beyond the capabilities of this Parliament and of any party. The Minister cannot achieve the level of success which he holds out as being the objective of his policy unless he is prepared to predicate his policies by clearly enunciating the fact that we want all levels of the community involved in supporting the arts, not just the Government. I want to go on with the history of coalition governments' support. During the Gorton Government, the Australian Council for the Arts was established. The first big steps were taken to encourage actively the rebirth of the Australian film industry, which is so close to the heart of the Minister. Later it was the McMahon Government which appointed the first Minister for the Arts in this Parliament. Of course, we have heard on so many occasions in the past, and it has almost become part of Australian folklore, that the Whitlam Government, on the basis of the Coombs proposals, established the Australia Council as a statutory body in 1974. However, the earlier foundations must not be ignored. Some 11 years have now passed. I doubt that anyone would dispute that we have seen a veritable renaissance in the Australian arts during that period. That was due not just to the role of governments but principally to the dedicated efforts, the vision and the creativity of thousands of Australians throughout this country. I believe that it is now clearly necessary to re-assess whether the Australia Council, as originally formulated, is able to meet the ever-increasing demands made upon it when it has a relatively static financial basis and, at the same time, when there is a real risk that artistic standards may in fact be in decline throughout Australia, I believe that we have to reject the current universalist approach of the Labor Government and require that the States and local governments must assume greater responsibility for the development of general and community arts including, of course, State and local theatres, dance companies and arts groups. For example, in various States, notably Western Australia, there is an instant lottery which, in recent years, has been the basis of funding of the arts in that State. But it was demonstrated there that it is possible to get the States to be effectively involved in the funding of the arts. It is not primarily a Federal role. The current Community Arts Board alone is eating up nearly 10 per cent-$3m-of the national funds which are so desperately needed by companies and individuals of excellence elsewhere. The Australia Council simply does not have the resources to maintain the existing levels of financial viability while, at the same time, ensuring that funds are available to meet the ever-expanding demands of community arts. The coalition parties believe that the Commonwealth policy together with the States must essentially aim towards two objectives: Firstly, to help people of proven or emerging talent to develop their skills and thus enrich the community; and secondly, to encourage the community to have greater access to the arts in all its various forms and, through greater access and appreciation, be prepared to help finance it. As I said earlier, the Australia Council was established with agreed bipartisan objectives: To develop in Australia a standard of excellence in the arts; a widening of access to the arts; an understanding and application of the arts in the community generally; the establishment and expression of an Australian identity through the arts; and the promotion abroad of an awareness of Australian culture. What the Minister failed to do in his long statement was to take each of those which are the very objectives of the Australia Council and tell us how those objectives have been met over the last 10 or 11 years. He would have to say that in some ways they have been met and in others they have not. One clear example of failure is our inability to promote abroad through the arts a greater awareness of Australian culture. That is something that I wish to come back to later. The Minister has had much to say about ministerial responsibility and arm's length funding. He is not alone there. I have had a few words to say on this subject on occasions. It is very difficult for a Minister who has been carrying the responsibility for the Australian Bicentennial Authority in recent years to talk seriously about effective ministerial responsibility after the crisis of confidence for which he as well as his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have to share responsibility. There are serious inconsistencies in a system of policy formulation which involves the Minister being responsible for the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, while his Government persists in giving lip-service at least to the concept of arm's length funding through the Australia Council. The Department, the Australia Council, through the Minister, must be more responsible to the taxpayers and the arts must become more accountable for the public funds absorbed. Surely the Minister must accept the responsibility vested in him by this Parliament instead of passing the buck to a beseiged Australia Council, as has often been the case in the past. I believe that the Council has overreached itself in the range of clients and the activities it has sought to support. It responds by saying that it has only tried to meet the objectives set for it by the government of the day. In saying that it clearly identifies once again where ministerial responsibility must lie, and that is with the Government and with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Nevertheless, over the last three years, a crisis of confidence has been built up in the arts communities over the manner in which this Government has handled its approach to arts policies. In fact, available funds have been spread thinly. The Minister claims that under his Government the quantum of funds has increased. I seek the permission of the Minister, since I have not had the chance to ask him earlier, to incorporate a table in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is leave granted? Mr Cohen —I do not wish to be difficult- Mr CONNOLLY —I was very generous to the Minister. I let him table everything. Mr Cohen —Is that not a graph? Mr CONNOLLY —It is a graph, but I am told that there is a good prospect that it can be incorporated in Hansard. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If it falls within Mr Speaker's guidelines and if the Minister, gives leave- Mr Cohen —I give leave. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It will be incorporated if it is able to be reproduced in Hansard. (For technical reasons, the graph was not incorporated in Hansard.) Mr CONNOLLY —The purpose of asking for this graph to be incorporated, after the numerous documents and tables that the Minister requested to be incorporated, is simply to demonstrate that while in quantum terms the funds allocated to the arts may have gone up, in value per dollar terms that is not the case because of the interrelated economic policies which have been applied from 1972-73 and onwards. This is a factor which needs to be taken into account because the recipients of these grants are living in a market economy. They are not particularly impressed when they are simply told that the quantum of their grant has gone up in relation to the previous grant if its purchasing power is not demonstrated to be no less than it was. The difficulty that we have seen in the context of the funding of the Australia Council has led to a result which is really inevitable. There has been more pressure on arts bodies, large and small, a threat to standards and criticism of inequities in funding, especially from the States. For example, on a per capita basis, Western Australia had a shortfall in funding in 1984-85 of minus $187,000. Not unreasonably, such States feel disadvantaged. The less expensive art forms envy the amount going to the costly performing arts. For all these reasons, an urgent examination of the philosophy of arts funding is needed in Australia. I am depressed that the Minister, who had the opportunity to give us an indication of forward thinking by the Government and to tell us where he wanted the arts to develop in this country, failed to do so. There is a clear responsibility on government to articulate a new policy for the Australia Council and to set for it clear directions and attainable objectives. We must cut through all the red tape and the bureaucracy. On the basis of a clear division of responsibility with the States, the Government should determine that the Council funds as its primary responsibility companies and individuals of excellence. The role of the Council should be confined to research and development and the promotion of the arts at a national and international level. Supplementary funds should be allocated to the States in the form of specific purpose grants, if necessary, to enable them to fund arts at the regional and community levels. This would achieve greater equity of access to funds by the reduction of duplication between the Commonwealth and the States and it should reduce administrative costs for which the Australia Council alone contributes some $6.9m or 16 per cent of its total budget. The stupidity of the situation is that virtually every arts body in Australia is receiving a level of direct funding from the Commonwealth as well as from the States. The cost of that administrative overburden to the Australian taxpayer is doing absolutely nothing to improve access to the arts on the one hand or maintain standards of excellence on the other. Therefore, we believe it necessary to seek to resolve the tension and animosity which have definitely developed through the over-centralisation and bureaucratisation as well as duplication of the decision-making process. This has resulted in the justifiable frustration of the arts community. Arts policy should be all about encouraging individual Australians to utilise their personal attributes for their advantage as well as that of the community as a whole. Surely artists should have to seek nothing less from government than the opportunity to develop their talents in a free society without unnecessary interference from politicians or bureaucrats. Centralised control of funding and inequities of distribution can severely damage the development of standards of excellence. I believe this is a price which no government ought to be prepared to pay. Whether the level of funding made available to the artists and to their audiences is sufficient, which it probably never will be, it is clear that we must give priority to ensuring that support is given to encourage maximum self-help among the arts communities as well as access to audiences. The Opposition also believes in encouraging the community to join with the Government in a partnership to support the arts. The market-place must be the final arbiter and most artists, whatever their field, must seek audience approval and support. Surely it is a role of government to see that this interaction can be achieved. Again, it is a matter of great regret that the Minister did not utter one syllable on this key element in the development of a long term and viable arts policy. The Government has failed to examine the respective responsibilities of the three tiers of government in Australia for arts funding. It is worth pointing out that the Commonwealth and State Arts Ministers, who should have met on a number of occasions this year, have failed to do so. This merely demonstrates again the lack of capacity at the Federal level to give a lead to the States to ensure that they know the directions in which Federal policy is going and to make sure that they are prepared to carry their part of the burden as well. These contradictions in policy, combined with a lack of philosophical direction, have resulted in our largest and most esteemed artistic institutions, in particular the Australian Opera and the Australian Ballet, finding themselves once again facing severe financial difficulties. This crisis has occurred because the Australia Council is required to finance adequately the development of community arts without receiving additional funds from the Commonwealth and the States to support what we already have. The last decade has seen not only the development of a new arts bureaucracy at the Commonwealth level but also its reflection in all six States. The result is a quite remarkable degree of unwieldly administrative control over arts funding, overlaps between the various levels of government and petty internecine squabbles within the arts community and even worse between some States such as Victoria and the Australia Council. It is reasonable to conclude from all this that the machinery of arts funding in Australia is not merely inefficient but also obsolete. It has failed to keep pace with economic reality and the need to achieve financial viability on the one hand and independence for Australian arts organisations and their audiences on the other. The Commonwealth Labor Government has been unwilling to conduct its own investigations into the efficiency and effectiveness of the Australia Council and to develop new objectives for co-operation with the States and local government in the area of arts funding. In the last financial year a total of about $128m was allocated to the arts, of which $8m was for departmental salaries and administrative costs. The Australia Council received $43.6m of this Budget and a further 15 per cent was spent on administrative costs. Clearly, any worthwhile review of funding in Australia must, therefore, examine closely the interface between overall expenditure and the proportions allocated for administration by all recipients of public funds. Until that is done we will continue to face these chronic administrative problems in arts funding. The Minister boasts of his achievement in returning arts funding responsibilities to the Australia Council. Clearly, the current crisis within the Opera does not bear out his confidence over that decision. All Australians will be aware of the dire financial situation that has befallen the Opera company which has suffered as a result of the Government's refusal to accept effective financial responsibility. The Government also has not been prepared to support the States to carry a fair measure of their share. Only a few months ago the Australia Council proposed that the States should be requested to pay a share of travel costs to ensure that they did have access to these national flag carriers, and that could be achieved provided they were prepared to pay a fair share of the bill. But there was silence from the Minister; there was no suggestion from him as to whether he supported the initiative of the Australia Council or whether he had any other proposal of his own. We are now facing the reality of the Australian Opera. Although the Minister has told us he is not interested in the opera many thousands of people are and it is not unreasonable to expect him to be prepared to play a more significant role in that area. Because the Opera has had little success in gaining the ear of government as its financial difficulties have ensued, the implementation of a part time performing company is now a very real possibility. This has caused great disruption within the ranks of its own performing artists. The Opera company is now ensconced in an industrial dispute between performing staff and management which is unprecedented in the history of arts in Australia, but, as usual, we have heard nothing from the Minister. The Labor Government and the Minister, in their handling of the Australian Opera's financial crisis, have demonstrated their inability to negotiate with the States to establish adequate funding responsibilities. The Australia Council is in a very difficult position, where already nearly two-thirds of its Music Board budget is already committed to one company within one art form. Clearly, it is the Government's responsibility to take the difficult but essential decisions as to how the Australian Ballet and the Australian Opera can be more satisfactorily funded. This situation brings into question the issue of arm's length funding-an issue which the Minister has raised tonight. I ask: Arm's length funding from whom-the elected representatives of the Australian people-the Parliament? The growing trend which has been demonstrated all too clearly in the recent bicentennial fiasco has been for Ministers to shirk responsibility and to distance themselves from the decision-making process for which they are responsible. Ministers must take responsibility for the appropriation of public funds and for the efficient and effective economic management of public institutions. It is an indictment of the Minister's administration that the Australian Opera company has been allowed to flounder in the current financial crisis while the Minister has continually passed responsibility to the Australia Council-a council which he has to admit has so little real financial flexibility because of its current structure. The Government's apparent support for the principle of arm's length funding, which has fluctuated, as we have heard tonight, has nevertheless failed to take account of the fact that the Minister found himself facing a storm of protest when he requested the Australia Council some months ago to index its grants to the major national performing arts companies. Later he weakened his position and suggested that he was only saying that indexation `be considered'. The Opposition views with concern the inconsistency of the Government's position. The Minister has just told us that he is constantly approached by members of the arts community dissatisfied by the centralised control exercised by the Australia Council. Their only voice in these issues is through their elected Minister. Yet his constant reply is to stress the principle of arm's length funding-all care and no responsibility. Surely the Minister must at some point accept that he is responsible for funding of the arts. He must stand up and be judged on the basis of the policies which his Party put to the Australian people and on which he now claims he has a mandate. Yet he has failed to do that. In nearly three years and in three Budgets which have been brought into this Parliament he has had numerous opportunities to amend the Australia Council Act, if he thought that was necessary. He has had every opportunity to put to the Parliament reasoned, considered proposals for worthwhile change in these areas of policy and never, including tonight, has he bothered to do so. I fully accept the importance of peer group assessment in the funding of the arts, but believe that the Australian people expect a degree of responsibility that Labor Ministers so often and so easily shirk. It is a fundamental principle of the Westminster system that Ministers must accept full responsibility for their departments and for the statutory authorities under their administration, and not the public servants who have the misfortunes on occasions to work with them. Many of the criticisms of the past year have been directed at the Australia Council, which at times has taken on an image of a besieged enemy of the arts world. It is surely time for the Minister, who is answerable to the public, to accept more control over the public institutions which function within his administration. It interested me greatly to hear the Minister speak of his ministerial responsibility, as if he did so as a lecturer before a university audience giving the theory as distinct from the practice of what ministerial responsibility is all about. Government has failed to make any adequate decisions on the Opera issue, on the devolution of the orchestras to State responsibility, on taxation incentives for the film industry, and its doubtful control over the arts policy of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The Minister has allocated some $18m for one financial year and there is absolutely no evidence that any attempt has been made to correlate the arts program for the Bicentennial with the level of arts funding leading up to 1988, or any indication on what is going to happen from 1989 onwards. If the Government intends to maintain the level of arts funding, which it claims it wishes to do, it has to link its Bicentennial programs with its long term objectives of arts policy, objectives which it has failed to enunciate for at least the past three years. It is a major inconsistency in the Government's arts funding policies that, while funds are being allocated to one-off extravaganzas for the Bicentennial, the Opposition's concern is for the long term viability and growth of the arts in Australia which cannot be achieved through the Government's boom and bust attitude. In the very important area of films, the Government has procrastinated again for too long. It has failed to review significantly the tax incentives scheme for the film industry despite its evangelical stand on other tax deductibles. A large amount of money has been poured into this area at great cost to the taxpayer without any adequate review of inherent problems within the industry's structure. Australian production has achieved world-wide acclaim, and nobody denies that, with films such as Picnic at Hanging Rock, Caddie, My Brilliant Career, Gallipoli, Man from Snowy River, Mad Max I, Mad Max II and Mad Max III. However, in recent years we have seen a decline in international competitiveness. Only about 30 major Australian films have, in fact, returned their own budgets. Production is tied to parochial themes and input by legislation that restricts tax incentives to `Australian only' films. I was pleased to hear the Minister make a remark-we wait in anticipation for another statement from him-as to how he will have a program for encouraging Australian producers to work more closely with the international producer. I look forward to hearing that statement because that has been one of the biggest problems facing the industry in recent years. There was great interest through the Film Commission to develop a truly Australian industry. That is fine for Australian audiences when they are prepared to take Australiana up to their ears, as they have. We have now reached the situation where we have to compete on the international market with themes which are acceptable in a wider context than Australia. The Australian industry needs to achieve vertical integration of financing, production, marketing and distribution if it is to compete in the international market place. There have been real problems with this. Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act was worthwhile as a means of injecting funds into the film industry, but the time has now come for a very serious investigation of whether that is necessarily the direction in which the Government wants to go in the future. In the past, Australian governments have tried to give the electorate more than the nation can afford. The result has often been, as it is at the moment, massive national debt, a devalued currency and bloated public sector. If the arts community expects to get its share of the national and State Budgets, the support of the Australian community must be gained through demonstrating greater financial independence and viability. Sadly, the quest for artistic excellence per se may not be enough. Today's realities require that access to the decision-making process of government is achieved along the rocky path of what some may call economic realism. The arts are no longer just the sublime expression of human endeavour; they must be seen as a major industry and a major employer of Australians. The arts compares favourably as an industry with agriculture and mining in its contribution to employment. This does not include the multiplier effect through tourism, advertising and communications. The arts is no longer simply a creative spectacle, a leisure activity for the rich or a form of enjoyment for the masses. It is a source of employment for many Australians who face the same pressures as do other sectors of the work force. Honourable members would all be aware of the Australia Council's recent survey of community attitudes towards the arts. The survey showed a remarkable level of community interest and participation. The community, however, was unwilling to pay higher taxes in order to increase funding to the arts. I have concluded, therefore, that we must seek alternative approaches to general arts funding. This can be achieved through increased audience participation, which will gain greater financial support from the private sector and ensure that artistic companies are rewarded through achievement grants for the success of their own efforts to gain community support. The Minister said nothing about artistic achievement or achievement grants, or about what the Government ought to be doing to encourage individual artists or artistic companies to do their bit to encourage greater audience participation. He has done nothing to encourage the private sector to become more involved. We have seen an improvement in recent years, especially in terms of the private collections of major Australian companies, but we need to go much further. The Australian Opera, whatever its weaknesses in other areas may be, has done a tremendous job in gaining the encouragement of the private sector, both nationally and internationally, to support its programs. The arts is an area of great potential growth for Australia. It is a way in which we can demonstrate our own achievements to ourselves as well as to the world. It is an area which requires constant care, but it is not one which will be maintained and supported simply by working on the premise that governments must take full responsibility and carry the load. The artist has a duty to the Australian taxpayer to have a product that is able to be sold to an audience that wants to accept it. That is the ultimate test. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Publications, sitting in conference with the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.05) —I 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. The Joint Committee on Public Works has reported that as a consequence of changes in emphasis on research in Western Australia there is a need for the construction of new laboratories, the provision of additional support facilities and refurbishment of existing laboratory accommodation at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Floreat Park laboratory complex in Perth. The Committee also reported that the existing laboratories and support buildings are old, overcrowded and represent significant occupational health and safety hazards. Indeed occupational health and safety surveys have found that they do not meet the requirements specified in the National Health and Medical Research Council's occupational health guides and that they need to be upgraded to conform with current standards for laboratory design. The proposed works will provide modern laboratory facilities which conform with current occupational health and safety standards. The original laboratories and support buildings were designed to accommodate 110 staff and were completed in 1966. Since that time staff numbers have increased significantly and additional laboratory space has been provided on an ad hoc basis by the construction of some new support buildings and the use of temporary facilities. The proposed laboratories will accommodate a staff of 277 who will conduct research of national significance in the fields of agriculture, forestry and effective management of our ground water resources and research and support of the Australian mineral industry. The new facilities are expected to provide an impetus to this research and improve staff morale. In reporting favourably on the proposal the Public Works Committee recommended that construction proceed at the limit of cost estimate of $7.75m at January 1985 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee's recommendation with the aim of having the works completed in mid-1988 subject to Budget considerations. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.08) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the papers available to me. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. However, I believe that I should draw the Minister's attention to two matters. The first is that in accordance with his statement the increase in staff numbers appears to be from 110 to 277. That seems to us to be a fairly sharp increase and we ask the Minister to ensure that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation continues its practice of making sure that private enterprise can use and pay for the results of its effective research. Perhaps it is appropriate to suggest to the Minister that when his globetrotting colleague, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), returns he draw this matter to that Minister's attention. Secondly, I ask the Minister, yet again, to ensure that private enterprise is involved in the project to the greatest extent possible. On a number of occasions when I have responded to the Minister in relation to these matters, I have drawn his attention to the question of private enterprise. It might be appropriate for me to ask him whether in the future he would be good enough to include in his statement the fact that he will ensure that private enterprise is involved to the optimum extent. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.09) —I 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. The Joint Committee on Public Works has now reported that there is a need for major refurbishment of the Melbourne Commonwealth Centre to meet modern design requirements and standards. The existing safety features and services of the Centre are inadequate and require major upgrading. The Melbourne Commonwealth Centre consists of two rectangular blocks and a joining link. It was constructed in two stages, Block 1 being completed in 1958 and the remainder in 1966. The centre, at the corner of Spring and La Trobe Streets, Melbourne, is located on the north eastern fringe of the central business district and is well situated for the provision to the public of Commonwealth services. The proposed work is for the refurbishment of the building services and extensive repartitioning associated with relocating Commonwealth Government departments into the centre. The refurbishment work is expected to extend the useful life of the buildings by at least a further 20 years and to provide a standard of accommodation equivalent to that of commercial office buildings in the central business district of Melbourne. At under half of the cost of construction of a new building it is an economic solution. When the centre was first built it met the then relevant standards and practices but safety features and services, particularly in Block 1, are now inadequate. Many services such as fire protection, lifts, emergency lighting, power supply and sanitary services are generally obsolete and of outmoded design and do not conform to current standards. The refurbishment project forms the basis of a strategic plan developed by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services to consolidate departments which are currently fragmented and to reduce eventually the high leasing costs associated with central business district accommodation of departments. The proposal is consistent with the Government's aims of reducing the Commonwealth's rent burden, rationalisation of departmental accommodation and providing modern commercial standard office buildings. The centre is already being vacated and it is proposed that refurbishment and fitout works proceed in the relatively near future. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $18.4m at April 1985 prices. Subject to the approval of the House it will take some six months to complete documentation before calling tenders. On current planning Block 1 will be reoccupied in mid-1988 and Block 2 in early 1989. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.12) —Again I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the papers available to me. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. However, there are a number of matters that we believe the Minister's attention should be drawn to in the planning stages and before planning is complete. The first question we ask the Minister is: Does the centre really need to be where it is? It may be better for it to be relocated elsewhere and for the Government to sell off that prime site in the middle of the city of Melbourne. The jobs that the Department of Housing and Construction does or that will be managed from that office in the Melbourne central business district are very few. We have to ask ourselves whether the administration could not better be handled from perhaps Hawthorn, South Melbourne or St Kilda Road. The number of jobs listed in the appropriations include works in Heidelberg, Maribyrnong, Queenscliffe, Laverton, et cetera, and very few in the Melbourne central business district. Secondly, the Minister says that the Government aims to reduce the rent burden. Page 30 of the explanatory notes for the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services shows that in the year that will end on 30 June 1986 the rent expenditure will be over $248m, whereas in the year that ended 30 June 1985 it was $177.5m. That is a massive increase of over $70m-nearly 40 per cent-between the year just ended and the year just beginning. We, in the Opposition, believe that the Government should provide an answer as to why the Commonwealth rent bill has increased so dramatically in this period. We believe it is inconsistent for the Government to be saying on the one hand that it proposes to reduce its rent bill and on the other to be refurbishing a building in the middle of the Melbourne central business district. There are two ways in which the rent can be reduced. One is, as I have suggested, to move the operations into one of the other inner suburbs. The second is to increase Government spending. This is not the time for an economic dissertation but let me just say again that the Government is relying in its economic policy too heavily on monetary policy. Its firm monetary policy is keeping interest rates up to protect the value of the dollar. It knows that unless it keeps interest rates up the dollar will collapse and when the dollar collapses the accord will collapse. By keeping interest rates high it is keeping housing interest rates high. It ensuring that there is a continuing burden on home owners and continually high rental rates on properties for those in the community less well advantaged. The Government should reduce this burden. It can do it only by either cutting spending or deregulating the labour market. It cannot cut government spending by reducing rents. Accordingly, we believe that the appropriate step to take is for the Government to move its operations in Melbourne to a cheaper area. Not only should it be moving the operation but it should also be ensuring that consolidation that takes place with the various departments makes for better efficiency, more effective operation and a more efficient service to the public. Again, the Minister should consult with his colleagues to ensure that this occurs. Mr West —How do we get more efficient services if we push them out to the suburbs? Mr BEALE —Because all the people who live there will not have to go so far to work. They will be able to work longer hours. They will be happier because they will be close by their place of employment. There will be better morale and this will mean a better performance. Mr West —Why don't you push the commercial sector out there? Mr BEALE —Because the commercial sector is the sector that is creating prosperity in the community. That is something that the Minister ought to realise by now. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I suggest that the honourable member get back to the matter in front of him instead of speaking to the Minister. Mr BEALE —Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the matter in front of me because this matter is increasing government spending, that is failing to deregulate the labour market- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are talking about the refurbishing of the Commonwealth Centre. Mr BEALE —This policy will drive Australia into recession. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Let us get back to the Commonwealth Centre. Mr BEALE —Finally, we believe that the Minister should ask his Department to have a close look at fit-out costs. In recent times fit-out costs have blown out significantly. The $18.4m that is envisaged-and it might please the Minister to know that this correlates with the estimates on page 22 of Document A-seems very high. We must rely more heavily on the more competitive private sector. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.18) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Canberra Mail Centre, Fyshwick. The Australian Postal Commission has a requirement to replace the existing inadequate premises from which its Canberra mail handling and vehicle operations are currently being carried out. The existing mail centre is located in two separate buildings in Kingston in the Australian Capital Territory which are quite unsuitable and inefficient for the purpose. The new Canberra mail centre will unite the mail handling activities on a single site and is intended to achieve more efficient operation and to provide more appropriate facilities for equipment and staff. The proposal involves the construction of a single-storey building for the mail processing area with a three-storey section housing administration, amenities and plant. A detached single-story building will also be built to provide a motor vehicle service centre. Hardstanding will be installed to cater for mail vehicles and parking for staff and visitors. The new building will be situated in Canberra Avenue, Fyshwick. The estimated cost of the work is $7.45m as August 1985 prices. I table plans of the proposed work. I commend the motion to the House. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.20) —Yesterday in this House I proposed a matter of public importance criticising the Government for its failure to direct Australia Post to bring an end to the mail dispute in New South Wales, which has now spread to Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, and most certainly to Canberra. Tonight we are looking at a motion from the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) about the construction of a new mail centre in Canberra at a time when people in Canberra cannot post mail in post boxes to each other. Let us forget Sydney for a moment-even though, as I said yesterday, 40 per cent of Australia's mail goes through Sydney. The situation now-I repeat what I said yesterday-is that there are notices on the post-boxes in Canberra suburbs which read as follows: 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 posting box or over the counter at their nearest post office. This posting box will be out of service for the duration of the dispute. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) said today that he thought that the dispute could now go back to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The fact is, of course, that the band of renegades in New South Wales, in Sydney, are defying the Arbitration Commission and defying the Minister, therefore, because the policy that the Arbitration Commission has endorsed is the policy of Australia Post. Now we have a new mail centre scheduled for Canberra. I do not doubt that the Minister for Housing and Construction is right in saying that we need it, but what I want to draw to the attention of the House and the Australian public is the fact that at this very moment anyone who wants to go down to the end of his street in Canberra and drop a letter into a mail box cannot do so. Centre or no centre, there will be no one to pick up the letters. We already have about eight million articles of mail held up by the strike in Sydney and the corresponding strike in Canberra. Yesterday in this House I asked the Minister for Communications who authorised the taping up of these mail-boxes. We know that in New South Wales they were not being taped up; they were being nailed over. It is truly astonishing. Yesterday, the citizen who gave me the notice that I have just read out reported back to me two hours later that someone else-probably hiding in the bushes watching him taking the notice off-came forward and put a new notice on the letter-box. If only all these vigilantes used the same energy to collect and distribute the mail-I see that I am just about to provoke the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson)-as they use in putting these notices on boxes why they cannot do that, we might have an efficient service. It might make sense of this motion before the House now. Mr Saunderson —Why didn't you talk about it in your speech when you were addressing the Department of Communications? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Aston will be silent. I suggest to the honourable member for Goldstein that the motion before the Chair is for reference to the Public Works Committee of work concerning the Canberra mail centre. Mr MACPHEE —You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we are looking seriously at the question of having another Canberra mail centre, we must ask ourselves how serious this Government is about delivering the mails at all. Do we need a Canberra mail centre, paid for by the taxpayers, when in fact the mails cannot get through? As I said yesterday-and I am pleased to repeat it-the Minister for Communications has power, under the relevant legislation, to direct Australia Post to bring this matter to a head, and the Government should back the management of Australia Post. It is doing the right thing. In respect of Canberra, I ask the Minister for Communications again: Who authorises the obstacles to the delivery of mail? Who authorises the placing of the notice that I have just read out? Why is it that Canberra's mail drivers are on strike? Are they out in sympathy with the sorters? Why is mail not being collected from mail-boxes? Why are Canberra residents being prevented from posting letters not just to Sydney or overseas but to each other? What will happen to Christmas mail? Why talk about creating yet another Canberra centre for the distribution of mail if, in fact, the mail cannot get through even the existing channels? I do not doubt the theory underlying what the Minister has said about the need for a new mail centre but there is a threshold question: If in fact there is such a level of misunderstanding between the management of Australia Post and its own employees and indeed, the New South Wales branch of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union and its members- Mr Saunderson —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. The honourable member should be addressing the matter at hand. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I take the honourable member's point. I have already pointed out to the honourable member for Goldstein the matter before the Chair. I trust that he will stick to that matter. Mr MACPHEE —I am pleased to abide by the point of order. I have made my point; I have expressed my concern yet again. The Minister for Communications has just come in and he is looking very worried-and so he might-about the fact that the mails are not getting through. This is not really a laughing matter except that we have raised it so many times and nothing gets done. We are building a new Canberra mail centre. My colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) will comment on its merit. I can only say that even if he thinks there is merit in the proposal in theory-there probably is-there is no point in it unless the Minister for Communications can ensure that he uses the power available to him by an Act of this Parliament to help Australia Post management bring this matter to a head and thereby help the Federal executive of the union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions which also want to bring the matter to a head. I conclude on this point: A small handful of APTU members have been ripping off the system for years. It is unfair to all of their colleagues outside the Sydney area, it is unfair to the other Australian workers under awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but, above all, it is particularly unfair to the Australian consumer of mail services, to those who use the services and who by statute of this Parliament are forbidden to use anyone other than Australia Post for the dispatch of mail weighing less than 500 grams. The Government has to take that into account. It is one thing to create a new centre for Canberra's mail distribution, but we cannot do that in a vacuum without regard to the policies of Australia Post, the practice of the APTU and the fact that the Government is sitting back and allowing the proper policies of a statutory body of this Parliament to be frustrated by a small band of renegades in the Sydney mail distribution centres. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(9.28) —I had intended to deal with this matter when we moved back to Order of the Day No. 4, Appropriation Bill (No. 1), but the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) decided to have a second bite at the cherry on the matter currently before the House. The honourable member raised only two points. The first was the fact that post boxes in suburban areas are taped over with a notice saying `This box is sealed due to industrial action. Please post at your nearest post office'. Also, for the information of the honourable member, post boxes outside the General Post Office are taped up as well and articles may be posted inside. The honourable member asked who is responsible for this. There is nothing insidious in it-the people responsible are those in Australia Post management. The reason is that they want, in the very difficult circumstances that exist at the moment, as much mail as possible to be moved and there is not much point in mail being stuck in mail boxes if it is not going to be moved. If it is posted at the nearest post office or, as I indicated, inside the GPO, people are likely at least to have some chance of having mail moved. So I do not really understand why, having regard to the circumstances at the moment, the honourable member for Goldstein sees anything wrong with the decision which has been taken by Australia Post. The other matter that was raised was the matter that I indicated was continuing to be negotiated between Australia Post management and the relevant union. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has listed this matter for further hearing before Commissioner Grimshaw at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 18 October, in Sydney. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.31) —I wish to speak despite the fact that my colleague the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has spoken. I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) again for making the information available. The Opposition does not oppose the referral of this project to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works. In addition to the comments made by my colleague, I would like to say two other things. I am delighted to be able to say them in the presence of the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson). As he is one of my constituents, I dare not say too much to upset him except that I hope that after the next election he is one of my constituents with whom I will not have to cavort in this place. The Redfern Mail Exchange experience indicates how pervasive the industrial relations problem is in regard to the creation of these mail exchanges. We ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to ensuring that the proposed work at Fyshwick is carried out in such a way as to ensure that industrial relations difficulties will be at a minimum. Mr Cleeland —Why don't we sell them? Mr BEALE —I am glad that the honourable member has raised this matter. It is exactly the matter I wanted to raise with the Minister. I am glad that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is also in the House. Given the continuing difficulty in supplying mail to the taxpayers of Australia and the Australian community, is it not time that the Minister talked to his colleagues about introducing some competition to make certain that these people are not able to hold the community to ransom? Is it not time for the Minister to see that what is happening- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member's flow, but I point out that, although I have given a fair amount of latitude to speakers in this debate, what is before the Chair is a reference for the construction of a Canberra mail centre. We do not have motions before us in regard to privatisation, the economy or whatever. Mr BEALE —Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about the construction of a facility- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Exactly. Mr BEALE —That has the potential if it is dealt with, as similar facilities have been dealt with, to create a great deal of trouble for the Australian community. I am suggesting to the Minister that he give consideration to whether there might be an alternative available to him to ensure that by virtue of competition we get a better result from the proposed mail centre at Fyshwick than we would anywhere else. Finally, let me again ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to ensure- Mr Duffy —Which Minister? Mr BEALE —The Minister for Housing and Construction; there are so many Ministers in the chamber I am flattered. I ask that the Minister for Housing and Construction arrange for his officers to ensure that there is a maximum involvement of the private sector in the project. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Schedule 2. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $482,958,000. Department of Science Proposed expenditure, $494,972,000. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.35) —I would like to speak to the appropriations for the Department of Communications. Whilst the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has 1985 down as the year of tax reform, I think historians will paint it more as the year of broadcasting reform. There are some major decisions to be made in this area. The Government is now in the process of deliberating on those questions. I have spoken in this place before about the dilly-dallying of the previous Government and its Ministers, in particular the now Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), who really did not have a clue at what the Department of Communications was about, which is why he sidestepped the Communications portfolio very nicely when he was in government and handed it over to the now honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). Historically, it was an accident-which I must admit I appreciate, having a vast interest in this area-that this Government came into office when this country was on the verge of making a number of decisions with regard to the satellite. That process is still taking place, although the initial major decisions have been put into train. Now, in some respects because of the satellite, we are also seeing a revolution in broadcasting and communications in this country. We are looking to provide services for the rural and outback areas, for country people, which are equal to those available to metropolitan Australia. We are also looking at our national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as it is now, the name of which has changed since this Government came to office. We are also looking at the Special Broadcasting Service and, as we have seen in the newspapers in the last few days, at the possibility of having a national broadcaster or a national broadcasting corporation with a channel 1-channel 2 set up that may incorporate the existing ABC and SBS services. I have not time to go into that, although I may say that I think some people, within the industry and elsewhere, have deliberately misled some constituents regarding the SBS proposal. It has been suggested that the amalgamation of SBS and the ABC will do away with the SBS. Nothing is further from the truth. The Government is concerned to make sure that in the long term-not the short term-the Special Broadcasting Service, or multicultural television in Australia, as it may be better to put it, is enhanced and cultivated and becomes a very strong and viable broadcasting service. I do not believe that that can be done if multi-cultural television is allowed to stand alone because that could mean that in 10 or maybe 20 years time multi-cultural television will wither on the vine. I would like to see it, with certain guarantees, become a part of a national broadcasting service. Those guarantees can be put in place so that multicultural television becomes a firm part of our broadcasting industry. Those guarantees of on-air television will enable us in the time available-at this stage we are looking at about 16 hours to spare on one channel-to look at the possibility of educational television, which the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) may wish to address. I refer to university television, University of the Air, which is shown in several countries throughout the world. We could even see a spot for innovative Australian drama. That will never happen while we have separate television channels because in the long term one is faced with the problem of capital equipment, of capitalising that channel in a rather expensive way. Many millions of dollars would be involved if one channel were to achieve that by itself. We could go down the track of having something like BBC-1 and BBC-2; we could have separate boards; we could even have separate boards running each channel, with an overriding board looking at the whole situation. There are various forms that could be considered but, for the benefit of broadcasting in this country past the year 2,000, there would be a lot of merit in establishing a national broadcasting service which incorporated the existing or a revamped ABC with a special broadcasting or multicultural corporation which would give the opportunity for other services such as educational services. The other area of equalisation that I mentioned earlier is extremely complex. One of the policies that has been put forward is the breakdown of the two-station rule. That does not mean that people should be allowed to own three or four metropolitan stations. One of the possibilities that has been put forward is grandfathering the present two-station rule in the metropolitan areas and, beyond that, having an aggregate number of populations served by other networks, whether they have one channel or several. That goes back to what I have said in this House before. How is it that a Sydney or Melbourne station is equal to one in, say, Darwin or Wollongong? There is absolutely no comparison and it is quite stupid to look at them as being equal. I believe that the two-station rule should never have been implemented in the first place. Taking that to its logical conclusion further down the track-and we are setting up a broadcasting service which we hope will serve this country for many generations-we could see a dozen middle order networks within Australia. I think that would be very beneficial, particularly to the independent program producers of this country. They would have a little more leverage than they have now. In fact, they do not have any now. If the networks do not want to buy programs from them at their prices, there is absolutely nothing the independent program producers can do about it. That, of course, leads me to another point regarding the two-station rule, and that is the present situation with the Channel 10 network and Mr Murdoch's predicament now that he has become a United States citizen. I am not concerned with Mr Murdoch as a person-I have never met the man-and I think that Channel 10 is doing very well. However, I think it is important as a principle that if the spirit of the legislation is to be effective, the present tribunal investigation into the ownership of the Channel 10 network must uphold the view that that network is under foreign ownership. Lawyers can do all sorts of things to get around the Act, but if the spirit of the legislation is to be upheld at all, I do not see how News Limited can maintain the ownership of the two stations in Melbourne and Sydney. The fundamental view I hold very sincerely is that the foreign ownership provisions must prevail. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(9.45) —I join the debate tonight because of my interest in this subject over a couple of months as Opposition spokesman for communications. In that time I found that communications was a very fascinating area of government policy. It is one that spreads over not only the now high profile Australia Post, Telecom Australia and those areas which affect everyone but into an area of enormous technological advancement, an area which offers the whole of the nation a great opportunity for advancement in the future. There would not be a member of the chamber who would not concede that communications as a whole is the fastest growing area in the commercial sector and one which shows the potential for change and growth, probably for another decade or two decades. One has only to see the enthusiasm with which entrepreneurs are entering the area of communications and paying such substantial prices for the right of entry. I refer honourable members to some of the developments that will occur in the next few years in the area of high definition television systems. Something which we do not yet have in Australia, but which will have a dramatic effect on viewers and, as a consequence, on the market generally, is the area of satellite direct broadcasting. This in itself will bring many headaches to governments in the future. In the area of satellite direct broadcasting of television, and satellite broadcasting of radio and information to portable low cost receivers, the Government must answer the basic question of what to do about networking in this nation. Networking is something which we have learnt to accept. It is transmitted to television receivers and we all know which channel to turn to. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) referred to the Murdoch ownership of two channels. But he is by no means the only controller of networks in Australia. The Government must come to grips with the future direction of this policy. It is my contention that the ownership rules are in error. We ought to look at what happens in the United States with regard to ownership. In that country the number of television stations that can be owned is not restricted to two, as is the case in Australia. That means a person could own two television licences in Queensland, Western Australia or any other State. In Australia one can own two television station licences which permits one probably to have access to about 60 per cent of the viewing audience in this nation. Those sorts of controls are clearly inequitable. If we stack two provincial licences against two metropolitan licences, the inequity stands out. Mr Saunderson —You have been reading some of the Minister's speeches. Mr MOORE —It may well be that he has been listening to mine. In view of that, I suggest that in future we might look at the area of ownership in relation to penetration of the market. That might be far more interesting. On top of that, we are seeing a number of other developments. There are new television production methods, improved television receivers, which I referred to previously, and new ways of transmitting signals, such as MAC and digital. Both of these have been picked up in Australia and I am quite sure will become more important as time goes by. Added to that is the rather complex nature of the satellite system which we have adopted-the B-MAC system which we use-and its benefits as seen by the Department and the Government and the recommendation for its use. It is unique. Australia so far is the only nation that has adopted this system of signal in satellite use. I do not know whether it will prove to be the correct answer. But it certainly leads to the high cost of production of receivers for the bush and it certainly places certain restraints in relation to production in the future. Having said that about the technological changes for the future, which I think embrace enormous opportunities for commerce and the whole of the nation, in terms of entertainment and business transmissions, I think that a number of other initiatives will clearly become important to us all. I am impressed by what I have seen of small to short range television networks in America, which allow small communities to produce and show their individual programs to their own concerns. I raise this matter because I am very conscious of the need for regionalism within television and radio services. I think every community aspires to and hopes to embrace that in the national program. To achieve this within a networking program will require, of course, both technology and a commitment. What I saw in some places in America enabled those communities to run their own sorts of television stations on low frequency and a low cost. At the same time, they were able to pick up major programs on a networking basis. That sort of program had an enormous appeal to me for the small towns in the electorate of Wide Bay and in many other country areas. I am quite sure that it would have some appeal in those areas. In the remaining minutes available to me I want to come to the matter of commercial television. The Government, whether it be the current Government or the next government, will have to address this matter. At present we are set down a course of having supplementary licences. Applications for these licences are bogged down in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Despite pressures that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has applied there from time to time to get decisions, there is still a massive log jam not only in that area but also in the whole administrative process of the Tribunal. I am sure that the Opposition in government would address itself to the position of the Tribunal, its powers and what it should do. Indeed, the whole question of how licences should be renewed is something which a government should address. Commercial television licence renewals in America by the Federal Communications Commission are really no more than a formality. In Australia current renewal applications for television licences cause millions of dollars to be paid to legal firms for representation. I am quite sure that any progressive government would see the absolute falsehood in continuing down that track. A number of approaches will have to be taken on the matter of commercial television. If we throw to one side supplementary licences will we embrace aggregation? That, in itself, has certain problems. Will we embrace multi-channel services? I am sure that the Minister has been subjected to some pressure because of those questions. On top of that, if one is to consider those matters, one has to consider the financial impact of this attempt at equalisation, the additional services for the remote areas and how the equalisation may effect other aspects of broadcasting policy. Equalisation has become the dream-world of the current Government. I understand that the Minister has said that in 10 years time, in 1996-I think that was the date I remember seeing in a newspaper somewhere-we will have equalisation of services throughout Australia. I think that is right; I might be wrong. Mr Duffy —Earlier than that. Mr MOORE —It will be earlier than that. In those circumstances, there are challenges which will have to be met by the regional television stations in relation to their positions, markets and the competition which they will ultimately face from the networks in Australia. It is true that these regional stations have enjoyed a degree of monopoly in an industry which is well known for protectionism and monopoly. In my view, no industry is quite so well protected as the communications industry as a whole is in Australia. But regional stations undoubtedly have the politics on their side, if not technology. In the future regional stations will have to come to grips with the technological advances. If they fail to do that I think time will pass them by. I recommend to all regional station operators and owners that in relation to their commercial future they consider the enormous advances that are taking place in the technical area. Regrettably, that just about takes me out in terms of time. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! Indeed it does. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(9.55) —I rise tonight to speak on matters pertaining to the Department of Communications and I will take the opportunity to address a couple of points in regard to Australia Post which were raised in an earlier debate and mentioned by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), in this debate. He spoke of post boxes in Canberra being taped over. Rather than trying to find something menacing or sinister hidden behind that, he should have been praising Australia Post management here in Canberra, which was trying to ensure that people were not misled into thinking that if they dropped their letters into a post box they would be picked up and delivered. By covering the opening to the boxes and placing a note on them, it was informing people that if it was possible for them to drop their mail off at a post office they would have a far better chance of having it delivered. I would have thought that that sort of initiative by the management should have been applauded rather than being thought of as some sinister plot. The reality is that Australia Post is faced with a very serious complex dispute which has a long history extending right back to the days of the Redfern Mail Exchange in Sydney. It is a unique situation which exists in New South Wales only. It is part of a problem resulting from poor management decisions made many years ago. Australia Post management has spent a lot of time attempting to remedy the situation. There has been a lot of criticism by Opposition members of the people who are on strike. For whatever reason the rorts which have been discussed in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and criticised by everyone came into being, the facts are that they have been in operation for quite some period. They were part of agreements made, rightly or wrongly, between management and the union. The workers have come to expect those conditions as a way of life. They do not consider them as rorts; they became conditions of employment. For many of the workers, changes to the rostering system mean the loss of thousands of dollars of income per year. Anybody who faces a loss of income, whether he be a business person or otherwise, will do everything he can to maintain his income and thereby his living standards. The workers have families and they have children to bring up. Whilst one may not necessarily agree with the dispute, one at least has to give some consideration and try to understand why those who are involved in the dispute are taking the action they are taking. It may be futile, or they may achieve something out of it. The reality is that one must show some sympathy and understand why those people are trying to protect their incomes for their families and to preserve their living standards. However, I do not want to speak at length on that because I do not have a lot of time. I want to talk also about broadcasting. The Opposition spokesman on communications earlier tonight also spoke on broadcasting, and in particular he raised the problems of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The ABC takes a very substantial part of the Budget allocation of the Department of Communications-$390m to $400m. That sounds like a lot of money. In the main, people see ABC television and ABC radio as serving the main population areas. The reality is that the ABC does much more than that. It provides radio services, not just in the metropolitan areas, but throughout the rural and regional areas of Australia. It provides television not just in the city areas but throughout the regional and rural areas. It provides services to remote areas via the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service and others. As well as those services, it is also responsible for Radio Australia, which broadcasts throughout the Pacific region. Radio Australia does an excellent job and its work is recognised throughout the world. The ABC has other responbilities, such as its orchestras and non-broadcasting activities. They have to be recognised too because they are a basic part of its infrastructure. It is very easy for people to stand up and criticise the ABC. I do not pretend that everything it has done has been good and that it does not necessarily have some problems. It seems to me it would be far more constructive if honourable members were to come in here and provide some ideas and some support and were to congratulate the ABC on areas in which it has performed well. It provides thousands of jobs for people in broadcasting. Some 6,000 people work for the ABC, many of them in rural areas, in radio and television. They do a fine job in keeping country people informed not only of what is happening around the world and in the capital cities of Australia but also of what is happening in their regions, including reports on rural activity. I am sure that honourable members from the National Party of Australia would agree with me that those sorts of services are very important. It has been disappointing for me over the last few days to read of the arguments with regard to the Special Broadcasting Service. People who have become experts in broadcasting overnight have come out in support of various options for leaving the Special Broadcasting Service standing alone. I believe that most of those people would have had very little interest in broadcasting and would have taken very little time to study all of the activities of the ABC. We have to start examining what we want to achieve for Australia in the way of national broadcasting. The opportunity is there for this Government to examine all aspects of broadcasting and to look at the concept of a national broadcasting organisation which encompasses all of the activities taking place at the moment. Much of the criticism of the ABC has been aimed at its failure to respond to the multicultural aspects of Australia. That criticism is well founded. There is no question that much if not all of the ABC programming has failed to recognise that Australia is a multicultural nation. The SBS has performed a very good job since its creation and it certainly has lifted the understanding of the community at large of the need for proper multicultural broadcasting. There is a need for us to ensure it is left out of the mainstream of broadcasting. We have to lift the ABC's performance and bring multicultural broadcasting into the mainstream. We have also to look at the performance of private broadcasting, which is to be damned just as much as, say, other broadcasting organisations. The major broadcasters do little if anything in the way of multicultural broadcasting and the same can be said of regional stations. If multicultural broadcasting is to be developed properly in Australia it is important that it be not just a minor part of the broadcasting system but part of the mainstream activity so that every broadcaster participates openly and it is not shunted off into some minor section. It is a pity that some attempts have not been made to look at the real reasons why multicultural broadcasting needs to be in the mainstream rather than centering on a small aspect of it. There is no doubt that some aspects of the performance of the ABC deserve criticism. Some of the points that were made by the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), are correct. Some of the Corporation's philosophy and programming has been very poor. The honourable member criticised the National. When one looks at some of the problems the National has had one wonders what other programs in Australia, particularly those programs on commercial stations, would have had the same sort of criticism levelled at them by every aspect of the media. I refer to opposition television stations, radio stations and the newspapers which are all controlled by the media barons. Obviously, it was their intention to ensure that the National failed from the beginning because it was in their interests to do so. They used every weapon within the media that they had. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUFFY(Holt) —(Minister for Communications) (10.06)-Firstly, I thank all those honourable members who have made a contribution to the debate. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is at the moment travelling to Canada to attend an important summit. The matters raised in relation to the appropriations for the Department of Science will be passed on to him for consideration on his return. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) raised a matter which involved the Department of Communications, which Department, in conjuction with STF Pty Ltd, a company representing the Sydney commercial television stations, has, for some years, been planning translator services to bring commercial and national television to 23,000 residents in parts of Manly-Warringah, Mosman and other harbourside areas. As outlined by the honourable member for Warringah, there is considerable support for the project within the community and local government authorities. But there has been firm opposition from the New South Wales Government based on its concern about the possible aesthetic impact of the mast in the national park. Recent advice that I have received from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) indicates that, due to opposition from the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning, the proposed North Head site is not acceptable. Alternative sites now have to be considered. The assistance of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has been sought in determining the New South Wales Government's attitude to the two alternative sites. I share the frustrations expressed tonight by the honourable member for Warringah. All the communications issues on this matter have been resolved but the project cannot proceed until agreement has been reached with the New South Wales Government regarding the acceptability of sites from an environmental point of view. In relation to the matters raised by the honourable member for Warringah tonight, although it is still my view that the communications issues have been resolved I share the frustration expressed by him and I will have the matter taken up directly with the New South Wales Government. I thank the honourable member for raising this matter as it is of considerable concern to the constituents in the area. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) expressed his support for regional broadcasting, which support is shared by the Government. He indicated concern for the future of regional broadcasters. However, to a large degree, that will depend on the performance of regional stations to deliver localism and matters of regional interest in those areas mentioned by the honourable member. I and the Government agree with the importance he places on this matter. In the long term it will probably depend on the performance of regional stations to continue to deliver a service to their areas which makes regionalism and localism worth while in the context outlined by the honourable member. The shadow spokesman for communications, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), had two bites at the cherry tonight. He spoke firstly on the appropriations and then managed to have another go on the motion regarding the Canberra mail centre. The first issue raised by him concerned the taping up of mail boxes. This is not the first time that the management of Australia Post has found it necessary, and in the best interest of people posting mail, to do that. It has happened in the past. I do not want to add anything to what has been said on that matter by the honourable member for Aston (Mr Saunderson). I thank him for his contribution because I think he dealt with the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein more than adequately. However, the honourable member for Goldstein also moved into another area. I accept what he said-he said it in a constructive way-in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. However, although it is all very well to say that some programs are good, as he did-he commended some radio programs and criticised other programs-I do not think that shadow spokesmen and certainly Ministers can afford to engage in the luxury of criticising programs. I suggest to the honourable member for Goldstein that whatever else may be the position regarding the ABC, the question of independence in programming is something which has to be respected without any reservation. Perhaps I can be so bold as to tender a bit of advice to him that I think it is a very dangerous path to go along. I note that the other day the honourable member distinguished between interference in the affairs of the ABC and intervention in the affairs of the ABC, a distinction which is a little too subtle, I think, to answer the criticism that one cannot go down that track where one can be seen to be doing and, in fact, do the disservice of impinging on that independence in any way. Yesterday, we had a discussion in this place on the mail dispute. Page 2154 of Hansard records the honourable member for Goldstein as saying: 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- I do not know whether that is a misprint of the word `infamous', but it is in the Hansard as `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-- It continues. Later in that discussion the honourable member quotes Mr McQuitty: . . . 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. Page 2155 of Hansard records me as saying: 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. I want to correct the record on that point because in that debate the honourable member for Goldstein and I implied that Mr David McQuitty had called for the reinstitution of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act; that is, the CE (EP) Act. I wish to correct any misunderstanding caused by this. In fact, I am advised that neither Mr McQuitty nor any other member of Australia Post's senior management has ever called for the reinstitution of the CE (EP) Act. I think that the instance to which the honourable member for Goldstein referred was the occasion when Mr McQuitty referred to the desirability of the so-called no work as directed no pay provisions which formerly appeared in the Postal Services Act. As is well known, the effect of those provisions now repealed is mirrored in practical terms by the current stand-down provisions made available through the offices of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the relevant awards involved in this dispute. Of course stand-down provisions have been applying for some time in relation to the matter currently in dispute. I considered that it was desirable that this particular matter be qualified for the record, because there was some inaccuracy or misunderstanding of the position by both the shadow Minister and me. I thank the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) for the contribution he made, mainly in relation to the broadcasting areas, in which he has shown a particular and continuing interest. All members who spoke, from both sides of the chamber, have attempted to make a constructive contribution and I thank them for that. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Remainder of the Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.18) —Appropriation Bill (No. 2) seeks appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1985-86 of just over $4 billion. The Bill provides for expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been provided previously. Provision is made also for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. This is part of the Budget procedures of the Government and the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I take this opportunity to make some remarks about the conduct of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his approach to the business of this House and in pursuing not only the Budget proposals but also the taxation changes that have been put before the House. The Opposition raises the most strenuous objection to the Treasurer's virtual contempt of the House. When asked questions at Question Time, the Treasurer either disregards the question, pours opprobrium on the person asking the question or attacks people in the community who are perfectly innocent. Mr Nehl —Or goes on forever. Mr CARLTON —Indeed, the honourable member is quite right. There has been a very grave abuse of Question Time for some considerable time during this Parliament. It is a matter of record that we have had fewer questions answered in this Parliament than we have for very many years. It is a matter of continuing concern to the Opposition. In Question Time today the Treasurer was asked five questions and a satisfactory answer was not given to one of them. The first question, which I asked, related to interest rates. It is a matter of great concern to the community that interest rates are at an historically high level. There is a necessity on the part of the Government, as it sees its economic policy, to maintain interest rates at a very high level to prop up a very shaky Australian dollar. This is due to the very poor performance on current account. Naturally, the Treasurer is very touchy about the continuing balance of payments difficulties-the figures are announced each month-and he is very touchy about being questioned about them. He is, of course, very concerned about the public effects of high interest rates. When asked this morning how high he would have to raise interest rates to meet his new target for the current account deficit of 4 per cent, which he announced last night outside the House, he said that he was merely quantifying something which was not quantified in the Budget. He said that the current account deficit would be reduced over a period. Last night he quantified this by saying that at the end of the financial year it would be at 4 per cent of gross domestic product. At page 73 of Budget Statement No. 2 the Treasurer gave a target of 4.6 per cent. Last night's change, where he quantified this amount at 4 per cent, was a quite major change from Budget Statement No. 2. He gave incorrect information to the House today in stating that there had been no quantification of this in the Budget statements. So the Treasurer was ill informed and he gave an incorrect answer to the House. This was compounded when he was asked by the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), whether the combination of the higher company tax rate, the foreign tax credit scheme, and the particular method of imputation he proposes would reduce the repatriation of earnings abroad and worsen the balance of payments. That question is clearly related to the first and is a cause of very great concern. We have opposed the foreign tax credit scheme on the ground that it will severely impair the activities of companies operating in countries with low tax regimes. These include a number of countries in our surrounding area, particularly in South East Asis. What is the incentive for a company to move and establish new operations in a low tax country if it will be taxed on any repatriated earnings to Australia which do not meet the full tax rate payable in Australia? In other words, if the tax rate in the foreign country is 25 per cent and our new tax rate is 45 per cent, the difference between 25 per cent and 45 per cent has to be made up on any earnings repatriated to Australia, thereby removing the incentive for that company to take advantage of the taxation arrangements in the foreign country. This will have very severe effects on the activities of Australian companies and will inevitably lead some of them to close their operations in foreign countries or, alternatively, not repatriate any dividends. This, of course, will have an effect on Australia's balance of payments. The Treasurer treated this question with contempt. He said that the amount of money repatriated overall was practically nothing compared with the borrowings made overseas by companies in Australia and therefore he was not particularly worried about it. He then indicated that he did not understand the full impact of the question, which was about the combination of the higher company tax rate, the foreign tax credit scheme, and the particular method of imputation he wants to use for the taxing of dividends, and how this would affect companies activities overseas. He merely tabled a Treasury example of a tax calculation which was dependent entirely on the relevant profit having been repatriated; whereas the whole point of the question was that the tax regime being introduced by the Treasurer would cause companies not to repatriate profits in the first place. Obviously he did not understand the question, and it casts great doubt on whether he really understands the combined effect of these three taxation measures. The Treasurer was asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), whether farmers would be hit with a capital gains tax when selling or trading in previously leased farm machinery. This is a quite common occurrence. If a combine harvester has been leased and there is a residual value of the lease, if the owner sells that piece of equipment at the residual value and wants to but a new piece of equipment, or trades it in, the difference between the residual value of the lease and the sale price or trade-in price would, it appears, be subject to the full capital gains tax being imposed by the Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is putting the Chair in a little bit of difficulty. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) actually deals with proposed expenditure for the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings and grants to States. The honourable member is really speaking to Appropriation Bill (No. 1), which has already been dealt with by the House. At this stage of the proceedings I do not want to restrict the honourable member too much, but there are Standing Orders which I have to take note of and I trust he will not test me too far. Mr CARLTON —Mr Speaker, I am sorry, but I did understand in the course of debating the Budget Bills, of which this is one of the two main ones, that a fair degree of licence was available to honourable members. I might also say that the amount of time that has been set aside for the discussions of the Appropriation Bills has not been- Mr SPEAKER —The amount of time is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the decision of the House. I am willing to allow the honourable member some latitude, but he is really wide of the mark on this. Mr CARLTON —Mr Speaker, it is very kind of you to allow me some latitude. I think I have given some indication of the very great concerns that we have had, because the person who is ministerially responsible for this Bill has been treating this House, and by extension the Australian people-the people out in the community, those going about their business in an honest way-with total contempt. It is necessary for us to draw attention to that in the House and to make use of the very limited facilities available to the Opposition for doing that. Nonetheless, Mr Speaker, I was going to go on to point out the unsatisfactory answers by the Treasurer to questions from the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), but in deference to your wishes I will not continue in that vein. I merely indicate that we do have that very sincerely held concern. The Opposition will offer no objection to the passage of this Bill, it being a Budget Bill. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.28) —As Minister Assisting the Treasurer I think I must make some comments on those that have been made by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). As has just been pointed out, the contribution of the shadow Treasurer is totally irrelevant and also totally inaccurate. He has done nothing but take up the time of back benchers which might have been used by them in the adjournment debate. The genesis of this wasting of our time by the shadow Treasurer has been, of course, the information given to the House earlier today by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) when during Question Time he wiped the floor once again with the Opposition. It is time we gave the back benchers a go. It is a pity that due to other business there probably will not be much of an adjournment debate tonight. All I can say is that it is no wonder the Treasurer, with his usual accuracy and ability to sum things up in a few words, has dubbed the shadow Treasurer `Carlton Light'. 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. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.31) —The estimates contained in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1985-86 have a number of unusual characteristics. I think it is worth noting that not many years ago the appropriation for the parliamentary departments was included within the Budget itself. Mr Speaker, I think all of us within this place commend the idea of you having as a separate responsibility an allocation which enables you, as the parliamentary head of the House of Representatives, together with your colleague Mr President, to exercise responsibility on behalf of members of this place. A number of matters concern me in detail. Perhaps I could mention some in relation to the proceedings of the Parliament. Others relate to the detail of Parliament about which I think we ought to be concerned. Certainly a number of matters have come to my notice in regard to the detail of the functioning of the two Houses of Parliament. I believe that these matters would probably concern you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) as they do me. Perhaps I could address those matters first. For example, I understand there have been moves to introduce a centralised computer system. I hope there can be some reconciliation in the points of view between the two Houses. It seems to me that at one stage-and I hope this matter has been resolved-it was suggested that the two Houses could not determine what type of computer they were going to have. Mr SPEAKER —Not so. Mr SINCLAIR —It has been resolved? I am delighted. Mr Young —Our problem now is what we do in the electoral offices. Mr SINCLAIR —I was going on to that. Mr SPEAKER —May I indicate for the information of honourable members that when matters of this kind are raised I trust the House will resolve to go into Committee so that I can respond to aspects that fall more within my administrative responsibility. Mr SINCLAIR —I would be delighted if you would do so. This has been mentioned and I am very pleased that you picked it up. I am pleased to have that response, Mr Speaker, because I have been informed of that. Just thinking through the computer installations, I think there are some very real problems in trying to ensure that adequate provision is made in this House, certainly in the new Parliament House and also in electoral offices for equipment with which one can achieve a reasonable exchange of information. I would be very interested to hear what progress is being made in that respect. Indeed, I know that many members, certainly on this side of the House, have been fortunate in having computers installed. I hope that all members will very shortly have word processors which will make an enormous difference to their daily work. I hope that a number of items of equipment can progressively be provided to all members by the Parliament. I think each of us is finding that the work load is increasing. Our necessary involvement in the wider community is such that unless we have a reasonable base of communication between our electoral offices and the Parliament difficulties will occur. Our electoral offices need to have reasonable access to the Parliamentary Library and departmental offices. It would be an enormous advantage if that could be done by way of a computer or word processor. I would be delighted, Mr Speaker, if in a few minutes you could advise us of the progress that has been made. I think all members of this place are interested in that. There are, of course, varying attitudes by honourable members in regard to offices and equipment. However, the standard of equipment has improved very significantly. I commend the practice that has now enabled each of us to have three electoral staff. This makes a big difference. I know that in order to try to control the budget it is necessary to impose restrictions on the travel of some parliamentary staff from electorate offices to Canberra. One would hope that when we move to the new Parliament House which will have significantly greater accommodation for members we will not be denied the opportunity of having our staff come to Canberra on a reasonable basis simply because of a limitation on travel. However, I realise the costs that are involved. Within these other joint facilities-and I am speaking in the first instance about those-it is necessary that most members of this place comprehend that the commitment to the new Parliament House reasonably saw us all living, perhaps, within more constraints in the short term with the hope of things being better when we moved on to the hill. I think that all of us should accept that in this, the 1985 Bill to cover the Parliament, it is not so many years before we can expect to move, and therefore improvement in this place can perhaps be suspended. I understand that with the increased size of the Parliament it was necessary to provide new facilities. I should like to commend you, Mr Speaker, and all responsible for those new offices. They are excellent. Indeed, those who have gained an office there are far more fortunate than many who live in some of the dungeons, including some of those in which Ministers live and work, which do not seem to be the best of architectural design. There is a problem, however, in a number of areas in this place. I have never really been too sure that we have necessarily made the best use of some of the facilities, and yet I know the difficulties that exist in trying to provide all those things that members would want. I worry sometimes about, for example, the fluctuating demand in the dining rooms. It must be extraordinarily difficult to maintain staff, in view of the extent to which we have a peak demand when the House is sitting and then, as very shortly, we are up for three weeks with a minimal number of people going into the dining room. There always seem to be a large number of new staff coming and going there. I know how difficult it must be to provide the high level of service that members reasonably expect. Whilst I do not go along with some criticism that some senators have made on other occasions about the standard of food in this place, I think that the Australian community needs to know that we do not live on the best of wine and food at an incredibly subsidised rate, and that those who perforce are away from their homes, live on a diet that most of us see as being more related to a boarding school diet than to some of the fare in the better restaurants around the capital cities or even the country towns with which I am more familiar. I worry about the facilities and the standard of those facilities, and whilst I know that everything that can be done is done, sometimes members find them perhaps not up to the standard that they would like. I have reasonable hopes that when we move up to the hill all those things will be matters for the past. Having said that, however, I commend those responsible for the Library, for the parliamentary dining rooms and for the Joint House Department for the overall standards that they set. I know something of the limitations. I think that they generally provide a very good service. Above all, I say to all of the people in this place that I think that we are incredibly fortunate in the remarkably pleasant approach that most of them have. Given the hours that they work, it is incredible. I spoke to one lass in the dining room yesterday who said that she had been working a 15-hour day. I put it to the Leader of the House that if only he had a decent sitting hours pattern that girl might well work something like the hours that most other members of the community normally enjoy. I do not think that one can lightly pass that over. I know that some of the senior staff in this house, including officers at the table, work inordinately long hours. Just because we happen to be idiots and stay here far later than we should, I suspect there is no real reason why we need to impose those constraints on others, be they in the broadcasting box or elsewhere around this place. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that perhaps those responsible for the sitting hours-I guess that I have been responsible in the past, as the Leader of the House is now-might well have in mind that maintaining a fairly benevolent approach is not always easy. If the hours of work are long it is very difficult to maintain a normal pleasant and happy expression and a reasonably benign approach to members, who on occasions can be extraordinarily cantankerous. Within the Parliament, there are, however, a number of other things about which I should like to speak. They are not specifically within your financial responsibility and certainly within your quasi-judicial responsibility, if I might call it that. We on this side of the House are most concerned with a number of aspects of the Government's present approach to the Parliament. I think that policy statements have a peculiarly important role. I am delighted to see the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurdord) in the House at present. It is very unfortunate when statements such as the two from the Minister today on migration matters are tabled and not made in the Parliament. There are many issues which affect the wider community and which, while they might be covered in a Press statement, are not normally comprehended in the way they would be if presented by way of a parliamentary statement which is responded to and then subsequently passed into legislation. On many occasions, as we all know, policy statements mark the date from which new policies commence. If they do and there is a delay between the policy statement and the introduction of legislation, people in the community can well be in a totally difficult position because they do not really know what the policy is and they are not even able to understand what the complexities or the constrasting point of view might be in regard to its implementation. Even when there is a policy statement there can be confusion, as I guess every businessman in Australia is finding with the tax package of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is true that if there is a policy statement there is some chance of at least exposing some of the pluses and minuses of it, and I believe that the practice of announcing policy by making a statement in this House, and not by a Press statement by answers to questions, is something that courtesy, tradition and normal practice suggest. I believe that it is far better that that practice be restored and I very much regret that it seems now to be honoured by its omission rather than commission by the present Government. I have mentioned Question Time. This is always a difficult period. You and I, Mr Speaker, have had some private discussions on the subject. I do not believe that setting some arbitrary time limit is the way to persuade anybody to do other than what they would like to, but I do believe that good will on both sides is the best approach to it. It is unfortunate that the protracted answers that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and some other Ministers have given totally destroy the opportunity that back benchers of both sides reasonably expect to get to put their own points of view. We have had some doubts on our side about the continued wisdom of always having a structural Question Time, not because we do not see that the Government is embarrassed, for demonstrably it is, but because there is a place in this House for honourable members to put their own particular questions. Some of those questions might not be of shattering, nationwide importance but if an honourable member happens to be concerned with having a by-pass road around some little village and he thinks that the Commonwealth might well fund the construction of that road, I know how beneficial raising such a matter can be. Certainly I know that my constituents in New England on many occasions would far prefer to hear the name New England than the name Australia. I expect that that attitude would be no different in most electorates. So it is important to have a Question Time where honourable members have a good opportunity to put as many questions as possible without long and protracted responses. Yet I do realise the difficulty you have, Mr Speaker, in administering that. I suggest, though, that one issue that the Procedure Committee could well consider is the extent to which time for questions without notice should be extended. I think that with an expanded parliament there is now reason for us to think of having an hour of questions without notice instead of 45 minutes. At the same time, I think we also noticeably miss the practice of giving oral notices of motion. I know that that is another issue that the Procedure Committee is considering and I hope that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) and his Committee can soon come forward with a recommendation in that respect. While I accept that the practice can be abused, it is necessary that there be an opportunity for honourable members to canvass issues in a way that they could until recent times. It is a pity that that practice has gone. It is also true that when one is considering the Parliament the attitude of one in opposition to one in government might vary sightly but the role and influence of the Executive in the making of decisions ultimately taken are things about which most parliamentarians wonder. The answer to that, however, is essentially a matter of those other procedures of the Parliament being available. If we have Question Time, statements and other opportunities for debate, there should be no real criticism of the growing power of Executive. The area in which I find most conflict is the extent to which representatives of the media seem to be able to generate responses from the Executive simply because they have a forum which is denied to those of us in the Parliament. I do not believe that that is a healthy development. It is sad that on so many occasions we read of something that has been squeezed out of a Minister because he has been stopped either on the way into Parliament House or somewhere around the place, a microphone put in his hand and been asked a question. Mr Young —What about Malcolm? Mr SINCLAIR —I do not deny that it has happened on both sides of the Parliament. However, it is unfortunate that the concept of the kerbside Press conference seems to ensure that one gets far more out of a Minister and the Executive from such a conference than from the opportunities that should be available within the House of Representatives or perhaps in the other place. Mr Young —They will not be able to do it in the new one. Mr SINCLAIR —I assure the Minister that, from our point of view, the way by which one corrects these problems and even places within the media greater responsibility is by ensuring that parliamentarians have the chance to pursue the sort of questioning that is properly intended in this place. Of course, the Opposition also takes strong exception to the fact that the National Economic Summit and the National Taxation Summit have usurped what we see as the proper function of the Parliament. The Parliament is not a forum in which those who are not elected to it should have a role. There is a role for forums of any sort, but I do not believe that they should take place within this Parliament. I very much regret, Mr Speaker, that, together with others, you saw fit to allow this venue to be used for those two purposes. I do not believe that it was appropriate. I think it was unfortunate and trust that it will not become a common practice. Another area that, again, is not specifically within your bailiwick, Mr Speaker, comes back to the question of goodwill within the Parliament. There have been comments about the maintenance of judicial integrity around Australia. They have been made for reasons that are outside the particular responsibility of this Bill. If the judiciary is under comment and criticism and its integrity questioned, how much more important it is that there can be no question about the integrity of this Parliament. I very much regret that there has been a tendency to belittle the contribution that most politicians make. It should be understood that because there has been a suggestion that there need to be various forms of disclosure of pecuniary benefits and because of the sort of instance that has taken place in the Victorian Parliament there has been a growth in the community of the view that most politicians are crook. The Federal Parliament has been extraordinarily fortunate. The general standard of behaviour and public responsibility of members of this place and of the Senate is very high by world standards. There are very few who I believe in any way breach the responsibilities they have to their electorates. If they do so and certainly if they receive the benefit of some free travel or assistance, it is not in a way which will confer some pecuniary benefit on the person who grants it, but which rather will enable them better to perform the tasks for which they are elected to this place. I regret the sort of criticism in the Victorian Parliament about travel and its implications. It is important that the community at large understand that there is an inordinately high demand on parliamentarians, that they have a peculiar responsibility, that their integrity certainly must be above question but, equally, that their tenure of office is short. They each are subject to re-election at an incredibly frequent rate. It is important, therefore, that if people have doubts about politicians' integrity they can question it at election time if at no other. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we try to maintain standards so that we can lift the image of the politician in Australia which I am told at the moment is as low as that of the journalist, and that puts us just about in the depths. Be that as it may, I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that in this place we cause much of the cross for our own backs. Unless a general responsible attitude can be taken both by the Government and by the Opposition it will be extraordinarily difficult to achieve the public respect we all seek. I hope, therefore, that the small essentials of the running of Parliament, particularly to Question Time, making of parliamentary statements, opportunities for debate, such as, for example, the grievance day debate, which was cancelled today, and adjournment debates will be protected to the very maximum. I understand that at the end of any session there is a log jam of legislation. I know that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is conscious that there will be problems in the next three, or possibly four, weeks of sitting period. I put to him to the maximum that I hope he tries to contain the times of sitting to some reasonable embrace and not only protects the interests of his Government in trying to pass the legislation of which he has given notice but also provides a continuing opportunity for honourable members to make their contributions on issues which are as important to them as the Government's program is to it. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.50) —In this debate at the second reading stage of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill I would like to address a few remarks to the nature of the Estimates committees in this House. As government gets more and more complicated and as the size of government seems inevitably to grow, as governments spend more and more of taxpayers' money and as executive government struggles to have some control over the bureaucracy, the need gets greater for the Parliament to retain authority and supervision over government expenditure. The Parliament should be a vehicle for review of expenditure to ascertain and monitor where it is effective and efficient and to see the degree of duplication of departmental expenditure as well. Parliament and an appropriate Estimates committee system should be a vehicle for the reduction of government expenditure and the overview of unnecessary duplication of government functions. The increased size of this House, I believe, lends itself to the creation of a new and effective Estimates committee system. The House at present-I think the comments of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) indicate this-is in search of a proper role for itself in many ways and, I think, particularly in terms of appropriations and expenditure. I think the Senate has stolen a march on us in many respects. The House has a heavy responsibility in voting the funds for the operations of government. Indeed, I think that at present it has no effective role. The Estimates debates which we have been through today and in recent days amount to no more than a pretence and a farce. They are essentially extensions of the second reading debate where a limited number of members are given time to speak and seem to make set piece speeches which, I admit, have some political and electoral significance. But in terms of a meaningful debate of the Estimates where there can be give and take and toing and froing-except when some Ministers take it seriously and respond line by line, and there still cannot be dialogue-they really are a futile formality. Senate Estimates committees play a meaningful role in relation to proposed government expenditure and I think the Senate, as I have said, is leaving the House behind. There is a real role for the House to play in the examination of expenditure, not in duplicating the Senate committees but in providing the machinery for examination of policy, programs, structure and administration. I would envisage the role of House Estimates committees to be half-way between the role of the Senate committees on the one hand and the Committee of the Whole of this House, which is unsatisfactory, on the other. House of Representatives Estimates committees operated in 1979, 1980 and 1981. Sessional Orders provided for the appointment of Estimates committees to consider the proposed expenditures for departments and services contained in the Schedule to the main Appropriation Bill of the year. The principle adopted in examining the proposed expenditures was for the committees to proceed on the basis of an examination of policy rather than on a line by line examination of the Estimates. I think that was a successful way of going about it at that time. However, since 1982, when the Fraser Government abandoned the committees, consideration of the Estimates in this chamber has occurred in the Committee of the Whole. I think the distinguishing feature of those Estimates committees in comparison with the Senate committees was that consideration was not limited to financial scutiny. In fact, really good discussions on the whole spectrum of departmental operations and programs were possible. I believe that a number of the benefits were: A true exchange between members, Ministers and officers; the fact that members were getting detailed answers and the benefit of contact with departmental officers; the fact that officers had the benefit of contact with members, which I think was very useful to both; there was an absence of formality and an inclination to consider matters on party lines. The scene on the whole was different. Certainly more time was available for each department and for the consideration of each department's estimates. The benefits did not accrue only to members. Ministers and officers were also able to demonstrate to the Parliament their efficiency and sensitivity and obviously, on some occasions, they were able to win friends in this place. The current system of consideration of Estimates prevents members from both sides of the Parliament from any real and effective participation in the vital activity of parliamentary approval of proposed expenditure. We now have a level of participation and scrutiny which can only be described as token. The situation must be remedied. The House must establish and set up new Estimates committees. We have proved in the past that Estimates committees can work; we do not necessarily need to adopt the exact features of the previous arrangement, there is nothing sacrosanct about them. We need to be contemporary and consider today's needs in today's terms. I consider that this is a matter of considerable importance and I urge members on both sides of the House, particularly the Government, to accept that a better system is possible and can be adopted only if we have the will to see that it is. I hope that the Government will take the initiative. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will have some influence in this matter and that Standing Committee on Procedure will address this problem in an open-minded fashion. The establishment of Estimates committees also means a more efficient use of parliamentary time. The time pressures on the House can be alleviated by the establishment of a number of separate Estimates committees that could all meet at the same time. The current debate that we participate in when we consider Estimates only puts more pressure on the Estimates debates themselves, which means not only the limitation of that debate but also the limitation of other debates, with less time for each individual member to speak on matters that he or she wishes to address. The new system would encourage a better understanding and description of the functions of government. It would also encourage the better preparation of departmental estimates by departments and by the Government so that the Parliament, and thus the people, could actually see what is going on, not only by way of expenditure but also by way of functions in departments and where and how taxpayers' money is being spent. The adoption of program budgeting will significantly help in that regard. I refer to the estimates of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations this year which are part of a budgeting pilot study and which are an excellent step in this direction. That is most welcome. Program budgeting lends itself to Estimates committee examination along the lines that I have indicated. The establishment of Estimates committees in the House is a necessity for solving the great structural problem of achieving more efficient government and cutting goverment expenditure. Parliament needs to be given a chance to do the job. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State and Leader of the House)(10.58) —I wish to make some comments on the matters raised by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in relation to the Parliament. I do not wish to touch on the areas for which you have responsibility, Mr Speaker, and about which you will speak later in respect of office equipment in the Parliament. I have mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) that, in relation to the electorate offices, I have already asked someone from my Department to talk to some honourable members and to look at the work load in their electorate offices for the purpose of giving us a report on the type of equipment that would be best for members in carrying out their duties, and to keep them in touch with the sort of equipment which may be used here in the Parliament itself. The Government has made no decision on those matters, but I think it is necessary to do so as the Parliament is introducing computers into some members' offices. This will expand to all members' offices, I would think, by the time we move to the new Parliament. The majority of members would prefer to have that equipment in their electorate offices in order to carry out their work. I am looking at that now and I hope to have a report in a few weeks about what may or may not be available. In relation to this and to the question of electoral staff-the right honourable member mentioned how pleased members were to have a third member of staff-one cannot let the occasion pass without saying that the Fraser Government was the most miserable administration in terms of looking after members of the Parliament that this country has possibly ever seen. When members of the parliament went from one staff member to two in 1974 it was under another great Leader of the House, Fred Daly. When the number of staff members was increased from two to three, it was under another great Leader of the House-the member for Port Adelaide. In between times, in spite of all the applications we made to the Fraser Government, in spite of the recommendations of the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to staff-staff travel, the rights of shadow Ministers-nothing was done. It is only the Labor Party which ever recognises the work load of parliamentarians. On a number of occasions, under the leadership of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and now under the present Leader of the Opposition, we have made decisions to try to make life a little more comfortable for them in terms of the staff and the level of staff they have available. Mr Hunt —You are a statesman, Mick. Mr YOUNG —I know, and I say to honourable members opposite that life will be a lot more comfortable for back benchers while we are in power. I am in absolutely no doubt at all that, if the Opposition ever returns to office, those occupying the Opposition benches will be faced with the same answers we received between 1975 and 1983: `We cannot do anything. We cannot afford it. Members must always play a secondary role'. This Government is making what are by Fraser standards revolutionary changes so that members of parliament can carry out their duties around Australia, and we do not get much recognition from the Opposition about it. We are certainly not thinking of increasing staff numbers from three to four. There will be another Leader of the House when that happens. We are now just looking at equipment. In terms of travel rights for staff members, which was also raised by the right honourable member for New England, these are matters which are now dealt with by the Remuneration Tribunal. Again, this is another area in which the Government has been particularly generous to ensure that we have staff members here as often as possible. In the new Parliament House, of course, there will be new problems because each member's office will have a reception area, as should be the case. People do not understand that in this Parliament House there are no visiting rooms. There is nowhere in which a member can interview a visitor to the Parliament unless he kicks his staff out of his office. It is an absolutely shocking state of affairs as far as the facilities in the Parliament House are concerned. It is not helped by the tradition of having Ministers work from the Parliament instead of from their departments, which should have been the case. We would have had far better bureaucrats in Australia if Ministers had worked from their departments and not from Parliament House. We have established a tradition which I think has been to the detriment of good government in this country. The right honourable member for New England also mentioned wine and food and said that many people think we live a high life. He said that we do not; that we live fairly ordinarily. We have a bit of Siegersdorf and Watervale- good South Australian wines-and the food is not too bad. That reminds me, Mr Speaker, of a story I should tell you. A couple of blokes were arguing about whose spouse was the worst cook. One bloke said: `My wife is the worst cook because the pygmies from South America come here and dip their arrows in her cooking'. It seemed to establish a fair case. Mr Shipton —Better than the brown dog. Mr YOUNG —I was not going to mention that. In relation to the sitting hours, they are much the same as they were under the former Government. There have been occasions towards the end of a session when we have sat beyond 11 o'clock. No one likes it, including whoever plays the role of Leader of the House. Some matters are being looked at by the Procedure Committee. I hope that we do not need any massive changes. I have always said about this Parliament that we just need the application of a bit of common sense. We need to stop calling quorums every half hour or every hour. Mr Andrew —You used to do it. Mr YOUNG —That is right; I am not saying I did not. I am saying that we could reduce that to once a day. In some cases we might do like the House of Commons does and sit through all the meal hours so that the business of the House can continue. I do not know how the Clerks could fit into that. We might need an extension of their services. They are the sorts of things that can be done in this Parliament to make life a bit more bearable. On the matter of notices of motion, which the Manager of Opposition Business said that we should perhaps look at reintroducing, honour- able members opposite know what a rort they made out of that. They were taking up to 20 minutes to read notices of motion before Question Time. Ministers have a very busy schedule. When they come into this House at 2 o'clock for Question Time they expect to be here from 2 o'clock until a quarter to three for Question Time. They then expect to meet other commitments they have outside the chamber. They cannot do that if they are coming into the House and notices of motion which will never be debated are being read for 15 and 20 minutes every day. Whenever we have a system that is violated in the way that was violated, of course we will see the end of the system. That was exactly what happened with notices of motion. On the question of how long we should take for Question Time, the problem is not overcome, as the right honourable member for New England suggested, by increasing the time from 45 minutes to 60 minutes. That does not shorten the answers. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr YOUNG —Members of the Opposition are all saying `Hear, hear, we all want short answers', but I can tell them that when we were here from 1975 to 1983 asking for short answers, no one was listening. Big Malcolm used to stand here with his yellow pages and, if he wanted to take 40 minutes reading an answer, he would. What about Reggie Swartz? What about the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh)? Now the Opposition has sacked him. Old Tom used to go for 20 minutes giving us all the statistics about housing in Australia. I did not think he was too bad, but the Opposition has sacked him anyhow. He has gone overseas. He has sulked. Someone said that he got an inaugural. Mr Ronald Edwards —We don't give a continental. Mr YOUNG —No, that is right; most people don't give a continental. The only way to overcome the problem of Question Time is to have a minimum number of questions. That may mean that Question Time goes for 20 minutes or an hour and 20 minutes. Really, the only way we will overcome the problem is by saying that there has to be at least 14, 16 or 20 questions each Question Time. In that way Ministers know that they have to get through them. All we are doing at the moment is maintaining the standard set by the Fraser Government in regard to Question Time. The previous Government taught us how and now all the Ministers are following the standards that were set. The right honourable member for New England was very critical of Ministers giving information outside the House, which they do not give inside the House, at their kerb-side Press conferences. If any person ever made an art form of kerb-side conferences-it was like Ralph Hunt's property and bringing the sheep in with all the border collies-it was Malcolm. When Malcolm used to arrive at the House he would pull up at the Prime Minister's entrance at the side of the House and all the journalists would be there blowing and puffing with their little microphones. Malcolm would say: `The deficit is all right'. He would walk away. It would be all over Australia and nothing had been said in the House. Every morning Malcolm would give his kerb-side conference and he thought it was terrific. At least the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has done away with that. There will be no more of that nonsense. I understand that it will not be possible anyhow in the new House because all those of us who serve in the Parliament will probably be pulling up at private entrances. Journalists will not be able to interview us. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will have to walk around the front. I think I have dealt with most of the matters raised by the right honourable member for New England which only goes to show how efficiently the Parliament is being run under this Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Dr JENKINS(Scullin)(11.10) —Unless someone else wants to talk in the Committee stage I will take the opportunity to respond to a few of the points which have been raised. One point I should make is that we should devise a procedure which enables the Speaker to speak in some way on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. I felt that it was most appropriate to deal with the matters at the Committee stage. Two areas have been covered in this debate: One has been administration and the other procedures. I will address my remarks mainly to administration. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised the question about the computer system within the Parliament and being provided to honourable members. There seems to be some misunderstanding that there had been a question of incompatibility of computers. That is not so. In fact, a committee has been working very solidly on this to ensure, first of all, that those computers give us the flexibility that is needed in an institution such as this where honourable members and honourable senators have a wide variety of requirements and we have the different functions in the Joint House Department, the Library, the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the chamber departments. These particularly wide ranges of users were considered when the tenders were called for the equipment and they really did decide on the equipment we had to get which, as I say, was of a much wider flexibility. In fact, I sent a general letter and summary of plans to all honourable members back in October 1984 about the computer plans. I hope in the near future to be able to expand on that. I hope that members will make their views known about the question of the computers in Parliament House. These are sophisticated facilities and we have to take their provision slowly because there are questions of training and of the inadequacy of the accommodation in this building. Word processors and computers are not marvels that can exist without appropriate accommodation. I think the real question that the Leader of the National Party was probably thinking of was that there was some media discussion about a disagreement with regard to computer space in the new Parliament House. When the user requirements and the design brief were written for the new Parliament House it was believed that a central basement room would be adequate to service the five parliamentary departments, and through them honourable members and honourable senators. Unfortunately, such is the rate of change of technology that it did not turn out that way and we have had to find additional space as well as that basement room for the computer equipment and for the training that goes with it. However, I can assure the right honourable member that the compatability between the departments and the equipment used by honourable members is such that when we have electronic Hansard and data retrieval from the legislative research service we will have planned for it. We believe it will work. I sometimes have doubts about technology but to the best of our belief we have come up with a system that will work. The honourable member also mentioned the question of accommodation in the present Parliament House. Despite the annexe, we are bursting at the seams and I am afraid honour- able members will have to stand that situation until we are able to shift to the new Parliament House. One of the problems, of course, is that one cannot use an excessive budget to keep this place going and provide any extra facilities while at the same time the new Parliament House has reached the stage where a number of facilities are being handed over. We have already taken over certain mechanical and engineering installations in the new Parliament House which have required extra staff, which of course cost money. Things will start streamrolling as more areas are handed over. To help us with this, the President of the Senate and I have set up a Presiding Officers advisory group. Mr Foley, who was a senior officer with the Public Service Board, heads that advisory group and is examining a number of the areas of changeover involving the joint parliamentary departments so that it can be done in a most efficient way. Mention was made of the standard of the parliamentary refreshment rooms. I visit the kitchens and the pantries behind them from time to time. Having seen the conditions there under which the people have to work, I think we ought to be most grateful that we get the sort of standard of catering that we do. This gives me the chance to offer a comment on some of the staff. Next Friday Mrs Yvonne Heap will be retiring after 20 years of service in the refreshment rooms and Mrs Joan Morris will be retiring tomorrow after about 13 years. These are two ladies who have served us well. I am sure that we wish them well in their retirement. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Dr JENKINS —We have taken some note of the staffing structure in the Joint House Department, particularly in the parliamentary refreshment rooms. We trust that we are now arriving at a more satisfactory staffing structure for those who work there. It is always very difficult to adjust to all the problems caused by the sitting hours, but we are certainly employing staff in a more effective way. With the Parliamentary Library, we have had to take note of the increased number of members. We have had to investigate an apparent increase in the demand on the Legislative Research Service caused by the additional staff member given to members of parliament. I have cause to wonder about that because I would have thought that the extra staff member would have taken over some of the research functions that had previously been provided by the Library through its Legislative Research Service. However, we are seeking advice on that matter. I think I have managed to answer most of the points that were made. All the others were procedural. With regard to procedural matters, I have to use the procedures which are given to me by the House under the Standing Orders. Members have heard me speak on this before and they know I have some firm views on certain areas. It would be inappropriate for me to use this opportunity to address myself to the procedures. I make just one comment: I was interested to hear the comment on Question Time. I have visited the House of Commons in London and the House of Commons in Ottawa. Our Parliament and those two rival each other in their turbulence. There is only one difference. In the House of Commons in London and in the House of Commons in Ottawa, the discretion of the Speaker is respected and observed. That does not seem to be an Australian trait. I thank the Committee for its attention. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford)-by leave-read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 1, line 5, leave out ``Loans'', insert ``Loan''. No. 2-Page 1, clause 3, definition of ``prescribed year'', paragraph (b), line 13, leave out the paragraph. No. 3-Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``relevant Act'', line 1, leave out ``a prescribed year'', insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 4-Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``relevant Act'', paragraph (a), line 2, leave out ``(a) in the case of the prescribed year ending on 30 June 1986 -''. No. 5-Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``relevant Act'', paragraph (b), lines 9 to 12, leave out the paragraph. No. 6-Page 2, clause 3, definition of ``relevant service'', line 13, leave out ``a prescribed year'', insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 7-Page 2, clause 4, line 19, leave out ``a prescribed year'', insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 8-Page 2, clause 4, lines 19 to 27, leave out ``that prescribed year'' (wherever occurring), insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 9-Page 2, clause 5, line 29, leave out ``a prescribed year'', insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 10-Page 2, clause 5, line 31, leave out ``that prescribed year'', insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 11-Page 2, clause 6, line 37, leave out ``a prescribed year'', insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 12-Pages 2 and 3, clause 6, line 37 (page 2) to line 11 (page 3), leave out ``that prescribed year'' (wherever occurring), insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 13-Page 3, sub-clause 9 (1), lines 23 to 29, leave out ``that prescribed year'' (wherever occurring), insert ``the prescribed year''. No. 14-Page 3, clause 9, lines 23 to 32, leave out ``a prescribed year'' (wherever occurring), insert ``the prescribed year''. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.21) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I need to make some comments about these amendments. The purpose of the Loans Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1985-86 and subsequent years, together with the associated prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Senate has returned the Bill to the House with amendments moved by the Opposition parties which effectively remove the provisions of the Bill which would establish it as standing legislation. The actions of the Opposition in the Senate reflect a significant about-face from its views on the Bill which were put in the House by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), in the second reading debate on the Bill on 14 October 1985. I believe that it would be of interest to the Committee if I quoted from the shadow Treasurer's speech: This Bill makes arrangements for the Government to borrow. Previously there used to be an annual Loan Bill to handle this situation for all circumstances arising during a financial year. This Bill has been drafted as standing legislation rather than annual legislation to remove the necessity to pass legislation annually. As the Bill does not itself authorise expenditure but merely creates a mechanism whereby expenditures authorised by other legislation can be made, the Opposition does not object to the concept of standing legislation. It merely improves the efficiency of the Parliament. We therefore support the Bill. I emphasise the last two sentences: It merely improves the efficiency of the Parliament. We therefore support the Bill. I could not have put it better myself. There was a very sensible approach by the Opposition when this legislation was before the House of Representatives. In opposing the Bill in the Senate the Liberal Opposition has effectively passed a vote of no-confidence in its newly-elected shadow Treasurer. In debating the Bill in the Senate various speakers from the Opposition parties attempted falsely to suggest that standing loan legislation of the type proposed would in some way detract from Parliament's ability to debate the Budget, the deficit or the deficit financing measures. Of most concern was the Australian Democrats' apparent ignorance of the Bill's provisions and objectives in suggesting the Bill was, to quote their spokesperson, `underhand' and would enable the Government to borrow any amounts it liked, for any purposes, at any time and in effect permit the Government to circumvent or do away with the Appropriation Bills. That is nothing short of ignorance. We have only to quote the sensible words spoken on this Bill by the shadow Treasurer-I am pleased to see that he is now at the table-when it was in the House of Representatives. All assertions by Liberal spokespeople in the other place and, in particular, the Democrats spokespeople, suggesting that it was underhand display abysmal ignorance. The assertions are wrong, as a reading of the Bill and its associated explanatory memorandum will indicate. I cannot believe that they have read the explanatory memorandum. There might be some excuse if they could not read or understand the Bill, but there is no suggestion that the explanatory memorandum has not set out well what was in that Bill. I repeat that the assertions are based on ignorance. I need to outline that a bit further. Firstly, the Loans Act would have no effect if Parliament did not appropriate moneys for specific purposes. It merely enables the charging to the Loan Fund of moneys appropriated by Parliament from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. There must be an earlier appropriation. This was made so clear by the honourable member for Mackellar. Secondly, the Bill is a machinery financing measure. The provisions of the Bill prohibit borrowings for expenditures additional to those authorised by the Parliament. Thirdly, the fact that there is nothing underhand in the Bill was acknowledged by the shadow Treasurer in the Parliament on 14 October. Fourthly, the Bill will not detract from Parliament's ability to debate the Budget or the associated deficit financing measures. The deficit and borrowing requirements are announced in the Budget Speech and the Budget Papers. These are, as we know, debated at length. We have just completed that debate tonight on the three appropriation Bills. Fifthly, there are specific safeguards in the Bill. The Treasurer may borrow money only in accordance with other Acts authorising the issue of Australian Government securities. The annual appropriations of the Parliament set the limit on borrowings for defence purposes in any financial year. Sixthly, appropriations of Parliament and the limits on borrowing authority set by the Loan Council set an overall limit to borrowings which might be made pursuant to the Bill. Those are the facts. The assertions of the Opposition in the Senate-the Democrats, the Liberals and the National Party-I repeat, are wasteful of administration time, and taxpayers' funds generally. The Loan Council borrowing limit is established, I repeat, pursuant to the terms of the financial agreement between the Commonwealth and States and the financial agreement Acts. No member of the Loan Council may borrow outside the approval limits set by Loan Council without the further express approval of that body. If ever there was a perfect example of sheer ignorance prevailing in the Senate this is it. In summary, those mavericks on the other side have exposed the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the Opposition generally. They have let down their own shadow Treasurer. They have imposed a most embarrassing aboutface on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) as well as the shadow Treasurer. The Oppostion's amendments will mean that the government will have to print another Bill each year and parliamentary time will be taken, all to no purpose. Time in this Parliament, which should be spent on other purposes, will be wasted. Mr Nehl —What price democracy? Mr HURFORD —What a load of nonsense. We all know that the honourable member is not only round but also thick. He does not have to prove it to us more often than he has already done. The bureaucracy will be lumbered with preparing a Bill, I repeat, that has no purpose whatsoever. We will be taking time in this Parliament in debating a Bill that has no purpose whatsoever. It is nothing more nor less than a wasting of taxpayers' funds, and all to satisfy the fad of some people who are trying to keep up a reputation. That is what it amounts to. I will not be a party to further waste, which would occur if we did not allow the amendments to go through now, but I inform honourable members that we will make another attempt in the hope that good sense will prevail on another occasion. I have no doubt that such are the mavericks in the Opposition at this time that they will oppose these amendments now. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.30) —This is a rather remarkable performance on the part of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). I assure him that I have absolutely no embarrassment whatsoever, in that the Senate, as the House of review, has examined this measure and decided, as is its right, to amend it so that it could have an annual scrutiny of this Bill. It was perfectly reasonable for the Senate to do that. Anybody would think that the action of the Senate in requiring the Bill to be brought up on an annual basis would lead to some vast administrative apparatus having to be put into place. Such is not the case. The Minister has made an absolute mountain out of a mole hill. Since time immemorial this Bill has been discussed on an annual basis. There was a proposal to make it a standing measure, instead of an annual measure. The Senate, as the House of review, as is its proper role, in its wisdom has decided that the Parliament should scrutinise this Bill annually. I believe that it is perfectly proper for it to have done that. The effect of that is minor in administrative terms. In terms of parliamentary scrutiny it is of considerable importance. We welcome the fact that the Government has accepted the Senate's amendment and we support the Minister's sensible motion to accept that amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. House adjourned at 11.32 p.m. until 2 p.m. Tuesday, 12 November 1985, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 17 October 1985: Fisheries Act-Notices, Nos. 149, 151. Mr Hunt to ask Mr Speaker: What was the average cost of a 3 course (a) luncheon, and (b) dinner, to Members in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms in 1984-85? The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1881)) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: (1) Has the handicapped children's allowance been increased since 1980. (2) Is the present payment of $85 per month adequate for the purposes of the allowance; if not, when does the Government propose to increase the allowance. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The maximum rate of handicapped child's allowance was increased to $85 a month in November 1982. (2) Handicapped child's allowance is payable to the parent or guardian of a severely handicapped child to assist with the additional costs which may be incurred as a result of that handicap. It may also be payable in respect of a child with a handicap which is less severe but whose parents or guardians are suffering financial hardship. Issues relating to the rates of such payments are addressed annually within the context of the Budget. (Question No. 1889)) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What action is the Government taking to assist the control of Blackberries and St John's Wort in the Barnawartha region, Victoria. (2) Is the Government undertaking research into control of these weeds; if so, which department or agency is involved. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) State governments are responsible for land related matters within their own boundaries. The Commonwealth has no Constitutional responsibility and the control of Blackberry and St John's Wort in the Barnawartha region is therefore a matter for the Victorian Government. In the case of Blackberry a rust fungus (Phragmidium violaceum) was illegally released into the environment in 1983, and this is currently attacking most varieties of Blackberries in a number of regions. Steps are currently being taken to have Blackberry declared as a target organism under the Biological Control Act 1984. If Blackberry is declared, the Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands could introduce additional selections of Phragmidium. St John's Wort has been successfully controlled in the past, using a beetle. However, control is less effective where the weed grows in shaded areas. (2) CSIRO is currently conducting further research into biological control of St John's Wort. The Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands has previously conducted research overseas into biological control of Blackberry. The rusts identified by the Department are those which could be released if Blackberry is declared as a target organism under the Biological Control Act 1984. (Question No. 63)) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Which Ministers have travelled overseas on Government business since the Government came of office in March 1983 and how many trips has each Minister made. (2) What was (a) the duration and (b) the cost of each trip. (3) How many staff and other persons accompanied the Minister on each trip. (4) Which cities and countries were visited by the Minister on each trip. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4). The details sought are shown in the attached table. For completeness official travel by members of the Parliament, when represented Ministers and by Ministerial staff travelling independently on behalf of their Minister, has also been included. Itinerary Depart Arrive Persons accompanying Cost to 31 Jan. 1985 Minis- ter/ spouse Staff $A $A THE HON R. J. L. HAWKE AC MP, PRIME MINISTER Visit 1-1983 2.6 Canberra 2.6 Pt Moresby Mrs Hawke (a) *441,086 *5,440 3.6 Pt Moresby 5.6 Jakarta 8.6 London 9.6 Paris 11.6 Geneva 15.6 Washington 17.6 New York 17.6 Toronto 18.6 Newport 20.6 Honolulu 3.6 Jakarta 6.6 London 8.6 Paris 9.6 Geneva 11.6 Washington 15.5 New York 17.6 Toronto 17.6 Newport 18.6 Honolulu 21.6 Canberra Mr G. Evans, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Dr R. Garnaut, Senior Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser Mr G. Freudenberg, Consultant Dr J. Feldman, Physician Mrs J. Sinclair, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Ms J. Willis, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms J. Saunders, Assistant Private Secretary Ms J. O'Brien, Assistant Personal Secretary (b) (c) (d) 16,105 143,342 600,533 44,414 . . 49,854 THE HON R. J. L. HAWKE AC MP, PRIME MINISTER Visit 2-1983 18.11 Canberra 20.11 Darwin 22.11 Bangkok 25.11 New Delhi 27.11 Goa 29.11 New Delhi 18.11 Darwin 20.11 Bangkok 22.11 New Delhi 25.11 Goa 27.11 New Delhi 30.11 Canberra Mrs Hawke Dr J. Feldman, Physician Mr G. Evans, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Mr R. Hogg, Senior Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser (a) (b) (c) (d) *167,831 757 20,873 189,461 *781 17,529 . . 18,310 Mr D. Buckingham, Speech Writer Mr C. Parks, Journalist Mr A. Sutton, Private Secretary Mrs J. Sinclair, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Ms S. Massey, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms J. Nicholson, Secretary/Typist Ms V. Hodgson, Secretary/Typist Visit 3-1984 29.1 Canberra 31.1 Hong Kong 4.2 Osaka 7.2 Seoul 11.2 Beijing 12.2 Shanghai 14.2 Singapore 15.2 Kuala Lumpur 29.1 Hong Kong 31.1 Tokyo 4.2 Seoul 7.2 Beijing 11.2 Shanghai 12.2 Singapore 14.2 Kuala Lumpur 15.2 Canberra Mrs Hawke Mr G. Evans, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Dr R. Garnaut, Senior Adviser Mr D. Buckingham, Speech Writer Dr J. Feldman, Physician Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Mrs J. Sinclair, Personal Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr P. Simonds, Private Secretary Ms S. Massey, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms J. Willis, Assistant Personal Secretary Ms G. Farrow, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *211,963 4,765 90,984 307,712 *9,971 34,086 . . 44,057 THE HON. R. J. L. HAWKE AC MP, PRIME MINISTER Visit 4-1984 6.8 Canberra 9.8 Port Moresby 6.8 Port Moresby 9.8 Canberra Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Dr R. Garnaut, Senior Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser on International Relations Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Dr J. Feldman, Personal Physician Ms J. Willis, Assistant Private Secretary Ms V. Hodgson, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *47,012 189 2,504 49,705 *140 2,765 . . 2,905 THE HON. R. J. L. HAWKE AC MP, PRIME MINISTER Visit 5-1984 25.8 Canberra 26.8 Nadi 29.8 Funafuti 30.8 Nausori 30.8 Nadi 25.8 Nadi 26.8 Nausori 30.8 Nadi 30.8 Canberra Mr P. Barron, Principal Adviser Mr J. Bowan, Adviser/International Relations Mr G. Walsh, Press Secretary Dr J. Feldman, Personal Physician Ms J. Willis, Assistant Private Secretary Ms H. LeNevez, Secretary/Typist MESSERS WALSH, BARRON and MS WILLIS, arrived Funafuti 28.8 (a) (b) (c) (d) *34,213 870 8,039 43,132 *120 1,641 . . 1,761 DR R. GARNAUT 4.1 Sydney 5.1 Manila 8.1 Tokyo 10.1 Seoul 10.1 Hong Kong 11.1 Jakarta 11.1 Singapore 12.1 Kuala Lumpur 13.1 Singapore 4.1 Manila 5.1 Tokyo 8.1 Seoul 10.1 Hong Kong 10.1 Jakarta 11.1 Singapore 11.1 Kuala Lumpur 12.1 Singapore 14.1 Sydney Nil Costs included in the Prime Minister's visit DR D. BUCKINGHAM 25.1 Sydney 27.1 Singapore 29.1 Bangkok 25.1 Singapore 27.1 Bangkok 29.1 Hong Kong Nil Costs included in the Prime Minister's visit Then joined the Prime Minister (Visit 3) MR D. BUCKINGHAM (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) Visit 1-1984 11.4 Sydney 13.4 Tokyo 16.4 Seoul 16.4 Hong Kong 17.4 Jakarta 18.4 Singapore 12.4 Tokyo 13.4 Seoul 16.4 Hong Kong 16.4 Jakarta 17.4 Singapore 19.4 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,638 1,173 . . 4,811 DR R. GARNAUT (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) Visit 1-1984 4.3 Melbourne 5.3 Hong Kong 9.3 Beijing 10.3 Hong Kong 4.3 Hong Kong 5.3 Beijing 10.3 Hong Kong 11.3 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,916 478 . . 4,394 Visit 2-1984 29.4 Sydney 2.5 Denpasar 2.5 Jakarta 29.4 Denpasar 2.5 Jakarta 3.5 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 2,623 519 . . 3,142 DR R. GARNAUT (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) Visit 1-1984 4.3 Melbourne 5.3 Hong Kong 9.3 Beijing 10.3 Hong Kong 4.3 Hong Kong 5.3 Beijing 10.3 Hong Kong 11.3 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,916 478 . . 4,394 Visit 2-1984 29.4 Sydney 2.5 Denpassar 2.5 Jakarta 29.4 Denpasar 2.5 Jakarta 3.5 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) 2,623 514 . . MR R. D. HOGG (REPRESENTING THE PRIME MINISTER) 1984 31.3 Melbourne 4.4 London 14.4 Tel Aviv 16.4 Athens 1.4 London 4.4 Tel Aviv 14.4 Athens 17.4 Melbourne Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 5,844 2,702 . . 8,546 MR D. BUCKINGHAM, OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Visit 2-1984 12.8 Melbourne 14.8 Kuala Lumpar 14.8 Singapore 17.8 Jakarta 17.8 Singapore 18.8 Brunei 20.8 Singapore 12.8 Kuala Lumpur 14.8 Singapore 14.8 Jakarta 17.8 Singapore 17.8 Brunei 18.8 Singapore 21.8 Sydney Nil . . . . . . . . 2,966 1,593 . . 4,559 MS S. MASSEY, OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Visit 1-1984 5.9 Sydney 6.9 London Touring by car 6-14 Sept 15.9 Brussels 15.9 London 17.9 Perth 6.9 London 6.9 Antwerp 15.9 London 17.9 Perth 17.9 Sydney Nil . . . . . . . . 4,406 1,171 . . 5,577 THE HON. KIM C. BEAZLEY MP, AS MINISTER FOR AVIATION Visit 1-1983 3.9 Sydney 5.9 Auckland 5.9 Wellington 3.9 Auckland 5.9 Wellington 5.9 Sydney Mrs Beazley Miss S. Grant, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,988 117 67 2,172 994 126 . . 1,120 Visit 2-1984 10.1 Melbourne 11.1 Singapore 17.1 London 20.1 Washington 23.1 New York 24.1 Montreal 25.1 Ottawa 25.1 Vancouver 27.1 Seattle 30.1 Honolulu 10.1 Singapore 12.1 London 17.1 Washington 20.1 New York 23.1 Montreal 24.1 Ottawa 25.1 Vancouver 25.1 Seattle 27.1 Honolulu 31.1 Sydney Mrs Beazley Mr D. Wallace, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 21,429 10,692 1,121 33,242 6,821 3,191 . . 10,012 Visit 3-1984 6.9 Sydney Beijing-Guangzhou- arranged by Chinese Government 6.9 Beijing Mrs Beazley + + 40 5 4,696 +20 +140 . . 12.9 Guangzhou 13.9 Sydney Mr S. Hickman 4,741 168 MRS BEAZLEY 15.9 Hong Kong 16.9 + Fares and accommodation met by QANTAS and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) THE HON. NEAL BLEWETT MP, MINISTER FOR HEALTH Visit 1-1983 23.9 Melbourne 26.9 Rome 28.9 Paris 1.10 London 1.10 Montreal 8.10 Ottawa 12.10 New York 12.10 San Francisco 24.9 Rome 26.9 Paris 28.9 London 1.10 Montreal 1.10 Ottawa 8.10 New York 12.10 San Francisco 14.10 Sydney Mrs Blewett Mr W. Bowtell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,100 6,968 445 26,513 6,567 3,193 . . 9,760 MRS BLEWETT 28.9 Paris 30.9 Manchester 28.9 Manchester 30.9 London MR BOWTELL 14.10 New York 21.10 Amsterdam 14.10 Amsterdam 22.10 Sydney Visit 2-1984 4.5 Melbourne 6.5 Rome 11.5 Geneva 14.5 Oslo 15.5 Frankfurt 17.5 Prague 18.5 Vienna 19.5 Belgrade 5.5 Rome 6.5 Geneva 11.5 Oslo 14.5 Frankfurt 15.5 Prague 17.5 Vienna 18.5 Belgrade 19.5 Dubrovnik Mrs Blewett Mr P. Baulderstone, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,717 6,288 2,135 . . 25,140 5,683 2,085 . . 7,768 20.5 Dubrovnik 22.5 Belgrade 24.5 Athens 20.5 Belgrade 22.5 Athens 25.5 Sydney Visit 3-1985 17.1 Sydney 22.1 San Francisco 23.1 Atlanta 29.1 New York 31.1 Washington 5.2 London 7.2 Hong Kong 17.1 San Francisco 23.1 Atlanta 23.1 New York 29.1 Washington 1.2 London 6.2 Hong Kong 8.2 Sydney Mr W. Bowtell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,923 8,011 2,033 19,967 6,572 2,908 . . 9,480 MR BOWTELL . . 10.2 Sydney MR G. BILNEY MP (REPRESENTING THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE) Visit 1-1984 13.3 Adelaide 13.3 Perth 13.3 Singapore 17.3 Bangkok 13.3 Perth 13.3 Singapore 13.3 Bangkok 18.3 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,324 1,172 . . 4,496 THE HON. LIONEL BOWEN MP, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AS MINISTER FOR TRADE Visit 1-1983 1.8 Sydney 5.8 Tokyo 6.8 Anchorage 6.8 Seattle 7.8 Vancouver 7.8 Ottawa 9.8 Toronto 13.8 Washington 13.8 San Francisco 15.8 Honolulu 2.8 Tokyo 5.8 Anchorage 6.8 Seattle 6.8 Vancouver 7.8 Ottawa 7.8 Toronto 9.8 Washington 13.8 San Francisco 13.8 Honolulu 16.8 Sydney Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mrs P. Baker, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 11,193 5,916 6,954 24,063 14,884 8,034 . . 22,918 Visit 2-1983 11.10 Sydney 12.10 Tokyo 14.10 Seoul 14.10 Tokyo 15.10 Hong Kong 12.10 Tokyo 12.10 Seoul 14.10 Tokyo 14.10 Hong Kong 16.10 Sydney Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,851 1,273 810 5,934 3,634 683 . . 4,317 Visit 3-1983 2.12 Sydney 2.12 Singapore 4.12 Bahrain 6.12 Kuwait 9.12 Cairo 11.12 Larnaca 15.12 Riyadh 16.12 Singapore 2.12 Singapore 2.12 Bahrain 4.12 Kuwait 6.12 Cairo 9.12 Larnaca 11.12 Riyadh 15.12 Singapore 16.12 Sydney Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr G. Crough, Private Secretary Mrs P. Baker, Personal Secretary Miss H. Bayliss (a) (b) (c) (d) *214,176 884 13,184 228,244 *80 4,816 . . 4,896 Visit 4-1984 4.5 Sydney 9.5 Los Angeles 13.5 Washington 14.5 New Orleans 15.5 San Francisco 4.5 Los Angeles 9.5 Washington 13.5 New Orleans 14.5 San Francisco 17.5 Sydney Mrs Bowen Mr G. Crough, Senior Private Secretary Mrs P. Baker, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,576 5,084 699 25,359 16,454 5,776 . . 22,230 Visit 5-1984 3.6 Sydney 4.6 Hong Kong 6.6 Beijing 8.6 Anshan 9.6 Nanjing 12.6 Beijing 12.6 Fuzhou 13.6 Guangzhou 13.6 Hong Kong 3.6 Hong Kong 4.6 Beijing 6.6 Anshan 8.6 Nanjing 9.6 Beijing 12.6 Fuzhou 12.6 Guangzhou 13.6 Hong Kong 14.6 Sydney Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr P. Hussin, Private Secretary Mrs B. Fahey, Electorate Assistant (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,789 1,132 5,798 13,719 15,725 1,524 . . 17,249 Visit 6-1984 17.6 Sydney 20.6 Auckland 17.6 Auckland 20.6 Sydney Mrs Bowen Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr G. Crough, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,932 . . 32 1,964 1,832 463 . . 2,295 Visit 7-1984 13.9 Sydney 14.9 Los Angeles 18.9 Rio de Janeiro 19.9 Rome 22.9 Bucharest 23.9 Zurich 25.9 Prague 25.9 Vienna 28.9 Rome 13.9 Los Angeles 15.9 Rio de Janeiro 19.9 Rome 19.9 Bucharest 22.9 Zurich 23.9 Prague 25.9 Vienna 25.9 Rome 30.9 Sydney Mrs Bowen Mr B. Burdekin, Principal Private Secretary Mr E. Durham, Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 23,635 3,861 2,910 30,406 16,786 3,816 . . 20,602 Visit 8-1984 2.11 Canberra 3.11 New Delhi 2.11 New Delhi 4.11 Canberra Mr J. Armstrong, Assistant Private Secretary Ms T. Reading, Secretary/Typist +(a) (b) (c) (d) 20 . . 46 66 40 464 . . 504 + Accompanied Governor-General on Special Purpose Aircraft MR B. BURDEKIN (REPRESENTING THE MINISTER FOR TRADE) Visit 1 19.8 Washington 25.8 New York 30.8 Jeddah 1.9 Riyadh 3.9 Kuwait 4.9 Bahrain 19.8 New York 26.8 Jeddah 30.8 Riyadh 1.9 Kuwait 3.9 Bahrain 5.9 Sydney Nil Costs included in Minister's Visit 1 (above) Visit 2-1984 25.4 Sydney 7.5 Rome 9.5 New York 12.5 Washington 14.5 New Orleans 26.4 Rome 7.5 New York 9.5 Washington 12.5 New Orleans 14.5 San Francisco Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 321 2,097 . . 5,315 (Joined Minister on 15 May to return to Australia on 17 May) Visit 3-1984 16.10 Sydney 23.10 London 23.10 Brussels 26.10 Geneva 29.10 London 17.10 London 23.10 Brussels 23.10 Geneva 26.10 London 31.10 Sydney Nil . . . . . . . . 4,402 2,100 . . 6,502 THE HON. JOHN BROWN MP, AS MINISTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND MINISTER FOR SPORT, RECREATION AND TOURISM Visit 1-1983 31.10 Sydney 1.11 Singapore 5.11 Rome 12.11 Sydney 13.11 Hong Kong 20.11 Athens 20.11 Frankfurt 22.11 London 23.11 New York 25.11 San Francisco 29.11 Los Angeles 3.12 Tokyo 31.10 Singapore 2.11 Rome 7.11 Sydney 13.11 Hong Kong 14.11 Athens 20.11 Frankfurt 20.11 London 22.11 New York 23.11 San Francisco 25.11 Los Angeles 30.11 Tokyo 4.12 Sydney Ms J. Murray (spouse) Mr E. Klein, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 34,744 12,754 2,224 49,722 14,392 5,417 . . 19,809 Visit 2-1984 13.3 Sydney 16.3Auckland 13.3 Christchurch 16.3 Sydney Mr W. Peel, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) 1,832 194 551 916 32 . . Visit 3-1984 17.7 Sydney 18.7 Athens 20.7 Rome 22.7 Milan 26.7 London 27.7 New York 13.8 Los Angeles 13.8 San Francisco 26.7 London 27.7 New York 13.8 Los Angeles 13.8 San Francisco 18.7 Athens 18.7 Rome 20.7 Milan 22.7 London 26.7 New York 27.7 Los Angeles 13.8 San Francisco 15.8 Sydney 26.7 New York 27.7 Los Angeles 13.8 San Francisco 15.8 Sydney Ms. J. Murray (spouse) Mr E. Klein, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 29,472 15,646 4,194 49,312 6,946 6,589 . . 13,535 SENATOR THE HON. JOHN BUTTON, AS MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE Visit-1984 3.1 Melbourne 5.1 Bangkok 8.1 Amsterdam 11.1 London 11.1 Toulouse 12.1 Paris 4.1 Bangkok 6.1 Amsterdam 8.1 London 11.1 Toulouse 11.1 Paris 12.1 London Ms D. O'Neil (spouse) Mr P. Clark, Assistant Private Secretary Ms P. Smith, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 17,852 13,324 3,373 34,549 13,372 6,131 . . 19,503 13.1 to 23.1 on leave 24.1 Rome 25.1 Zurich 26.1 Vienna 31.1 Davos 4.2 Stuttgart 8.2 Stockholm 8.2 London 11.2 Singapore 24.1 Zurich 25.1 Vienna 26.1 Davos 31.1 Stuttgart 4.2 Stockholm 8.2 London 9.2 Singapore 12.2 Melbourne MS O'NEIL 5.1 Melbourne 6.1 Amsterdam Joined Minister in Amsterdam 22.1 Rome 24.1 Melbourne MS SMITH 5.1 Melbourne 6.1 Amsterdam Joined Minister in Amsterdam Visit 2-1984 4.5 Melbourne 5.5 Singapore 6.5 Penang 7.5 Kuala Lumpur 12.5 Tokyo 4.5 Singapore 5.5 Penang 6.5 Kuala Lumpur 8.5 Tokyo 13.5 Melbourne Dr G. N. Evans, Senior Private Secretary Mr N. Gruen, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,386 4,342 2,421 13,149 8,680 3,075 . . 11,755 Visit 3-1984 7.11 Melbourne 9.11Denpasar 7.11 Denpasar 9.11 Darwin Mr P. Clark, Assistant Private Secretary, Ms J. Phillips, Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,876 453 . . 2,329 3,222 561 . . 3,783 THE HON. BARRY COHEN MP, AS MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT Visit 1-1983 26.9 Sydney 28.9 San Francisco 1.10 Los Angeles 5.10 London 5.10 Glasgow 6.10 Barra 6.10 Glasgow 7.10 Perth 8.10 Aviemore 11.10 Inverness 11.10 Glasgow 11.10 London 14.10 New York 16.10 Honolulu 26.9 San Francisco 28.9 Los Angeles 2.10 London 5.10 Glasgow 5.10 Barra 6.10 Glasgow 6.10 Perth 7.10 Aviemore 8.10 Inverness 11.10 Glasgow 11.10 London 11.10 New York 14.10 Honolulu 17.10 Sydney Mrs Cohen Mr S. Sergi, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,101 5,767 1,597 27,465 7,484 3,596 . . 11,080 MR SERGI 6.10 London 6.10 Glasgow Visit 2-1984 9.4 Sydney 12.4 Tokyo 15.4 Beijing 17.4 Xian 18.4 Chengdu 20.4 Wolong 20.4 Chengdu 22.4 Chongqing 25.4 Wuhan 26.4 Shanghai 27.4 Hong Kong 10.4 Tokyo 12.4 Beijing 15.4 Xian 17.4 Chengdu 18.4 Wolong 20.4 Chengdu 21.4 Chongqing 24.4 Wuhan 25.4 Shanghai 26.4 Hong Kong 28.4 Sydney Mrs Cohen Mr P. Conway, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,346 3,726 1,761 13,833 4,500 977 . . 5,477 Visit 3-1984 3.7 Sydney 3.7 Wellington 5.7 Mt Cook 5.7 Christchurch 6.7 Auckland 3.7 Wellington 3.7 Mt Cook 5.7 Christchurch 5.7 Auckland 6.7 Sydney Mr M. Danby, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,185 623 32 1,840 1,317 201 . . 1,518 Visit 4-1984 24.7 Sydney 27.7 Athens 31.7 Rome 2.8 Paris 2.8 Manchester 2.8 Liverpool 6.8 London 8.8 New York 10.8 Washington 11.8 Baltimore 16.8 New Orleans 16.8 Los Angeles 25.7 Athens 27.7 Rome 31.7 Paris 2.8 Manchester 2.8 Liverpool 2.8 London 6.8 New York 8.8 Washington 10.8 Baltimore 11.8 New Orleans 16.8 Los Angeles 18.8 Sydney Mrs Cohen Mr S. Sergi, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 22,993 10,808 4,235 38,036 7,288 3,056 . . 10,344 THE HON. J. S. DAWKINS MP, AS MINISTER FOR FINANCE Visit 1-1983 31.7 Sydney 4.8 London 7.8 Paris 8.8 Geneva 10.8 Bonn 10.8 Geneva 10.8 London 10.8 Montreal 12.8 Ottawa 13.8 Montreal 13.8 Quebec 13.8 Montreal 15.8 New York 17.8 Washington 18.8 San Francisco 1.8 London 4.8 Paris 7.8 Geneva 8.8 Bonn 10.8 Geneva 10.8 London 10.8 Montreal 10.8 Ottawa 12.8 Montreal 13.8 Quebec 13.8 Montreal 13.8 New York 15.8 Washington 17.8 San Francisco 20.8 Sydney Ms K. George (spouse) Mr M. Delaney, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 17,351 12,087 350 29,788 6,567 3,873 . . 10,440 Visit 2-1984 2.2 Sydney 3.2 London 9.2 Paris 10.2 Oslo 16.2 Paris 18.2 London 18.2 Frankfurt 19.2 Berlin 19.2 London 3.2 London 3.2 Paris 9.2 Oslo 10.2 Paris 16.2 London 18.2 Frankfurt 18.2 Berlin 19.2 London 21.2 Sydney Ms K. George (spouse) Mr G. Gardiner, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 17,533 11,906 2,114 31,553 6,722 3,692 . . 10,414 MS GEORGE 2.2 Sydney 3.2 London 18.2 Paris 18.2 Frankfurt 19.2 Berlin 3.2 London 3.2 Paris 18.2 Frankfurt 18.2 Berlin 19.2 Paris Travelled privately thereafter. HON. MICHAEL DUFFY MP, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS Visit 1-1984 12.6 Melbourne 13.6 Honolulu 19.6 Los Angeles 19.6 Toronto 21.6 Ottawa 24.6 New York 26.6 Washington 29.6 Paris 2.7 Dublin 4.7 London 6.7 Singapore 12.6 Honolulu 13.6 Los Angeles 19.6 Toronto 19.6 Ottawa 21.6 New York 24.6 Washington 27.6 Paris 29.6 Dublin 2.7 London 5.7 Singapore 7.7 Melbourne Mrs Duffy Mr M. Fleming, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,817 9,911 87 29,815 6,885 3,426 . . 10,311 MR FLEMING 21.6 Ottawa 22.6 New York 21.6 New York Travelled at private expense and rejoined Minister in Washington on 24.6 SENATOR THE HON. GARETH EVANS, QC, AS ATTORNEY-GENERAL Visit 1-1983 16.6 Melbourne 23.6 London 26.6 New York 30.6 Washington 30.6 San Francisco 3.7 Brisbane 17.6 London 23.6 New York 26.6 Washington 30.6 San Francisco 2.7 Brisbane 3.7 Melbourne Mrs Evans Mr C. Maxwell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,523 4,970 360 21,853 7,295 2,027 . . 9,322 MR MAXWELL 26.6 Washington 30.6 San Francisco 26.6 San Francisco 2.7 Brisbane Visit 2-1984 20.4 Melbourne 21.4 Christchurch 22.4 Mt Cook 24.4 Te Anau 28.4 Rotorua 28.4 Auckland 20.4 Christchurch 21.4 Mt Cook 22.4 Te Anau 24.4 Rotorua 28.4 Auckland 28.4 Melbourne Mrs Evans Miss S. Tongue, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 216 199 65 2,424 . . 381 . . 1,098 MISS TONGUE 20.4 Sydney 21.4 Auckland 28.4 Rotorua 29.4 Auckland 20.4 Auckland 21.4 Rotorua 28.4 Auckland 29.4 Sydney Visit 3 27.6 Melbourne 27.6 Sydney 30.6 Tokyo 30.6 Osaka 3.7 Shanghai 4.7 Xian 7.7 Beijing 7.7 Hong Kong 27.6 Sydney 28.6 Tokyo 30.6 Osaka 30.6 Shanghai 3.7 Xian 4.7 Beijing 7.7 Hong Kong 8.7 Melbourne Mrs Evans Mr C. Maxwell, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,672 2,064 3,392 12,128 4,287 422 . . 4,709 SENATOR THE HON. DON GRIMES, AS MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY Visit 1-1984 14.4 Sydney 18.4 Athens 20.4 London 24.4 Dublin 24.4 London 27.4 Copenhagen 1.5 London 4.5 Rome 15.4 Athens 18.4 London 20.4 Dublin 24.4 London 24.4 Copenhagen 27.4 London 1.5 Rome 6.5 Sydney Mrs N. Burns, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,184 8,742 209 19,135 5,206 2,791 . . 7,997 MRS BURNS 18.4 Athens 24.4 London 27.4 Copenhagen 1.5 London 18.4 London 24.4 Copenhagen 27.4 London 1.5 Rome 4.5 Rome-proceeded on 4 weeks leave at private expense 1.6 London 3.6 Sydney THE HON. BILL HAYDEN MP, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS Visit 1-1983 6.4 Canberra 8.4 Jakarta 10.4 Port Moresby 6.4 Jakarta 9.4 Pt Moresby 10.4 Amberley Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. McKenzie, Electorate Assistant (a) (b) (c) (d) +120 1,352 1,797 3,269 +40 357 . . 397 + No transport charges; Special Purpose Aircraft used Visit 2-1983 24.4 Brisbane 25.4 Manila 26.4 Bangkok 27.4 Singapore 28.4 Kuala Lumpur 28.4 Singapore 24.4 Manila 25.4 Bangkok 26.4 Singapore 27.4 Kuala Lumpur 28.4 Singapore 29.4 Sydney Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 3,750 1,261 1,893 6,904 6,994 916 . . 7,910 Visit 3-1983 4.5 Canberra 4.5 Sydney 5.5 London 6.5 Brussels 12.5 Paris 14.5 Vienna 15.5 Salzburg 15.5 Zurich 17.5 Hong Kong 4.5 Sydney 5.5 London 5.5 Brussels 6.5 Paris 12.5 Vienna** 14.5 Salzburg 15.5 Zurich 16.5 Hong Kong++ 18.5 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr D. Ritchie, Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 14,381 9,993 6,486 30,860 10,217 5,486 . . 15,703 ** by rail ++ transit stop Visit 4-1983 26.6 Sydney 26.6 Singapore 29.6 Bangkok 1.7 Hanoi 2.7 Vientiane 3.7 Bangkok 5.7 Hong Kong 26.6 Singapore 26.6 Bangkok 29.6 Hanoi 1.7 Vientiane 2.7 Bangkok* 3.7 Hong Kong 6.7 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 24,639 3,515 3,311 31,465 7,382 2,474 . . 9,856 ** transit stops Visit 5-1983 15.7 Sydney 17.7 San Francisco 22.7 Washington 27.7 Tokyo 29.7 Seoul 30.7 Hong Kong 31.7 Guangzhou 1.8 Kunming 1.8 Nanning 3.8 Guilin 6.8 Beijing 7.8 Hong Kong 15.7 San Francisco* 17.7 Washington 23.7 Tokyo 27.7 Seoul 29.7 Hong Kong 30.7 Guangzhou 31.7 Kunming 1.8 Nanning 1.8 Guilin 3.8 Beijing 6.8 Hong Kong 8.8 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,047 11,518 14,272 44,837 13,918 7,290 . . 21,208 * transit stops Visit 6-1983 22.9 Sydney 23.9 Athens 23.9 Rome 25.9 Latina 27.9 Rome 30.9 New York 2.10 Boston 2.10 Toronto 3.10 Niagara Falls 3.10 Buffalo 5.10 New York 5.10 Atlanta 7.10 New Orleans 7.10 San Francisco 8.10 Honolulu 8.10 Hilo 10.10 Honolulu 23.9 Athens 23.9 Rome 23.9 Latina 25.9 Rome 27.9 New York 30.9 Boston 2.10 Toronto 2.10 Niagara Falls 3.10 Buffalo 3.10 New York 5.10 Atlanta 5.10 New Orleans 7.10 San Francisco 7.10 Honolulu 8.10 Hilo 8.10 Honolulu 11.10 Brisbane Mrs Hayden Mr D. Ritchie, Private Secretary Ms Y. Tully, Electorate Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 18,921 12,202 1,767 32,890 14,159 8,137 . . 22,296 Visit 7-1983 20.11 Canberra 20.11 Darwin 22.11 Bangkok 23.11 Rangoon 24.11 Pagan 24.11 Rangoon 25.11 Bangkok 26.11 Jakarta 26.11 Medan 28.11 Lake Toba 28.11 Medan 28.11 Singapore 20.11 Darwin 20.11 Bangkok 22.11 Rangoon 23.11 Pagan 24.11 Rangoon 24.11 Bangkok 25.11 Jakarta 26.11 Medan 26.11 Lake Toba 28.11 Medan 28.11 Singapore 29.11 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,624 2,665 1,842 15,131 7,366 2,726 . . 10,092 MR COSTELLO AND MS HOLGATE 18.11 Sydney 18.11 Bangkok 20.11 Joined Minister Visit 8-1983 17.12 Sydney 17.12 San Francisco 17.12 Dallas 20.12 New York 20.12 San Francisco 17.12 San Francisco 17.12 Dallas 17.12 New York 20.12 San Francisco 22.12 Sydney Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 7,159 3,298 407 10,864 9,518 1,146 . . 10,664 MS MOUSTAFINE On leave from 20.12-Recalled to duty for one day: 30.12 New York 30.12 Washington 30.12 Washington 30.12 New York on leave MS TAUNTON on leave from 20.12 Visit 9-1984 21.1 Canberra 21.1 Darwin 22.1 Singapore 24.1 Cairo 25.1 Luxor 25.1 Abu Simbel 26.1 Cairo 27.1 El Gorah 27.1 Cairo 27.1 Tel Aviv 31.1 Jerusalem 31.1 Tel Aviv 1.2 Damascus 2.2 Amman 2.2 Bahrain 2.2 Singapore 21.1 Darwin 21.1 Singapore 22.1 Cairo 24.1 Luxor 25.1 Abu Simbel 25.1 Cairo 26.1 El Gorah 27.1 Cairo 27.1 Tel Aviv 27.1 Jerusalem 31.1 Tel Aviv 31.1 Damascus 1.2 Amman 2.2 Bahrain 2.2 Singapore 3.2 Amberley Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Dr M. T. Fish, Physician Ms D. McKenzie, Electorate Assistant (a) (b) (c) (d) *247,728 7,147 10,401 265,276 *80 7,889 . . 7,969 Visit 10-1984 21.2 Sydney 22.2 Singapore 24.2 Brunei 25.2 Manila 26.2 Baguio 26.2 Manila 21.2 Singapore** 22.2 Brunei 24.2 Manila 25.2 Baguio 26.2 Manila 27.2 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 38,598 1,206 2,279 42,083 575 167 . . 743 ** transit stop Visit 11-1984 11.4 Brisbane 12.4 Tokyo 13.4 Kurashiki 14.4 Takamatsu 15.4 Matsuyama 15.4 Hiroshima 15.4 Miyajima 15.4 Hiroshima 18.4 Tokyo 19.4 Hong Kong 12.4 Tokyo 12.4 Kurashiki 13.4 Takamatsu 14.4 Matsuyama 15.4 Hiroshima 15.4 Miyajima 15.4 Hiroshima 15.4 Tokyo** 18.4 Hong Kong 20.4 Sydney Mrs Hayden Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,928 2,444 11,254 20,626 6,362 1,553 . . 7,915 MS MOUSTAFINE AND MS HOLGATE On leave in Hong Kong 18.4 to 20.4.84 **transit stop Visit 12-1984 11.5 Sydney 15.5 London 18.5 Paris 20.5 Nice 21.5 Paris 23.5 Amsterdam 26.5 Budapest 30.5 Moscow 1.6 Samarkand 1.6 Bukhara 2.6 Tashkent 3.6 New Delhi 4.6 Bangkok 12.5 London 15.5 Paris 18.5 Nice 20.5 Paris 21.5 Amsterdam 23.5 Budapest 26.5 Moscow 30.5 Samarkand 1.6 Bukhara 1.6 Tashkent 2.6 New Delhi 3.6 Bangkok 5.6 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,043 14,287 3,336 37,666 12,640 9,787 . . 22,427 Visit 13-1984 11.7 Canberra 14.7 Jakarta 11.7 Jakarta 14.7 Canberra Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms H. LeGood, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) *67,359 +189 1,096 68,644 60 1,840 . . 1,900 +Guest of Government Visit 14-1984 15.7 Canberra 15.7 Ohakea 18.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 15.7 Ohakea 15.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 18.7 Canberra Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms H. LeGood, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,813 189 1,096 18,098 *60 688 . . 748 Visit 15-1984 30.7 Sydney 3.8 Bangkok 9.8 Geneva 10.8 Belgrade 12.8 Dubrovnik 15.8 Belgrade 16.8 Bangkok 30.7 Bangkok 4.8 Geneva 9.8 Belgrade 10.8 Dubrovnik 12.8 Belgrade 15.8 Bangkok 16.8 Sydney Mrs Hayden Ms M. Moustafine, Private Secretary Ms D. Taunton, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,349 12,687 5,550 34,586 12,806 3,380 . . 16,186 Ms Moustafine and Ms Taunton returned via Singapore, arriving in Australia on 17 August. Visit 16-1984 5.9 Sydney 6.9 Rome 9.9 Lisbon 9.9 Madrid 10.9 Miami 13.9 Managua 15.9 San Salvador 18.9 Mexico City 21.9 San Jose 22.9 Tegucigalpa 24.9 San Pedro Sula 24.9 Miami 3.10 New York 4.10 San Francisco 6.10 Honolulu 6.9 Rome 6.9 Lisbon 9.9 Madrid 9.9 Miami 10.9 Managua 13.9 San Salvador 15.9 Mexico City 18.9 San Jose 21.9 Tegucigalpa 22.9 San Pedro Sula** 24.9 Miami 24.9 New York 3.10 San Francisco 4.10 Honolulu** 7.10 Sydney Mrs Hayden Mr M. Costello, Senior Private Secretary Ms L. Holgate, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 15,947 fares/cars 14,579 charter 55,808 33,459 119,793 8,339 13,734 . . 22,073 **rest stops Ms Holgate proceeded on leave at the end of the visit, returning to Australia on 5 January 1985 SENATOR N. BOLKUS (REPRESENTING THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS) Visit 1 (Extension of overseas study travel)-1985 7.1 Baltimore 7.1 Miami 7.1 San Salvador 13.1 Managua 13.1 San Salvador 7.1 Miami 7.1 San Salvador 7.1 Managua 13.1 San Salvador 13.1 Los Angeles Ms K. Hunter (spouse) (a) (b) (c) (d) 300 399 . . 699 . . . . . . . . (Recommenced study travel) THE HON. A. C. HOLDING MP, MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS Visit 1-1984 27.7 Melbourne 28.7 Rome 1.8 Geneva 4.8 Strasbourg 4.8 Zurich 8.8 London 28.7 Rome 28.7 Geneva 1.8 Strasbourg 4.8 Zurich 4.8 London 10.8 Melbourne Mr K. Wilson, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,775 6,277 134 16,186 6,388 2,372 . . 8,760 THE HON BRIAN HOWE MP, AS MINISTER FOR DEFENCE SUPPORT Visit 1-1983 1.8 Melbourne 2.8 London 6.8 Amsterdam 11.8 Stockholm 13.8 Oslo 16.8 Copenhagen 18.8 Athens 19.8 Singapore 2.8 London 2.8 Amsterdam 6.8 Stockholm 11.8 Oslo 13.8 Copenhagen 16.8 Athens 19.8 Singapore 20.8 Sydney Mr P. Madden, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,805 5,427 984 16,216 65 3,092 . . . . Visit 2-1984 28.7 Melbourne 29.7 London 30.7 Milan 30.7 Pisa 31.7 Rome 3.8 Vienna 7.8 London 7.8 Montreal 9.8 Ottawa 10.8 Montreal 12.8 New York 14.8 Washington 15.8 Chicago 16.8 Seattle 17.8 San Francisco 29.7 London 29.7 Milan 30.7 Pisa 30.7 Rome 31.7 Vienna 3.8 London 7.8 Montreal 7.8 Ottawa 9.8 Montreal 10.8 New York 12.8 Washington 14.8 Chicago 15.8 Seattle 16.8 San Francisco 19.8 Melbourne Mrs Howe Mr R. Forward, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,332 8,900 4,237 33,469 6,889 3,629 . . 10,518 THE HON CHRIS HURFORD MP, AS MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION Visit 1-1983 4.5 Sydney 6.5 Manila 4.5 Manila 7.5 Sydney Mr T. Burton, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 2,974 797 33 3,804 2,874 222 . . 3,096 Visit 2-1984 9.4 Canberra 9.4 Sydney 10.4 San Francisco 14.4 Washington 16.4 Boston 17.4 Los Angeles 19.4 Honolulu 9.4 Sydney 9.4 San Francisco 10.4 Washington 14.4 Boston 16.4 Los Angeles 17.4 Honolulu 20.4 Sydney Mrs Hurford Mr L. Early, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,500 4,121 77 20,698 6,835 1,775 . . 8,610 MR EARLY 13.4 Washington 16.4 Ottawa 16.4 Toronto 13.4 Ottawa 16.4 Toronto 16.4 Los Angeles Visit 3-1984 4.10 Sydney 7.10 Beijing 7.10 Qinhuangdao 9.10 Shenyang 9.10 Liaoyang 11.10 Dalian 11.10 Beijing 13.10 Shanghai 13.10 Hong Kong 17.10 Bangkok 20.10 Kuala Lumpur 20.10 Kuching 23.10 Brunei 25.10 Kota Kinabalu 27.10 Kuching 29.10 Singapore 1.11 Jakarta 1.11 Singapore 4.10 Beijing 7.10 Qinhuangdao 7.10 Shenyang 9.10 Liaoyang 9.10 Dalian 11.10 Beijing 11.10 Shanghai 13.10 Hong Kong 13.10 Bangkok 17.10 Kuala Lumpur 20.10 Kuching 20.10 Brunei 23.10 Kota Kinabalu 25.10 Kuching 27.10 Singapore 29.10 Jakarta 1.11 Singapore 2.11 Sydney Mrs Hurford Mr T. Burton, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,604 5,803 25,682 41,089 5,003 2,625 . . 7,625 MRS HURFORD 27.10 Kuching 28.10 Singapore 27.10 Singapore 29.10 Sydney THE HON BARRY O. JONES MP, AS MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Visit 1-1983 11.11 Melbourne 22.11 Tokyo 26.11 Seoul 26.11 Tokyo 12.11 Tokyo 22.11 Seoul 26.11 Tokyo 27.11 Melbourne Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,803 3,228 1,580 11,611 . . . . . . . . Visit 2-1983 6.12 Sydney Antarctica 13.12 Christchurch 13.12 Auckland 6.12 Christchurch 13.12 Auckland 13.12 Sydney Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,136 113 39 1,288 . . . . . . . . Visit 3-1984 6.1 Melbourne 7.1 Los Angeles 10.1 San Francisco 11.1 Denver 11.1 Chicago 13.1 Washington 16.1 New York 17.1 Ottawa 19.1 Montreal On leave 25.1 London 6.1 Los Angeles 7.1 San Francisco 10.1 Denver 11.1 Chicago 11.1 Washington 13.1 New York 16.1 Ottawa 17.1 Montreal 19.1 Baltimore 27.1 Melbourne Nil (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,720 2,319 545 12,584 . . . . . . THE HON. P. J. KEATING MP, TREASURER Visit 1-1983 4.6 Sydney 9.6 Amsterdam 11.6 Geneva 15.6 Washington 18.6 New York 18.6 Newport 18.6 Boston 20.6 Honolulu 5.6 Amsterdam 9.6 Geneva 11.6 Washington 15.6 New York 18.6 Newport 18.6 Boston 18.6 Honolulu 21.6 Canberra Mrs Keating Ms B. Ward, Private Secretary Ms J. Kell, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 18,472 4,364 346 23,182 3,634 5,338 . . 8,972 MRS KEATING 18.6 New York 10.7 Amsterdam 19.6 Amsterdam 12.7 Sydney MS WARD AND MS KELL 7.6 Sydney 9.6 San Francisco 7.6 San Francisco 9.6 Washington Joined Minister on 11.6 Visit 2-1983 22.9 Sydney 23.9 San Francisco 24.9 Newport 25.9 Washington 27.9 Newport 28.9 Washington 3.10 Paris 4.10 Frankfurt 8.10 London 22.9 San Francisco 23.9 Newport 24.9 Washington 25.9 Newport 27.9 Washington 29.9 Paris 3.10 Frankfurt 4.10 London 10.10 Sydney Mrs Keating Mr A. Cole, Senior Private Secretary Ms P. Furnell, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 12,836 8,543 1,894 23,273 131 81 . . 212 Mr Keating returned $7515 after the visit, paid to him by the International Monetary Fund for fares ($6,154) and accommodation ($1,361) to attend the meeting in Washington MRS KEATING 27.9 Sydney 28.9 London 3.10 Paris 5.10 Amsterdam 8.10 London 28.9 London 28.9 Paris 3.10 Amsterdam 5.10 London 10.10 Sydney Visit 3-1984 10.2 Sydney 11.2 London 13.2 Paris 15.2 Moscow 15.2 Vienna 16.2 Paris 19.2 London 11.2 London 11.2 Paris 13.2 Moscow 15.2 Vienna 15.2 Paris 16.2 London 21.2 Sydney Mrs Keating Dr B. Hughes, Consultant Ms D. Sella, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,314 3,787 362 29,463 11,790 3,258 . . 15,048 DR HUGHES 16.2 Paris 22.2 London 24.2 Singapore 16.2 London 23.2 Singapore 25.2 Adelaide MS SELLA 11.2 London 16.2 Paris 18.2 London 11.2 Paris 16.2 London 20.2 Sydney Visit 4-1984 23.4 Sydney 24.4 London 30.4 Amsterdam 3.5 Paris 3.5 London 24.4 London 24.4 Amsterdam 30.4 Paris 3.5 London 5.5 Sydney Mrs Keating Ms B. Ward, Private Secretary Ms J. Kell, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,366 4,532 650 21,548 12,776 4,055 . . 16,831 MS WARD AND MS KELL 24.4 London 28.4 Amsterdam 3.5 Paris 3.5 London 24.4 Amsterdam 28.4 Paris 3.5 London 5.5 Sydney Visit 5-1984 18.9 Sydney 18.9 Los Angeles 20.9 Toronto 25.9 Washington 29.9 New York 29.9 Los Angeles 18.9 Los Angeles 18.9 Toronto 20.9 Washington 25.9 New York 29.9 Los Angeles 1.10 Sydney Mrs Keating Mr A. Coles, Senior Private Secretary Ms B. Ward, Private Secretary Ms A. Henderson, Secretary/Typist (a) (b) (c) (d) 11,971 4,020 8,911 24,902 19,446 8,083 . . 27,529 Mr Keating returned $6,842 after the visit, paid to him by the International Monetary Fund for Fares ($6,842) and accommodation ($1,850) to attend the meeting in Washington. MS WARD on leave 25.9 Visit 3-1983 29.7 Brisbane 2.8 Pt Moresby 29.7 Pt Moresby 2.8 Sydney Mr A. Gleeson, Private Secretary Ms M. Conley, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 714 376 32 2,416 918 . . Visit 4-1983 3.11 Canberra 3.11 Sydney 6.11 London 7.11 Canberra 8.11 London 9.11 Rome 11.11 Baghdad 13.11 Kuwait 16.11 Bahrain 16.11 Dubai 16.11 Shiraz 18.11 Tehran 19.11 Bombay 3.11 Sydney 4.11 London 7.11 Canberra 8.11 London 8.11 Rome 10.11 Baghdad 11.11 Kuwait 13.11 Bahrain 16.11 Dubai 16.11 Shiraz 16.11 Tehran 18.11 Bombay 20.11 Sydney Dr Verrier (spouse) Mr A. Gleeson, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 20,619 4,329 2,155 27,103 6,388 2,349 . . 8,737 DR VERRIER 3.11 Sydney 9.11 London 4.11 London 9.11 Rome (rejoined Minister) MR GLEESON 3.11 Sydney 6.11 London 4.11 London 6.11 Rome Returned with Minister via Middle East Visit 5-1984 12.4 Sydney 13.4 Tokyo 16.4 Seoul 16.4 Tokyo 13.4 Tokyo 13.4 Seoul 16.4 Tokyo 17.4 Sydney Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (Japan and Korea only) (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,657 562 426 5,645 4,658 612 . . 5,270 17.4 Sydney 19.4 Auckland 17.4 Wellington 19.4 Sydney Mr A. Gleeson, Private Secretary Visit 6-1984 12.5 Sydney 16.5 Tokyo 20.5 Beijing 21.5 Kunming 24.5 Chengdu 25.5 Guilin 26.5 Guangzhou 28.5 Hong Kong 29.5 Singapore 13.5 Tokyo 16.5 Beijing 20.5 Kuning 21.5 Chengdu 24.5 Guilin 25.5 Guangzhou 26.5 Hong Kong 28.5 Singapore 30.5 Sydney Dr Verrier (spouse) Mr J. Tanzer, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,684 4,178 4,892 18,754 402 151 . . 554 MR TANZER 29.5 Singapore 29.5 Jakarta 1.6 Bali 28.5 Jakarta 29.5 Bali 2.6 Sydney Visit 7-1984 27.6 Sydney 28.6 London 30.6 Geneva 1.7 Paris 28.6 London 28.6 Geneva 30.6 Paris 3.7 Sydney Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 6,488 1,162 . . 7,688 540 56 . . 596 MS McKAY 1.7 Paris 6.7 London 6.7 London 8.7 Sydney Ms McKay on leave 2-6 July THE HONOURABLE JOHN KERIN MP, MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY 1983 Visit 1- 30.4 Sydney 1.5 London 5.5 Geneva 7.5 Brussels 9.5 Geneva 9.5 Frankfurt 11.5 Singapore 1.5 London 1.5 Geneva 5.5 Brussels 7.5 Geneva 9.5 Frankfurt 10.5 Singapore 12.5 Sydney Ms J. McKay, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,944 4,382 347 13,673 7,090 1,111 . . 8,201 1983 Visit 2- 17.6 Canberra 18.6 Sydney 21.6 San Francisco 24.6 Washington 1.7 New York 1.7 Detroit 2.7 Windsor 3.7 Toronto 5.7 Ottawa 6.7 Winnepeg 6.7 Regina 6.7 Vancouver 6.7 San Francisco 17.6 Sydney 18.6 San Francisco 21.6 Washington 24.6 New York 1.7 Detroit 1.7 Windsor 2.7 Toronto 3.7 Ottawa 5.7 Winnipeg 6.7 Regina 6.7 Vancouver 6.7 San Francisco 8.7 Sydney Dr Verrier (Spouse) Ms J. Mckay, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,707 6,714 1,739 28,160 6,328 2,795 . . 9,123 THE HONOURABLE PETER MORRIS MP, AS MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT 1983 Visit 1- 29.5 Canberra 29.5 Sydney 30.5 Brisbane 2.6 Honiara 29.5 Sydney 29.5 Brisbane 30.5 Honiara 2.6 Brisbane Mr L. Jacob, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 728 215 120 1,063 628 257 . . 885 1984 Visit 2**- 10.5 Canberra 11.5 Sydney 11.5 Los Angeles 14.4 New York 17.5 London 20.5 Paris 23.5 Oslo 23.5 Hamburg 24.5 Stuttgart 28.5 Athens 10.5 Sydney 11.5 Los Angeles 11.5 New York 14.5 London 17.5 Paris 20.5 Oslo 23.5 Hamburg 23.5 Stuttgart 24.5 Athens 29.5 Sydney Mrs Morris Mr P. Reece, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 19,544 276 77 22,382 6,658 2,361 . . 9,019 MRS MORRIS 20.5 Paris 25.5 London Joined Minister 20.5 London 25.5 Athens MR REECE 24.5 Stuttgart 25.5 London Joined Minister 24.5 London 25.5 Athens **Private arrangements were made during three weekends spent in transit during the periods of official travel. These did not entail any additional cost to the Commonwealth. SENATOR THE HONOURABLE SUSAN RYAN, AS MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND YOUTH AFFAIRS 1983 Visit 1- 19.10 Sydney 20.10 London 23.10 Dublin 29.10 Paris 31.10 Copenhagen 1.11 Oslo 4.11 Stockholm 5.11 Amsterdam 6.11 Singapore 20.10 London 20.10 Dublin 23.10 Paris 29.10 Copenhagen 31.10 Oslo 1.11 Stockholm 4.11 Amsterdam 6.11 Singapore 7.11 Sydney Mr W. Lang, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,768 2,836 8,425 22,029 6,680 1,614 . . 8,294 AS MINISTER FOR EDUCATION 1985 Visit 2- 22.1 Sydney 23.1 Christchurch 25.1 Queenstown 25.1 Christchurch 22.1 Christchurch 23.1 Queenstown 25.1 Christchurch 25.1 Melbourne Dr A. Thomas, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,145 207 33 1,385 1,045 88 . . 1,133 THE HONOURABLE GORDON SCHOLES MP, AS MINISTER FOR DEFENCE 1983 Visit 1- 1.6 Sydney 3.6 Wellington 3.6 Bay of Islands 5.6 Auckland 1.6 Wellington 3.6 Bay of Islands 3.6 Auckland 5.6 Melbourne Ms L. Turner, Personal Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,085 386 62 1,533 985 33 . . 1,018 1983 Visit 2- 14.6 Canberra 14.6 Townsville 16.6 Pt Moresby 16.6 Tari 16.6 Mendi 17.6 Wewak 18.6 Lae 19.6 Rabaul 19.6 Pt Moresby 14.6 Townville 14.6 Pt Moresby 16.6 Tari 16.6 Mendi 16.6 Wewak 17.6 Lae 18.6 Rabaul 19.6 Pt Moresby 19.6 Brisbane Mr J. Shaw, Journalist, Ministerial Media Group (a) (b) (c) (d) 20* 248 854 1,122 20* 813 . . 833 *Special Purpose aircraft costs met by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1983 Visit 3- 12.7 Sydney 13.7 San Francisco 21.7 Washington 21.7 San Francisco 22.7 Honolulu 12.7 San Francisco 13.7 Washington 21.7 San Francisco 21.7 Honolulu 23.7 Sydney Mr T. Rowe, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 7,662 5,889 162 13,713 6,010 2,491 . . 8,501 1984 Visit 4- 16.4 Melbourne 20.4 Bangkok 22.4 Hong Kong 26.4 Kuala Lumpur 26.4 Singapore 28.4 Penang 28.4 Singapore 16.4 Bangkok 20.4 Hong Kong 22.4 Kuala Lumpur 26.4 Singapore 28.4 Penang 28.4 Singapore 29.4 Melbourne Mr R. Mills, Senior Private Secretary Mr S. O'Connor, Journalist, Ministerial Media Group (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,969 3,610 5,155 13,734 78 3,313 . . 11,207 Visit 5- 18.6 Melbourne 19.6 Honolulu 19.6 Los Angeles 24.6 Washington 24.6 Pittsburgh 24.6 Penn State 24.6 Pittsburgh 26.6 Washington 1.7 London 2.7 Cairo 3.7 El Gorah 3.7 Cairo 4.7 Bahrain 18.6 Honolulu 19.6 Los Angeles 20.6 Washington 24.6 Pittsburgh 24.6 Penn State 24.6 Pittsburgh 24.6 Washington 26.6 London 1.7 Cairo 2.7 El Gorah 3.7 Cairo 3.7 Bahrain 5.7 Melbourne Mr R. Mills, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 14,636 10,114 15,229 39,979 6,840 . . . . 8,976 1984 Visit 6- 15.7 Canberra 15.7 Ohakea 18.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 15.7 Ohakea 15.7 Wellington 18.7 Ohakea 18.7 Canberra Mr R. Mills, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 16,793* 189 33 17,015 20* 163 . . 183 THE HON. TOM UREN MP, AS MINISTER FOR TERRITORIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Visit 1-1984 16.4 Sydney 16.4 Auckland 19.4 Rotorua 19.4 Auckland 16.4 Auckland 16.4 Rotorua 19.4 Auckland 19.4 Sydney Mr M. Gallagher, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,122 189 32 1,343 1,022 37 . . 1,059 SENATOR THE HON. PETER WALSH, AS MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY Visit 1-1983 19.11 Sydney 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Barstow 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Camarillo 21.11 Los Angeles 22.11 New York 23.11 London 24.11 Manchester 25.11 London 28.11 Paris 29.11 Copenhagen 29.11 Aarlborg 30.11 Copenhagen 30.11 Malmo 2.12 Stockholm 2.12 London 19.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Barstow 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 Camarillo 21.11 Los Angeles 21.11 New York 23.11 London 23.11 Manchester 24.11 London 25.11 Paris 28.11 Copenhagen 29.11 Aarlborg 29.11 Copenhagen 30.11 Malmo 30.11 Stockholm 2.12 London 4.12 Sydney Mrs Walsh Mr I. Henderson, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 15,276 4,622 2,539 22,437 5,024 2,367 . . 7,391 Visit 2-1984 13.10 Sydney 19.10 Beijing 21.10 Shanghai 23.1 Tokyo 14.10 Beijing 19.10 Shanghai 21.10 Tokyo 23.10 Tokai Maura/ Oarai Mrs Walsh Dr C. Emerson, Assistant Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 9,059 2,865 2,725 14,649 3,480 1,157 . . 4,637 23.10 Tokai Mura/ Oarai 25.10 Tokyo 26.10 Osaka 27.10 Hong Kong 23.10 Tokyo 25.10 Osaka 26.10 Hong Kong 27.10 Perth THE HON. STEWART WEST MP, AS MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS Visit 1-1983 31.7 Sydney 4.8 Honolulu 5.8 Tokyo 7.8 Singapore 9.8 Jakarta 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 9.8 Galang Island 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 10.8 Singapore 14.8 Kuala Lumpur 17.8 Bangkok 31.7 Honolulu 4.8 Tokyo 6.8 Singapore 7.8 Jakarta 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 9.8 Galang Island 9.8 Tanjung Pinang 9.8 Singapore 10.8 Kuala Lumpur 14.8 Bangkok 18.8 Sydney Mr M. Ross, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 8,379 4,044 4,075 16,498 5,118 2,379 . . 7,497 Visit 2-1984 1.8 Sydney 1.8 Los Angeles 4.8 Washington 8.8 Mexico City 10.8 San Salvador 12.8 San Jose 12.8 Miami 14.8 Buenos Aires 15.8 Santiago 15.8 Easter Island 16.8 Papeete 1.8 Los Angeles 1.8 Washington 4.8 Mexico City 8.8 San Salvador 10.8 San Jose 12.8 Miami 13.8 Buenos Aires 14.8 Santiago 15.8 Easter Island 15.8 Papeete 17.8 Sydney Mr M. Ross, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,885 2,673 7,275 20,833 7,766 1,268 . . 9,034 Visit 3-1984 8.6 Melbourne 10.6 Rome 17.6 Geneva 19.6 Brussels 19.6 New York 22.6 Ottawa 23.6 Toronto 23.6 Hamilton 23.6 Buffalo 25.6 New York 28.6 Washington 28.6 Cincinatti 28.6 St Louis 30.6 Los Angeles 9.6 Rome 10.6 Geneva 17.6 Brussels 19.6 New York 19.6 Ottawa 22.6 Toronto 23.6 Hamilton 23.6 Buffalo 23.6 New York 25.6 Washington 28.6 Cincinatti 28.6 St Louis 28.6 Los Angeles 2.7 Melbourne Mrs Willis Mr D. McKenzie, Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 18,483 9,260 176 27,919 6,572 3,236 . . 9,808 MRS WILLIS 16.6 Melbourne 18.6 Honolulu 20.6 San Francisco 16.6 Honolulu 18.6 San Francisco 20.6 Ottawa (Joined Minister) Visit 4-1984 15.9 Sydney 23.9 Tokyo 25.9 Seoul 25.9 Hong Kong 16.9 Tokyo 23.9 Seoul 25.9 Hong Kong 26.9 Sydney P. Medlock, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,344 4,413 715 9,472 3,782 1,909 . . 5,691 THE HON. MICHAEL J. YOUNG MP, SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE 1984 16.6 Sydney 21.6 London 24.6 Hong Kong 17.6 London 22.6 Hong Kong 25.6 Sydney Mr G. Dodds, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 7,683 5,870 180 13,733 6,780 2,213 . . 8,993 THE HON. A. S. PEACOCK MP, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION Visit 1-1983 20.6 Melbourne 27.6 London 27.6 New York 1.7 Washington 5.7 New York 6.7 Los Angeles 21.6 London 27.6 New York 27.6 Washington 1.7 New York 5.7 Los Angeles 8.7 Melbourne Mr B. Jeffriess, Senior Private Secretary (a) (b) (c) (d) 10,195 11,222 572 21,989 7,615 4,248 . . 11,863 Visit 2-1984 5.8 Brisbane 8.8 Port Moresby 5.8 Port Moresby 8.8 Cairns Mrs Peacock Mr P. Woolcott, Private Secretary Grade 2 (a) (b) (c) (d) 1,376 187 64 1,629 507 61 . . 568 Visit 3 19.12 Sydney 20.12 Bombay 23.12 Addis Ababa 24.12 Bombay 24.12 Singapore 20.12 Bombay 20.12 Addis Ababa 23.12 Singapore 24.12 Singapore 25.12 Sydney Mr P. Woolcott, Private Secretary Grade 2 (a) (b) (c) (d) 4,878 383 39 5,300 4,778 270 . . 5,048 SENATOR THE HON. D. L. CHIPP Visit 1-1984 7.7 Melbourne 7.7 Singapore Mrs Chipp (a) 14,503 . . 11.7 Singapore 12.7 Frankfurt (b) 9,131 . . 15.7 Frankfurt 15.7 London (c) 149 . . (Period ending 25 to 30.7 in Ireland) (d) 23,783 . . 31.7 London 31.7 Athens 6.8 Athens 6.8 Singapore 6.8 Singapore 6.8 Jakarta 10.8 Jakarta 11.8 Melbourne Key: (a) Travel (includes vehicle hire) (b) Accommodation &meals (c) Associated and incidental expenditure (d) Total expenditure * Travel by Special Purpose aircraft (Question No. 521)) Mr Braithwaite asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Are residences of pensioners exempt under the assets test. (2) Will residences of pensioners and all houseowners be exempt under the proposed capital gains tax. (3) If not, how does he reconcile these differences. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, a pensioner's principal residence is an exempt asset under the assets test. (2) Yes, the principal residence, together with reasonable curtilage, will be exempt from the capital gains tax announced on 19 September 1985. (3) Does not apply. (Question No. 1144) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) How many employees of Australian National (AN) are employed and at what settlements on the Trans Australian Railway Line between Parkeston and Port Augusta. (2) What are the occupations of each of those employees at these settlements, except Parkeston and Port Augusta. (3) What form of accommodation is provided for these employees and their families by AN and (a) is there a standard type of house at each settlement, (b) of what material are these houses constructed, (c) how old are the houses, (d) what rent is payable by occupants, (e) is there a regular maintenance program for the houses, (f) if urgent repairs become necessary, who are employees directed to contact to arrange repairs, (g) who is responsible for carrying out repairs, (h) how many houses currently occupied are in need of repairs and what is the general nature of repairs outstanding and (i) is the electrical wiring inspected on a regular basis and is the standard of wiring subject to control by either the State Energy Commission of Western Australia (SECWA) or the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA). (4) Are (a) refrigerators, (b) stoves, (c) floor coverings, (d) room heaters, (e) air conditioners and (f) furniture supplied to employees occupying houses of the Commission on this Line and what is the make and type of items for (a), (b), (d) and (e). (5) How many employee houses along the TARL have (a) outside toilets connected to septic tanks, (b) outside pan toilets, (c) inside toilets connected to septic tanks and/or (d) inside chemical toilets. (6) How many employee houses have hot water connected to kitchen sinks and/or bathrooms. (7) How many houses are provided with solar heaters, chip heaters or other forms of hot water systems. (8) What steps are taken to ensure that fire safety standards are maintained where solid fuel or chip heaters are provided. (9) Are AN houses subject to any building codes or regulations of local government authorities; if not, to what standards must they comply. (10) Does AN charge for electricity supplied to houses; if so, is this rate higher, lower or the same as domestic consumer charge by SECWA or ETSA. (11) Does AN charge for water supplied to employees' houses; if so, at what rate. (12) Has straw been used under the floors, between the walls and in the ceilings as an insulation material in some AN houses; if so, how many houses have straw insulation and at what settlement. (13) Is this straw considered a fire hazard, and if the straw is treated to make it fire resistant, what form of treatment was applied and when. (14) How many houses have been damaged by fire, in the last 5 years, at which settlements and when. (15) If any damage has occurred, have the causes and origins of fires been investigated; if so, by whom. (16) How many fires resulted in injury or death to any person; if so, when and where. (17) Have these fires been the subject of any coronial investigation; if so, when and where. (18) If any findings and recommendations have been made by any coroner in respect of any fire, what action has been taken to implement any recommendations. (19) If any fires are investigated by AN personnel, what formal qualifications or otherwise do these personnel possess to investigate fires. (20) Have any fires suspected of being caused by electrical faults been investigated by either officers of the SECWA or the ETSA. (21) When an employee's house is vacated, what procedures are adopted to ensure that it is cleaned, maintenance and necessary repairs are undertaken before another employee and his family occupy the house. (22) Has the Commonwealth Department of Health recently completed an inspeciton of AN houses along the line to determine whether there is any need to take action in relation to asbestos fibres. (23) What welfare services to staff and their families are provided by AN and are any of the welfare personnel women. (24) What provision is there for welfare personnel to visit staff and families along the Line and how frequently are visits made. (25) What provision does AN make to assist women and their families who live in isolated remote settlements along the railway line. (26) What (a) postal and (b) telephonic facilities exist at each of the settlements. (27) If AN maintains a telephone system to which staff and families have access, under what conditions is access granted and how are charges for use of this service levied. (28) Has AN been offered the installation of `gold phones' by Telecom; if so, when was this offer made and does AN intend to provide `gold phones' for use by employees to enable them to have access to the Telecom network directly wherever this is possible. (29) Has AN made any approaches to relevant local government authorities to ensure that roads to and from settlements and between the line and major towns such as Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta are properly maintained or graded so that employees may have access to Kalgoorlie, Port Augusta or the Eyre Highway; if approaches have been made, what has been the response of local government authorities. (30) At which settlements does AN provide a satellite receiver dish to enable television broadcasts to be received. (31) In relation to the settlement at Forrest, have AN and the Department of Science discussed the possibility of sharing the cost of providing a satellite receiver to enable departmental and AN staff to take advantage of a television service. (32) Has AN any plans to install similar receivers at any other settlements along the line. (33) How frequently does the tea and sugar train call at settlements along the line. (34) What provision is made to ensure that those people who live towards the end of each tea and sugar trains' run are not deprived of basic foodstuffs such as milk because of purchases made by other individuals and communites along the line. (35) Does the tea and sugar train offer food and supplies to any Aboriginal communities along the line; if so, at which settlements. (36) What is the average-(a) day and (b) night temperature at (i) Cook, (ii) Rawlinna and (iii) Forrest in (A) July and (B) January and to what extent are the July temperatures affected by the wind chill factor. (37) What are AN's plans in relation to either closing down particular settlements or upgrading others along the Line and in respect of any of these settlements, what are the relevant dates which AN is considering. (38) Is AN exempt from the operations of the Freedom of Information Act; if so, why. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 5 June 1985, the following staff were employed on the Trans Australian Railway (TAR): Location Employees Pimba... 8 Tarcoola... 41 Barton... 4 Watson... 5 Cook... 23 Hughes... 4 Reid... 2 Forrest... 2 Loongana... 3 Rawlinna... 23 Zanthus... 7 Karonie... 3 Total... 125 (2) TAR employee occupations are shown in the following table. Locations Occupations Fett- ler Ganger AN Retail Stores Stores Asst Shunter Dis- trict Lines- man Train Exam- iner Sta- tion Master Rest- house Atten- dant Sta- tion Asst Mach- ines- men Cost Asst Road Master Pimba... 8 5 2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tarcoola... 41 16 5 1 2 1 1 . . 2 4 3 2 2 2 Barton... 4 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watson... 5 4 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cook... 23 5 1 1 1 . . 1 3 2 4 3 . . 1 1 Hughes... 4 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reid... 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forrest... 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loongana... 3 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rawlinna... 23 8 4 1 1 . . 1 . . 2 2 2 . . 1 1 Zanthus... 7 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karonie... 3 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . (3) (a) &(c) &(d) Accommodation details-TAR Employees: Location Housing Existing Total Type Existing Age (Years) No. Rent/ Fortnight $ Pimba... 10 K1 Woomera 1946 1963 38 21 8 2 17.00 Tarcoola... 34 Concrete block (Storeman) K D D D1 D1 ex Telecom 1935 1942 1971 1974 1975 1976 49 42 13 10 9 8 1 4 8 10 3 7 1 17.70 to 18.60 Barton... 6 K1 K1 D1 ex Marree 1943 1947 41 37 13 1 1 1 16.10 Watson... 6 E 1944 41 6 17.10 Cook... 22 E E K Concrete Block (Storeman) Telecom D 1921 (upgraded) 1934 (upgraded) 1945 1947 1975 63 50 39 37 9 1 14 1 1 2 3 16.95 to 22.70 Hughes... 6 K 1949 3 6 17.50 Reid... 4 E 1941 43 4 16.50 to 23.50 Forrest... 6 K1 1949 35 6 17.50 Loongana... 6 K 1947 37 6 16.50 Rawlinna... 18 E K D D2 1928 (upgraded) 1945 1974 1985 56 39 10 0 13 1 2 2 16.70 to 18.90 Zanthus... 6 K1 1946 38 6 17.10 Karonie... 5 K1 1947 37 5 15.00 Total... 129 All E, K, K1 and K2 residences have been upgraded at permanent locations. (3) (b) House Type &Construction Material: Type Area m2 E Type (1928-1934) 74 plus sleepout = 100 Timber frame, timber external lining. Masonite, canite internal. Timber floor, galvanised iron roof. K Type (1944) 93 plus sleepout = 108 Timber frame, timber external lining. Masonite, canite internal. Timber floor, galvanised iron roof. K1 (1945-1948) K2 (1956) 95 109 Timber frame, asbestos external lining. Masonite internal. Timber floor, galvanised iron roof. D(1971) 113 Timber frame, steel colorbond external lining. Asbestos internal. Concrete and timber floors, galvanised iron roof. (3) (e) AN maintains a regular repair and painting program for employee houses. Specific maintenance is undertaken as required. (3) (f) Urgent repairs that become necessary through wear and tear, accident and wilful damage by tenants and others are advised through the resident Stationmaster, Ganger or Roadmaster. (3) (g) The District Engineer arranges for repairs to be carried out by AN employees or contractors as circumstances dictate. (3) (h) As at 3 June 1985, outstanding work at settlements where AN did not have trademen was as follows: Painting-2 settlements; Replacing water service-2 settlements (32 homes); Replace rainwater tanks-3 homes; Repair of wilful damage-2 homes; Minor repairs-6 homes; Improvements-2 homes. (3) (i) The current programme of inspecting domestic electrical installations was commenced during February 1985 and will continue until completed in (approximately) December 1985 when a further programme will be planned. AN house wiring standards are in accordance with the requirements of the Electricity Trust of South Australia and Australian Standard-Wiring Codes. A South Australian Housing Trust home is used as a standard to determine the number of light and power points in AN's employee residences. (4) (a) and (b) All AN residences along the TAR are provided with stoves and refrigerators. Simpson ``Kallora'' Model 61-601 electric stoves, Metters Slimline gas range Model 31-7340 and Kelvinator electric refrigerator Model 318K are the main makes. Some later model refrigerators from Kelvinator, General Electric and Email have been supplied as replacement units as necessary. (c) No. (d) Older houses have open fireplaces. Newer houses (Since 1970) have slow combustion stoves installed which are believed to be made by Metters. (e) No. (f) No. (5) Toilet facilities at the 129 AN residences between Pt Augusta and Parkeston are as follows: (a) outside toilets connected to septic tank-34 (b) Outside pan toilets-15 (c) Inside toilets connected to septic tank-80 Residences with outside pan toilets are to be phased out on completion of concrete resleepering programme. (6) All 129 employee residences between Pt Augusta and Parkeston are equipped with hot water services connected to the kitchen and bathroom. (7) Two houses at Cook are fitted with solar heaters. All other houses in regular use are fitted with electrical hot water storage systems. Chip heaters have been replaced by hot water services in all houses that are to be retained for use of AN employees. (8) D class houses have slow combustion heaters; others have open fireplaces. Fire safety standards are those which were generally accepted at time of construction or upgrading. An AN Fire Officer undertakes inspection of fire extinguishers and water pumps at water supply points at all settlements on the TAR. (9) All AN housing standards have been guided by regulations existing at the time of design or construction of houses. (10) Electricity supplied to AN tenants is generated in plants owned and operated by AN. Power generation costs incurred by AN are subsidised by the South Australian Government. It is ETSA practice that rates charged to consumers by subsidised power suppliers, like AN in this instance, be 10% above comparable ETSA rates at other locations. (11) AN allows 88 kilolitres of water per quarter free and any excess water consumption is charged at the rate of 40 cents per kilolitre. (12) Straw has been used as an insulating material in 23 K1 type houses constructed in accordance with the Specification of 1948. Houses are located as follows: Pimba-2; Tarcoola-1; Cook-1; Hughes-6; Forrest-6; Rawlinna-1; Reid-1; Golden Ridge-5. (13) There is no record of what form of fire resistance treatment may have been applied to the straw based insulating material used in the 1948 version of K1 type houses. However, experience during the 40 years life of these houses indicates that they rate equally with others of similar age in fire resistance. During the next 3 years, 13 of the 23 houses concerned will become redundant as concrete resleepering of the TAR is completed and some settlements are closed down. The remaining 10 houses are planned to be replaced, together with all other early E and K type houses under a programme being developed for general modernisation of all permanent housing at AN remote locations. (14) During the five (5) years from June 30, 1980 fire has damaged or destroyed 3 houses: 1. Tarcoola-(29.3.83-Type D1) extensive damage but rebuilt; 2. Barton-(12.9.84-Type K1 (1947) ) destroyed; 3. Karonie-(16.11.84-Type K1 (1947) ) destroyed. (15) Fires are investigated by AN establishing a Board of Enquiry and also by Police and Coroner as deemed necessary. (16) Woman and child died in the Barton fire of 12.9.84. (17) The Barton fire on 12 September 1984 was subject to a Coroner's enquiry. Forensic investigation by Police at the scene of the fire and AN investigations revealed the tenant had interfered with the normal power supply to the house to create an unsafe and unauthorised power connection. (18) The Coroner found that a formal inquest was not necessary, and he made no findings or recommendations concerning cause of death. (19) AN investigation of fires is by a Board of Enquiry comprising a Professional Engineer, a Qualified Electrician, Operations Inspector, Fire Officer and expert staff as considered necessary by a specific enquiry. (20) Fires during the last 5 years are not suspected of being caused by standard electrical installations (AN or supply authority). The Barton fire of 12 September 1984 was a result of the tenant interfering with the normal power supply to the house. (21) When a house is vacated, AN requires the house to be inspected by the resident Stationmaster or in the absence of the Stationmaster the Roadmaster or Ganger. A report is required on cleanliness, and repairs required to be undertaken prior to the arrival of a new tenant. (22) No. (23) Under instruction contained in AN's Personnel Management Manual, Line Supervisors and Managers are responsible for the welfare of employees under their control. Procedures also exist outlining responsibilities in cases of accidents and fatalities. It is expected that Line Supervisors who encounter welfare problems will refer them to experienced officers within their own Branch or within the Personnel Branch who can take on and resolve the various types of problems that arise. In addition, all staff have access to the Employee Assistance Scheme which has been developed by AN in consultation with unions to ensure that employees with personal problems have access to appropriate specialised treatment available within the community. (24) Employees along the line have access to a range of welfare personnel. In addition to welfare services provided by Branch Management, Personnel and through the Employees Assistance Scheme, AN provides or supports specialised welfare services. These include monthly visits by the Remote and Isolated Children's Exercise (RICE) and the WA Infant Health Service. In addition, a minister of religion travels across the TAR to meet staff members and their families at least once every 3 months. AN arranges a welfare car on its train for these specialised personnel. Families along the line also have access to dental and other services provided by the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Apart from the services mentioned, families along the line have access to a Sister employed by AN at Rawlinna and Sisters at the District Hospitals at Cook and Tarcoola. (25) AN provides a womens' hostel at Pt Augusta and Parkeston to assist families on TAR. Free travel is provided when medical attention is being sought. The Nursing Sister at Rawlinna uses a converted house as a womens' hostel. (26) AN Pay Clerks on TAR are registered as postal agents and also Commonwealth Bank Agents. Roadmasters and Costing Assistants help with mail as requested. Facilities exist within the correspondence system to provide daily service on trains to employees along TAR. STD facilities are available from public phones in Pimba, Tarcoola, Barton, Cook, Forrest, Rawlinna. An STD phone is in the Ganger's house at Zanthus. (27) The AN phone system is available to employees where Telecom services are not available. Private trunk calls through Train Control are costed and employees wages adjusted as necessary for the cost of calls. (28) AN prefers the installation of Telecom STD phones rather than the `gold phone'. The installation of a `gold phone' would not improve the service available from STD phones or the service available to employees at settlements where use is made of railway communication facilities. (29) AN has made no approach to State or Local Government regarding maintenance of roads to AN settlements. (30) AN provides a satellite receiver dish for TV reception at Tarcoola, Cook and Rawlinna. (31) No. (32) No. (33) The `Tea &Sugar' provision train operates weekly on the TARL. (34) To ensure supplies of perishables, employees are requested to place orders in accordance with orders received. A small quantity of extra meat is carried to meet contingencies. The sale of `dry' goods is monitored to maintain adequate stocks on the supply train. The `Tea &Sugar' supply train is intended for AN employees who always have first preference. (35) Supplies are not offered to aboriginal communities, although individuals have made purchases at times when adequate stocks have been available. (36) Temperature details (all *C). Location Average July Daily Max. Min. Average January Daily Max. Min. Cook... 18.4 4.6 33.6 15.7 Rawlinna... 18.0 4.8 33.6 16.1 Forrest... 17.7 4.2 32.7 14.9 The wind chill factor is more related to snow country and is not considered in the normal range of temperatures in Australia. (37) The settlements of Watson, Hughes, Reid, Loongana and Karonie are anticipated to be closed on completion of the concrete sleeper program, which is currently scheduled for the end of 1989. (38) AN is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, as it would be disadvantaged compared to its competitors if it was required under the Act to make its commercial dealings public when its competitors are not. (Question No. 1554)) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether the vessels of the Western Australian State Shipping Service are heavily subsidised; if so, what is the (a) manner and (b) level of the subsidy. (2) Is he able to say what other State or privately owned coastal shipping services are subsidised. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Western Australian Government provides financial assistance to the Western Australian State Shipping Service (WASS). Although questions on the manner and level of that assistance should be directed to that Government I note that the latest Annual Report by WASS indicates that the State Government Operating Grant for calendar year 1984 was $16.2 million. I should also note that the calculation of the relativities for distributing Federal financial assistance grants to the States, undertaken by the Grants Commission, takes account of the full operating deficits of State coastal shipping operations. This approach increases the share of Federal financial assistance grants received by Western Australia, in large measure compensating that State for the cost of its coastal shipping service. (2) Apart from the adjustments to financial assistance grants referred to in (1), which are also made in respect of the coastal shipping services operated by South Australia and Tasmania, the Federal Government provides no subsidies for State or privately owned coastal shipping services, although it did contribute $26 million for the acquisition of the passenger ferry Abel Tasman by the Tasmanian Government. (Question No. 1555)) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Is there any Federal legislation requiring (a) truck drivers to take adequate precautions through the fixing of a skirt to the rear of their truck to prevent water spray from obscuring the vision of other motorists during inclement weather or (b) small passenger carrying vans to comply with the same crash test requirements that are applied to conventional passenger cars; if not, will legislation be introduced in the current sittings for these purposes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) There is no Federal legislation for truck spray requirements. The Federal Government has sought to co-ordinate State and Territory requirements through the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC). This is achieved through the system of Australian Design Rules and Consolidated Draft Regulations which have been endorsed by Federal, State and Territory Transport Ministers to provide a uniform basis for State and Territory Regulations. The Consolidated Draft Regulations include a comprehensive range of requirements for mudguards to minimise water spray from vehicles, but do not make specific reference to the fitting of skirts. (b) There is no Federal legislation requiring forward control vehicles to meet crash test requirements. At the initiative of the Federal Government, the Australian Transport Advisory Council has agreed on a package of Australian Design Rule requirements aimed at providing forward control vehicles with the same general level of safety as conventional passenger vehicles. Many of these safety requirements have already been introduced. The Federal Office of Road Safety is presently carrying out a test program to identify the appropriate crash test requirements for forward control vehicles in view of their different structural characteristics, as compared with conventional passenger vehicles. It is anticipated that the results of this work and proposed crash test requirements should be available for consideration early in 1986. The Federal Government will continue to promote improved vehicle safety requirements, where appropriate and cost effective, through the existing consultative framework provided by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. (Question No. 1578) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, 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 Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3)- (i) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $215,860. For the most part, this covered regular ongoing compensation payments ($141,799) made to twenty former employees in accordance with Determinations of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. The balance of expenditure ($74,061) covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospitals, etc, relating to employees' compensation determinations in respect of 106 officers and employees and comprising 237 individual transactions. (ii) Legal Expenses- Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $144,521, all of which related to `South Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd vs Delhi Petroleum Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth of Australia'. Amount Recipient Service $ 63,187 Mr J. E. Lunn Memorandum of fees and disbursements 52,557 Mr C. S. C. Sheller, QC Memorandum of fees and disbursements 2,522 Finlaysons, Solicitors Disbursements 9,537 Attorney Generals Department Reimbursement of travel expenses for witnesses and consultants 2,786 Supreme Court S.A. Evidence Fees 1,377 Dr J. Kerr Consultancy fees and costs 3,626 Australian Government Solicitor Reimbursement of wages 4,224 Various Office Running Expenses 4,705 Various Document Reproduction (Question No. 1585)) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1984-85 the Department of Transport expended $582,380 on compensation and related payments and $65,752 on legal and related expenses associated with formal inquiries established under legislation. (2) The following tables detail the amount and nature of expenditure. (i) Compensation and Related Payments Nature of Cases Amount Total $ $ Medical expenses... 126,484 . . Lump sum payments in respect of deceased officers... 98,764 . . Funeral expenses... 1,168 . . Compensation entitlements to former employees... 355,964 582,380 (ii) Legal and Related Expenses Amount Total $ $ Australian National (AN) Board of Inquiry into railway accident... 47,713 . . Arbitration on closure of Victor Harbour railway passenger service... 18,039 65,752 648,132 (3) Recipients of payment for legal and related expenses were: (i) AN Board of Inquiry-Mr R. J. Pascoe, (Board Member); Mr I. M. Leslie, (Board Member); Mr J. E. Lunn, (Counsel Assisting); Spark &Cannon (SA) Pty Ltd (Transcipt Services); Australian Government Solicitor (Incidental Costs); South Australia Police Department (Incidental Costs). (ii) Victor Harbour Arbitration-Mr R. J. Pascoe, (Abritrator); Travers Morgan Pty Ltd, (Provision of Technical Assistance); Ian Low &Partners, (Counsel Assisting); Sonarex Tapes, (Transcipt Services); Gordon &Gotch Limited, (Advertisements of Notice of Public Hearings). (Question No. 1608)) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: What proportion of Medicare expenditure is paid to (a) medical practitioners, and (b) staff engaged in the administration of Medicare. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In 1984/85 a total of $97.8m was incurred by the Health Insurance Commission as management expenses while the value of Medicare benefits paid was $2,240.1m-a ratio of 4.4 per cent. In 1985/86 it is expected that the management expenses will, as a result of higher volumes and the transfer of surveillance and investigation functions, increase to $121.2m with benefits being $2,495.7m-a ratio of 4.9 per cent. (Question No. 1623) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: When and where will the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Office be established. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There will be no separate office established for the administration of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. The Regional Office of the Federal Department of Transport in Hobart is responsible for day to day administration of the Scheme including the payment of claims for assistance. (Question No. 1651) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The 008 service was introduced by the Department of Veterans' Affairs on a trial basis in Queensland in March 1983. In March 1984 the service was extended to all Branch Offices of the Department. (Question No. 1682) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Is the PHALANX close up weapons system fitted to several RAN major surface combatants. (2) Has his attention been drawn to claims that there are defects in the PHALANX system fitted to many United States warships; if so, is he able to say whether modifications are required to the system's (a) lubrication (b) electrical system (c) voltage regulator and (d) heat exchanger. (3) Have problems of the type reported in the United States been reported in the Royal Australian Navy; if so, are repairs or modifications required to PHALANX systems in Royal Australian Navy service; if so (a) what repairs or modifications are involved (b) at what estimated cost will they be effected and (c) where will the liability for any such work lie. Mr Beazley —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The PHALANX Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Mk 15 is fitted to the Royal Australian Navy's four FFG-7 Class Guided Missile Frigates. HMAS Sydney and HMAS Darwin were fitted with PHALANX prior to departure from the USA. These PHALANX mounts were constructed to a 1981 production contract build standard. HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra were fitted with PHALANX at Garden Island Dockyard, Sydney, in 1984 and 1985 respectively. These latter mounts were constructed to a 1982 production contract build standard, which incorporated a number of engineering changes to improve system reliability and maintainability. (2) Weapons systems in United States Naval and Royal Australian Navy service, including PHALANX, are subjected to continuous engineering assessment, so as to improve reliability and reduce maintenance and support costs. Engineering changes and Ordnance Alterations (ORDALTs) are routinely produced for this purpose. Several ORDALTs have been produced to improve the reliability of early production PHALANX mounts. The honourable member has correctly specified product improvements in the PHALANX lubrication, electrical, voltage regulation and heat exchanger systems. (3) The Royal Australian Navy has not experienced any problems of the type reported in the United States Navy. All Royal Australian Navy PHALANX mounts include an ORDALT to improve the gun lubrication system. The new production PHALANX mounts fitted in HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Canberra were supplied with electrical system, voltage regulator and heat exchanger ORDALTs already built-in. The older production PHALANX mounts fitted in HMAS Sydney and HMAS Darwin are proving reliable, even though these ORDALTs are not yet fitted. Installation of these ORDALTs is now being planned by the Royal Australian Navy. The cost of installation in two ships is about $190,000 which includes installation, labour, stores and tooling. The Commonwealth buys the ORDALTs, as does the United States Navy for its own mounts. United States Navy plans to instal these changes in about 350 United States Navy PHALANX mounts have been sensationally reported in Jane's Defence Weekly of 27 July 1985. The poor/unsatisfactory reliability and performance of PHALANX implied in this article is not supported by Royal Australian Navy experience. Recent Royal Australian Navy PHALANX trial firings have proved successful against low level air targets. (Question No. 1920) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by his Department and authorities under his control on employment of (a) casual and (b) part-time staff in (i) 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 (estimated). (2) Were employment and staff agencies used to employ casual and temporary staff; if so, (a) What guidelines apply, (b) which agencies were used, and (c) what was the payment to each agency. (3) How many staff years were represented by the employment of (a) casual and (b) part-time staff in (i) 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 (estimated). Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Details are not maintained separately for expenditure on casual and part-time staff. The total salary expenditure on these two groups in 1984-85 was $2.122m. The Department does not plan to significantly increase employment of staff in these categories in 1985-86 and the estimated salary expenditure on these two groups in 1985-86 is $2.248m. (2) Employment and staff agencies are not used to employ casual and part-time staff. The Department maintains a register of people seeking part-time/casual employment and on occasions seeks additional applicants from other departments or the Commonwealth Employment Service. (3) Details are not maintained separately for the employment of casual staff. In 1984-85, 124 staff years were used for the employment of part-time staff, which includes most categories of casuals. There are no plans to significantly increase this level in 1985-86. (Question No. 1866)) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Are there any plans to dispose of the Department of Defence's army establishment in Geraldton, Western Australia, in (a) 1985-86 or (b) before 1990. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The only Army owned property at Geraldton, Western Australia, is the Ares Depot at the corner of Cathedral and Lester Avenues. There is no intention to dispose of this property in (a) 1985-86 or (b) before 1990. (Question No. 1885)) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Does the Australian Defence Force conduct surveillance of the Indian Ocean; if so, (a) what areas of the Indian Ocean are normally covered by the surveillance and (b) does Australia share the intelligence gathered with other friendly powers? (2) Does Australia receive intelligence on the Indian Ocean from other friendly powers? (3) Does South Africa (a) receive and (b) provide, Indian Ocean intelligence from or to Australia; if so, what conditions govern this co-operation? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Royal Australian Air Force aircraft conduct periodic surveillance of the Eastern and North Eastern Indian Ocean. In addition, Royal Australian Navy units when deployed in the Indian Ocean conduct routine surveillance during passage; (b) Australia shares the intelligence gathered with those other friendly powers having a similar interest in the area. (2) Australia does receive intelligence on the Indian Ocean from other friendly powers. (3) South Africa does not provide Indian Ocean intelligence to Australia nor does it receive Indian Ocean intelligence from Australia. (Question No. 1903)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What is the function of the Ethnic Liaison Committee. (2) Who are the members of the Committee. (3) What are the (a) bases for their appointment, (b) responsibilities and (c) fees, remunerations and expenses received by members of the Committee. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The function of the Ethnic Liaison Committee is to facilitate consultations on reciprocal agreements with the ethnic community. (2) Demetri Dollis (Chairman), Nino Randazzo, Athena Touriki, Francesco Giacobbe, Afif Hadj. (3) (a) The members of the Committee were selected on the basis of their understanding of the ethnic communities and their availability for the task. (b) Their responsibilities are to: advise me on the best way to conduct the consultations; participate in the consultations; and prepare a report which draws together the community views and reactions. (c) Remuneration follows the current Remuneration Tribunal Report for Category 2 Boards and Committees. At present these rates are as follows: Chairperson $163 per day; Members $131 per day. Two members of the Committee are State public servants and ineligible for sitting fees and two are providing their services on a voluntary basis. The fifth member is receiving remuneration at the rate of $131 per day. All Committee members are eligible for car transport and, where appropriate, fares and travelling allowance for attendance at all Committee meetings and consultations. The rates of travel allowance are the same as for Level One and above officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. At present these rates are as follows: Capital City $100 per day. Other than Capital City $70 per day. (Question No. 1170)) Mr Price asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) `Ministerial Correspondence', issued originally by the Department in 1979. These instructions are updated as required and are distributed within the Department and to all statutory authorities within the portfolio. Some statutory authorities also have internal procedures which complement those of the Department. (b) Yes. The target period to be aimed for in handling correspondence from Ministers and Members of Parliament requiring Ministerial reply is 10 working days. For other correspondence requiring Ministerial reply the target is 15 working days. The targets are estimates of the times likely to be necessary to process straight-forward matters not requiring reference outside the Department. (2) Yes. In 1985 to 16 May, a total of 7,079 Ministerial representations were received; 31 per cent met the target date. This figure was achieved despite the fact that many of the representations were of a sensitive and complex nature and involved Commonwealth/State relations or required advice from statutory bodies within the portfolio. Of the remainder 28.5 per cent were answered within 6 weeks, 10.3 per cent within 8 weeks and 30.2 per cent took 8 or more weeks to final answer. (Question No. 1377)) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Is he able to say whether the contents of the article headed `Tension growing over card checks' in the Canberra Times of 29 May 1985 are correct; if so, what effect does the insistence upon the use of identification in the form of current union tickets and long-service and superannuation cards have on civil liberty or human rights. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: From time to time, building unions in the Australian Capital Territory and other States conduct campaigns to check union membership cards and evidence of superannuation payments and long service leave payments by employers. Awards in the ACT (like awards generally) provide for duly accredited representatives of unions to have the right to enter places of work in the course of their duties. When the Government came to office it inherited instability and a poor industrial record in the industry. The Government gave support to efforts by major unions and employers in the building industry to formulate a Memorandum of Understanding directed at improving industrial relations in the industry. This agreement, among other things, included provisions for union membership, superannuation and dispute settlement procedures. Long service leave was already an established condition of employment in the industry. Under the agreement, employers have agreed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees are and remain financial unionists while working on site, and that they are appropriately covered for superannuation and long service leave. The matter of the building unions campaign, in particular the closure of sites, referred to in the Canberra Times article was the subject of proceedings in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on several occasions. The industrial action has since ceased and normal work has resumed at all of the building sites affected. (Question No. 1389) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many physio and occupational therapists and speech pathologists are employed by the Commonwealth in Repatriation hospitals. (2) How many of these positions were vacant at 30 June 1985. (3) What was the cost of providing private physiotherapy services to entitled veterans in (a) 1982, (b) 1983 and (c) 1984. (4) Would filling vacancies have reduced these costs and what would have been the cost in each year of filling the vacant positions. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) At 30 June 1985 the following full-time positions were on Departmental establishment in Repatriation hospitals- 105 physiotherapists 80 occupational therapists 11 speech therapists 196 Against these positions 183.84 were employed (full-time equivalent staff). (2) 12.16. (3) The costs of providing private physiotherapy services to entitled veterans were: (a) 1982-83-$7,059,163; (b) 1983-84-$7,865,992; (c) 1984-85-$10,060,409. (4) The filling of vacancies would have yielded only a small reduction of the costs of providing private physiotherapy services during the preceding three financial years. The following table shows the combined full-time/part-time staffing against the established physiotherapy positions at the end of the 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 financial years, with the resultant vacancy gaps: 30.6.83 30.6.84 30.6.85 positions... 98.00 104.00 105.00 staffing... 93.92 99.16 96.81 vacancy gap... 4.08 4.84 8.19 The salary cost of filling these vacancies (which occurred through recruitment problems rather than deliberate action not to staff positions) would have been approximately: 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 $100,000 $110,000 $180,000 While it is the Department's policy that its own institutions are used wherever possible, there are three basic considerations when determining whether private or Repatriation physiotherapy services should be used: (a) the welfare of the patient-the Department is responsible for ensuring that relatively convenient arrangements can be made for its beneficiaries. Given their advancing age and increased frailty, local treatment sources may be more convenient for patients than Repatriation facilities; (b) comparative costs-the cost of travel to Repatriation facilities (especially with country clients) must be taken into account, as well as the cost of salaries of staff physiotherapists, when determining the relative economies of using private or Repatriation facilities; and (c) availability of service-the situation with physiotherapy departments in Repatriation General Hospitals is that, even if they were fully staffed, they could cope with very few patients in addition to inpatients and outpatients who have been discharged from hospitals. (Question No. 1507) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) IBM, Tallgrass, Taxan, Tecmar, Epson, NEC, 3Com, Hewlett Packard, Wang, NEC, Brother, Rena, Beehive, Texas Instruments, Sendata, Honeywell, Corona, Burroughs, Magmedia Qume, Canon, Digital, Rainbow, Nicolet Zeta, Memorex, Prime, Apple, Raytheon, Data General/Penta, NCR. (2)- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Principal Date of Hardware Anticipated Replacement System Function Installation Cost Life Action Wang (Central Office)... Word Processing... Jan, 1983 June, 1985 $126,000 (inc. some software) Several years None Prime (Australian Tourist Commission) Word Processing Database Spreadsheets Telex July, 1984 $308,400 5 years None Data General (Australian Tourist Commission) Financial control Word Processing Jan, 1981 $120,800 5 years Currently being replaced by the Prime system Digital VAX (Australian Institute of Sport) Database Word Processing... July, 1985 $380,000 10 years None Data General/Penta (AGPS) Computer Typesetting... July, 1985 $1.5m 10 years None Digital (AGPS)... Computer... 1975 $550,000 10 years Currently being replaced by Data General/Penta NCR (AGPS)... Stock, sale and distribution of publications 1985 (in progress) $150,000 10 years None Prime (AGPS)... Sales, distribution and finance system 1981 $600,000 5 years None (3) No. (Question No. 1509) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Science, 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 Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following information provides an answer to this question in respect of the Department, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, and the National Standards Commission. The CSIRO is currently obtaining the required information and this will be provided as soon as it is available. 1. The following brands of computer or ADP hardware are currently in use: (a) Patent Office-DEC, NCR, IBM, Apple, Control Data, CM Ericsson, Raytheon, Qume, Diablo. (b) Bureau of Meterology-Facom, Tandem, Hewlett Packard, General Automation, GCS, NEC, IBM. (c) Antarctic Division-DEC, Wang, Apple. (d) Central Office-Convergent Technologies. (e) National Standards Commission-Plexus, Printex, Qume. (f) Australian Institute of Marine Science-DEC, ICL. (g) Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-Interdata, DEC. 2. (a) Patent Office- (i) DEC Microcomputer; (a) word processing; (b) June, 1981; (c) $240,000; (d) 5 years; (e) Replacement planned in 1987-88. Brand/s yet to be determined. (ii) NCR Minicomputer- (a) patent and trade mark searching, administrative systems; (b) 1978-79; (c) $287,710; (d) have already exceeded their planned work-life. (e) are being replaced by systems being developed progressively and implemented in 1985-86 using CSIRONET facilities. Hardware details will be included in CSIRO's response. (iii) (B) Bureau of Meterology (i) 2 Tandem Non Stops. (a) Operational; (b) 1982; (c) $700,000; (d) 10 years; (e) Acquire appropriate replacements. Brand/s yet to be determined. (ii) 2. Hewlett Packards (21 MX and 1000). (a) Satellite data; (b) 1976; (c) $80,000; (d) 2-3 years; (e) Acquire appropriate replacements. Brand/s yet to be determined. (iii) GCS 2100. (a) Data entry; (b) 1974; (c) $80,000; (d) 2-3 years; (e) Acquire appropriate replacements. Brand/s yet to be determined. (iv) Facom System (M200 and M180). (a) Operations, Communications and Backup; (b) 1982; (c) $3,600,000; (d) 5 years; (e) Replacement proposed in 1989-90 with an upgraded Facom system. (v) 24 NEC APC's. (a) Office Computations; (b) June 1982 to June 1985; (c) $120 000; (d) 2-4 years; (e) Acquire appropriate replacements. Brand/s yet to be determined. (vi) 2 IBM PC's. (a) Research/Office activities; (b) 1984; (c) $10 000; (d) 1988; (e) Acquire appropriate replacements. Brand/s yet to be determined. (viii) The Bureau uses CSIRONET for its global atmospheric data assimilation and prediction scheme. Hardware details will be included in the CSIRO response. (C) Antarctic (i) DEC-VAX (a) Analyse scientific data; (b) July 1984; (c) $150 000; (d) 10 years; (e) Acquire appropriate replacement. Brand/s yet to be determined. (ii) DEC-(LSI-11) (a) Communications; (b) August 1985; (c) $100 000; (d) 5-10 years; (e) Acquire appropriate replacements. Brand/s yet to be determined. (iii) DEC-(LSI-11) (a) collect marine data; (b) July 1982 several upgrades each year; (c) $60 000; (d) 3 years; (e) replace with a much larger system the brand of which is yet to be determined. A replacement is also dependent upon an executive decision regarding the future of the Nella Dan. (iv) DEC-(LSI-11) (a) collect scientific data; (b) December 1981; (c) $120 000; (d) 3-5 years; (e) replacement with a much larger system to provide greater uniformity between bases. Brand/s yet to be determined. (v) Wang (a) Word processing; (b) July, 1984; (c) $230 000; (d) 5 years; (e) Acquire an appropriate replacement. Brand/s yet to be determined. (vi) 8 Apple Microcomputers (a) scientific research analysis; (b) 1984-85; (c) $40 000; (d) 5 years; (e) No current replacement proposals. (D) Central Office (i) Convergent Technologies (NGEN) (a) data processing, word processing, office automation and communications; (b) June 1985; (c) $230 000; (d) 5 years; (e) No current replacement proposals. (ii) Central Office uses the CSIRONET FACOM MIBO and CYBER 335 for administrative support systems. Hardware details will be included in the CSIRO response. (E) National Standards Commission (NSC) Plexus 1035A P/35 Computer Ergo and peripherals. (a) Administrative and pattern approval data base; (b) April, 1984; (c) $55 000; (d) 8-10 years; (e) No current replacement proposals. (F) Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (AATB) (i) Interdata Model 70. (a) Telescope control, instrument control; (b) 1974; (c) $1.5m; (d) 7 years; (e) No current replacement proposals. (ii) DEC-VAX. (a) data collection and processing; (b) 1981/82; (c) $1.2m; (d) Undetermined; (e) No current replacement proposals. (G) Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) (i) DEC (a) scientific data; (b) January 1985; (c) $428 866; (d) 10 years; (e) No current replacement proposals. (ii) ICL 35 Microcomputer system. (a) accounting; (b) February, 1984; (c) $33 157; (d) 3 years; (e) Currently under review. 3. None of the above systems are shared with other users with the exception of CSIRONET. This system is owned by the CSIRO who will provide details of hardware in their response. (Question No. 1523)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 70 (Hansard, 19 April 1985, page 1547), (a) for how long has the mandatory threshold for the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) involvement in Government printing been $10,000, (b) what adjustments have been made to this threshold figure during the last 10 years and (c) why have these adjustments been made. (2) Will he explain how AGPS determines that rates charged to client departments for printing services are competitive with particular regard to how rates are calculated for (a) fill-in work and (b) core work. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Since October 1981. (b) The threshold was raised from $5,000 to $10,000 in October 1981. (c) The threshold was introduced in 1971/72 and increased in 1981 to reduce the volume of general printing work handled by the Publishing Section and enable priority to be given to publication work. (2) (a) Fill-in printing work allocated to utilise Government Printing Office capacity is charged at rates comparable to those of commercial printers. The industry comparable rates are determined periodically, following examination of contracts for similar work undertaken by commercial firms through the tender process, by striking the price at which the majority of work has been undertaken. (b) Parliamentary, urgent and confidential printing work-the core work of the Printing Office-is charged at rates which ensure client departments meet the full costs of production. There is no comparable service available from the private sector for the core work activity. (Question No. 1548)) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: (1) Will he explain the background to his decision not to proceed with the national compensation fund for consumers in the travel industry. (2) Is he able to give an assurance that consumers in the travel industry will be fully protected in the event of the collapse of travel agencies. (3) How will uniform high standards of protection for consumers in the travel industry be ensured. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The decision not to proceed with the establishment of a travel agents national compensation fund was taken against the background of a tight budgetary situation and in the knowledge that alternative means for effective compensation, such as bonding, could be available at competitive rates and at no cost to the Commonwealth. (2) Occupational licensing is the prime responsibility of the States and Territories and it is up to them to determine the level of protection accorded consumers against travel agency collapses. (3) In order to encourage a uniform approach to standards of protection the Commonwealth has drafted model legislation and copies have been provided to the States and Territories. Some States have already held discussions with the Australian Federation of Travel Agents on an alternative uniform scheme and the remaining States/Territories are awaiting the outcome of these discussions. Uniform standards on a national basis can be ensured if the States/Territories agree to par- ticipate in a uniform scheme. (Question No. 1663)) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Has his attention been drawn to claims by Sister Rosalie Bertell at the Nuclear Disarmament Conference that the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome epidemic could have been caused by uranium mining and nuclear testing; if so, what comments has he received from experts in the field on the claim. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The advice of my Department is that such claims are entirely conjectural and unsupported by any scientific evidence. (Question No. 1683)) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: How many awards registered with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (a) do and (b) do not, carry clauses stating a preference for union members. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 472, (b) 938. (Question No. 1822)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: (1) What was the cost of the reception held by the Australian Tourist Commission for him in 1984 in New York. (2) Was this cost included in the published cost of his overall trip; if not, why not. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No reception was held for me by the Australian Tourist Commission in New York during 1984. (Question No. 1894)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has additional computer or data processing hardware, in particular disc capacity, been purchased by his Department as a result of the implementation of the assets test; if so, (a) what was the cost of additional equipment purchased, (b) who supplied it, (c) when was it installed and (d) is it operational. (2) Will additional computer or data processing equipment or disc capacity be purchased to facilitate the implementation of the assets test in 1985-86. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Additional computer hardware in the form of personal computers has been purchased as a result of the implementation of the assets test. Disc capacity designed for the implementation of the Department's Stratplan project was used for the assets test. (a) The cost of the personal computers was $67,125 (b) The personal computers were supplied by Wang Computers Pty Ltd. (c) The equipment was installed late in October 1984. (d) All of the equipment is operational. (2) Additional disc capacity will be purchased in 1985-86 to make up for an overall disc capacity shortfall caused by the use of Stratplan disc space with records associated with the implementation of the assets test. (Question No. 1895)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: Did his Department or any authority under his control make any payments in lieu of salary for staff attending the Australia Games in 1984-85; if so, (a) what was the cost of the payments, (b) how many staff were involved, (c) what were their salary levels and (d) what was their purpose in attending the Australia Games. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) $626.28. (b) One. (c) $32,671. (d) An umpire. (Question No. 1898)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: Does his Department or any authority under his control make payments for telephone rental concesions on behalf of clients; if so, what is (a) the number of clients and (b) the cost of the concessions. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) The number of clients receiving telephone rental concessions at 30 June 1985 was 801,821. (b) The cost of the concessions in the 1984-85 financial year was $31,727,807. Expenditure for 1985-86 is estimated to be $35,290,000. (Question No. 459) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Apart from subsidies paid under the Aged or Disabled Persons' Homes Act, Aged and Disabled Persons' Hostels Act, Child Care Act, Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, Handicapped Persons' Assistance Act, Homeless Persons' Assistance Act, Home Nursing Subsidy Act, Nursing Homes Assistance Act, States (Home Care) Act and States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act, what amounts have been paid by his Department and to which community based organisations in (a) 1980-81, (b) 1981-82, (c) 1982-83 and (d) 1983-84 and under which Acts have these payments been made. (2) What amounts will be paid in 1984-85 and to which community based organisations. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) See answer to question on notice No. 460 (Hansard, 31 May 1985, page 3318). (2) With the creation of the Department of Community Services in December 1984, the Department of Social Security does not now make any payments to community based organisations. (Question No. 1241)) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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 Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, consultants have been employed in my Department and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau since March, 1983. The question has been answered in two parts. Part one provides details of consultants engaged in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Part two provides details of consultants engaged by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. 1. Consultants Engaged by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (a) (b) and (d). The following consultants were employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs at the costs indicated: (1) Dr J. Ritchie-History Department, Australian National University (ANU). Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$60.00. (2) Mr C. Findlay-Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$220.00. Dr R. Gregory-Economics Department Research School of Social Sciences, ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$110.00. Mr B. Smith-Economics Department-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$60.00. (3) Mr N. Hocking-Retired senior Department of Foreign Affairs Officer. Review of Overseas Aid-$1,024.59. (4) Professor Stuart Harris-ANU-$300.00. Professor Richard Snape-Monash University-$300.00. Associate Professor Tom Parry-University of N.S.W.-$300.00. Preparation of paper on North/South issues and presentation at a symposium on ``Australia and the development crisis of the 1980's. (5) Miss Marj MacIlwain-Relaxation Therapist. Lecture on relaxation techniques at Stress Identification seminar-$150.00. (6) Dr H. Kinlock-Dean of Students-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$60.00. Dr T. B. Millar-Research Fellow-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$60.00. Dr H. Collins-Lecturer-Department of Political Science-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$60.00. Dr G. Jones-Lecturer-Demography Department-ANU. Lecture to Foreign Service Training Course-$60.00. (7) Mr I. Miles-Participation in retirement seminar for Departmental officers on ``Planning your Retirement Accommodation''-$40.00. Dr J. Hill-Retired Medical Practitioner. Participation in retirement seminar for Departmental officers on ``Health and Retirement''-$40.00. Mr Ross Walker-A.C.T. Council of the Aging. Participation in retirement seminar for Departmental officers on ``Why Plan for Retirement?''-$40.00. (8) Mrs D. Outram-Consultant on Effective Writing Conducted a three day effective writing course for Departmental Officers-$585.00. (9) Mr R. W. Furlonger-former senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Participation in senior promotions committee-$1,000.00. (10) Mr J. Casson OBE-consultant in the field of organisational communication. Lecture to Senior Management Seminar for Departmental officers on organisational communication-$1,000.00. (11) Mr B. Smith-Economics Department, ANU. Conducted economic workshop for Foreign Service Training Course-$1,500.00. (12) Mr C. J. Lloyd-journalist, author and ANU research fellow. Report writer and Editor attached to the Secretariat of the Committee to Review Australia's Overseas Aid Program-$9,793.30. (13) Dr C. Emerson-Research School of Pacific Studies-ANU. Preparation of paper on North/South issues for the Department-$750.00. (14) Mr E. H. Hanfield-Retired senior Department of Foreign Affairs Officer. Participated in ADAB Committee for promotions of senior officers-$830.00. (15) Dr C. R. Wesson-Senior Lecturer in Economics at La Trobe University. Preparation of paper on International Monetary Systems Issues-$4,980.00. (16) McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd-Consultants Trans Tasman Attitudinal survey for ANZF-$41,450.00. (17) Mr W. B. Pritchett-Former Secretary, Department of Defence. Participation in Senior promotions committee-$916.66. (18) Mr J. M. McMillan-Retired senior Department of Foreign Affairs Officer. Participation in task force to examine the report on the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy-$18,302.56. (19) Ms E. Solly-Senior Lecturer in Secretarial Studies, CCAE. Conduct Secretarial Management Seminars-$3,600.00. (20) Mr A. Farran-Lecturer in Law, Monash University. Prepare paper on major commodity issues in North/South context for the Department-$1,747.00. (21) Mr P. Shields-Barrister-Pamela Coward &Associates. Examination of Department of Social Security draft. Cabinet Submission on compensation for Department of Foreign Affairs Staff serving overseas-$18,302.50. (22) Mr M. Brown-MacIntyre, Brown and Associates-Training Consultants. To conduct senior management training workshops-$1,184.65. (23) Dr R. Pfanner-Former Senior ADAB officer. To participate in selection interviews for positions in ADAB-$496.76. (24) Mrs S. Cornelius-Vice President of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. To act as Director of 1986 International Year of the Peace program-$45,000 p.a. (25) Mr B. Bray-Retired senior ADAB Officer. Participation in ADAB promotions committee-$1,801.00. (26) Mr Bill Nicol-former journalist. To conduct workshops for Departmental officers on understanding and working with the media-$550.00. (27) Mr M. Dando-freelance journalist. To undertake research, writing and preparation of a publication entitled `Australia and the Third World'-$10,720.00. (28) Western Personnel-Personnel Service. Provision of a steno-secretary and Word Processing operator for SPNFZ conference-$950.00. (29) DYNJAB-Manufacturers of passport laminators and equipment. To produce and supply passport laminators, printer tables and dye cutters-$14,000.00. (30) Mr A. Ivancheft-interpreter. To interpret for Minister during Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister's visits-$399.00. (31) Mr W. R. Edeson-Academic Lawyer-ANU. To make legal analysis concerning UN Law of the Sea Convention-$500.00. (32) Mrs Morella Calder-Solicitor. To prepare paper on ``Recent Developments in Deep Seabed Mining'-$700.00. (c) Working plans appropriate to the consultants' specific tasks were provided as necessary. (e) Consultants were employed for various lengths of time. Full details are not recorded and to attempt to ascertain this information would require an inordinate amount of resources. (f) Our records indicate that payments were not made in excess of the initial quotes. All consultancies meet Public Service Board guidelines for the engagement of consultants, as advised by the publication ``Engagement of Consultants and Contractors for Service''-Guidelines for Department and Authorities, Australian Public Service Board, May 1978. Consultants involving payment in excess of $1000 and engaged prior to 2 July 1984 were the subject of a fully documented Departmental proposal to and approval by the Public Service Board. 2. Consultants engaged by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. To answer the Honourable Member's question in respect of consultants engaged by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau would require an unreasonable expenditure of resources by the Bureau. From available information, however, the answers to the questions are: (a) and (b). The names of all consultant firms and individual consultants engaged at or since March 1983, and the total value of the projects for which they were contracted, are shown below. The amounts shown represent consulting fees and individual allowances costs on the one hand, and project-related costs including equipment on the other, in a very approximate overall ratio of 70:30. (b) The Bureau employs consultants to implement and manage aid projects in developing countries. Consultants are also employed to perform other overseas project-related tasks such as project appraisal, feasibility studies, evaluation, planning and the like, and for administrative purposes. (c) Working plans are specified in detailed `scope of services' clauses which are included in all Bureau contracts. Consultants are also fully briefed by Bureau staff before entering upon their assignments. (e) Periods of engagement vary from several weeks to over 5 years. About 75% of assignments are for periods up to a year, 20% for one to 3 years, and 5% for longer periods. (f) Consultants are not asked for quotes but rather for indicative costings. Fees are negotiated with them according to the levels of their inputs of technical expertise appropriate to the particular project, and in accordance with standard conditions of contract. All procurement is arranged in accordance with Commonwealth purchasing principles and variations from quotes are negligible. Increases are thus confined to the area of fees and individual allowances and arise from such sources as national wage decisions, determinations affecting allowances, extensions of project duration, changes in the project scope of services, etc. The Bureau's financial records do not permit a ready separation of cost increases arising from these various sources, and any such task would involve an inordinate amount of staff time. As a guide, however, the original value of new contracts awarded to private consultants from 1 April 1983 to 31 March 1984 has been calculated as $54,135,469. Approved amendments to the contracts amounted to $2,549,150 or 4.8%. Name of private consultant firm or individual Total value of contracts Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation... 113,561,400 ACIL Australia Pty Ltd... 7,231,800 E. E. Treloar... 76,000 Laurie, Montgomerie and Pettit... 1,126,500 ASEAN-Australia Business Council... 400,000 Crooks, Mitchell, Peacock, Stewart... 23,101,955 AACM Pty Ltd... 8,297,000 Kinhill Stearns... 24,000 Sinclair Knight and Partners... 5,820,000 Australia Film and Television School... 615,000 Dr. J. E. K. Galbraith... 105,000 Macdonald, Wagner and Priddle... 5,560,516 The Cooperative Federation of New South Wales... 159,000 Richard David Creak... 1,500 Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd... 26,398,484 R. A. Eyre-Smith... 33,000 Coopers and Lybrand... 2,583,000 MWA International Pty Ltd... 31,000 Professor R. V. S. Bain... 25,000 Price Waterhouse Pty Ltd... 1,808,000 Australian Administrative Staff College... 70,000 Mr T. J. Johnson... 9,000 Australian South Pacific Eye Consultants Pty Ltd... 784,000 D. G. Hill and Harvey Pty Ltd... 632,000 Scott and Furphy... 3,986,000 W. E. Bassett and Partners Pty Ltd... 70,000 Econsult... 31,000 Sloane, Cook and King Pty Ltd... 27,500 Rural Management International... 37,000 McGowan International... 13,363,500 Dr H. Newton Turner... 7,000 Emeritus Professor E. J. Britten... 10,000 Mr E. K. Fisk... 9,950 BHP... 1,782,920 Australian Mineral Foundation... 240,000 Cullen Grummit and Roe Pty Ltd... 15,500 Cornell, Eddie, Riedel and Byrne... 500,000 Rhan Services Pty Ltd... 4,255 Parity Computers Ltd... 35,000 Dr B. Radke... 1,100 Cameron McNamara... 1,664,621 CAA Development Service... 21,000 D. T. Hunt and Associates... 45,000 Maunsell &Partners Pty Ltd, Pak-Poy &Kneebone (Joint Venture)... 2,600,000 W. D. Scott... 5,200,000 MPW Rural Development Pty Ltd... 4,514,679 Coffey and Partners Pty Ltd... 11,598,900 MPW-CMPS (Joint Venture)... 8,752,000 Godfrey and Spowers Aust. Pty Ltd... 12,500 Dr R. McLeod... 5,000 Drs Jayasuriya and Hills... 7,200 Airport Consulting and Construction Aust. Pty Ltd... 4,556,418 Professor B. L. C. Johnson... 71,000 Pak-Poy &Kneebone Pty Ltd... 620,000 Luminis Pty Ltd... 37,660 Merz, McLellan &Partners... 60,000 Institute of Forresters of Aust. Inc.... 40,000 Gavan McDonnel &Co.... 30,000 Sheddon Pacific... 483,446 AMDEL... 777,500 Davy Agro... 250,000 Techsearch Inc.... 262,000 Diana Vukosavljevic... 18,400 Roy Spratt &Associates... 10,000 J. &M. B. Thomas... 3,660 Peter Knoll Byrnes... 13,000 Elizabeth Reid... 9,759 Thompson Douglas &Co.... 30,000 Film Australia... 12,000 Pacific Forum Line... 300,000 Association for Research, Exploration &Aid Ltd... 10,000 World Logistics Pty Ltd... 90,000 K. W. Catchford... 7,000 Dr Marion Ward... 43,000 Jeffrey Priddle... 25,000 Laurie Seaman... 25,000 David Chantrill... 25,000 Dr R. Pfanner... 1,000 Burns Philp... 48,000 Davy Pacific... 7,650,000 McKillop, Williamson &Associates... 12,000 Ore, Arup &Partners... 1,236,000 Qantas (Bangladesh Apprentice Training Program)... 6,685,000 Lionel Davies... 42,000 Macdonald, Wagner &Priddle &W. D. Scott... 120,000 Dwyer Leslie Pty Ltd... 135,000 Von Scramek &Dawes... 520,000 SMEC/Leightons/ACIL... 24,000,000 Mr J. K. Mundy... 8,300 Valentine, Laurie &Davies... 800,000 Mr Tom Norris... 35,000 Millward Consultancy Service... 150,000 Trippett Allan &Associates... 1,390,406 McLennan, Magasanik &Associates... 325,000 ERM &Australian Port Consultants... 1,050,000 Layton Seismics Pty Ltd... 547,000 Maunsell &Partners... 115,000 Professor K. A. Blakey... 31,000 Alexander &Lloyd... 420,000 Mark Dando... 10,440 It should be noted that all consultancies involving payment in excess of $1,000 have been the subject of a fully documented departmental proposal to and approval by the Public Service Board. All other consultancies meet Public Service Board guidelines for the engagement of consultations, as advised by the publication `Engagement of Consultants and Contractors for Service'-Guidelines for Department and Authorities, Australian Public Service Board, May 1978. (Question No. 1386) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 8 August 1985 in which the chairman of the Processed Food Industry Council claimed that the Australian food industry was handicapped in competing with rivals on the world market by impediments including cumbersome government regulations which differed from State to State and increased the cost of production. (2) Is it a fact that (a) in the 12 years since 1972-73 food imports have increased by 130 per cent, (b) in 1983-84 total imports of food, beverages and tobacco exceeded $1,000 million or one-tenth of the trade deficit, (c) the processed food industries are the leading sector of Australian manufacturing employing 20 per cent of the workforce and contributing 18 per cent of the value added in manufacturing and (d) the `natural' barriers to imports of processed food have increasingly been penetrated by new food processing technologies and high rates of subsidy by overseas governments. (3) Will he introduce a model food Act to help alleviate these problems; if so, when. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the claim made by the Chairman of the Processed Food Industry Council regarding the effect of government regulations on the food industry as reported in the Financial Review of 8 August 1985. My concern over the effect on the Food Industry of regulations which differ from State to State has been central to my efforts to achieve uniformity in food laws. (2) The following information in answer to the honourable member's question has been obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics catalogue 5332 `Exports &Imports-Balance of Payments Basis-at Constant Prices.' (a) No. Food imports in the 12 years since 1972/73 have increased 82 per cent (in real terms). (b) Yes. Total food, beverages and tobacco imports exceeded $1 billion in 1983/84 in Australian Standard Industrial Classification (ASIC) Division 21. It should be noted that equating this figure to the trade deficit is spurious. Australia's exports of food, beverages and tobacco in 1983/84 accounted for $3,748.7m, representing 15 per cent of total exports. Imports of food, beverages and tobacco accounted for $1050.3m, representing 4.4 per cent of total imports. Australia is therefore a net exporter of foods and the trade deficit cannot be attributed to food imports. (c) In 1983/84 the food, beverages and tobacco industries (ASIC Division 21) employed 17 per cent of the total manufacturing workforce and 19 per cent of the value added in total manufacturing. (d) A substantive comment is not possible on this question as the available statistics do not differentiate between `new' and `old' food processing technologies. There are well established mechanisms for dealing with areas where high rates of subsidy are alleged. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce deals with these matters on a case by case basis but there must first be an industry case, proving damage and a casual link between the damage and the `dumped' or `subsidised' imports. (3) A Model Food Act, drawn up by a Committee of Commonwealth/State officials' was endorsed by the Australian Health Ministers at their 1980 Conference. Since that time, the States have been progressively adopting this model into their own legislations and I am advised that on present indications, this will be substantially completed by early 1986. For many years the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through its food committees has been assisting progress to uniformity by developing food standards which the States and Territories have picked up in their regulations. Following my initiative at the 1985 Health Ministers' Conference, the States and Territories have generally agreed in principle to the process of adopting by reference the food standards developed by the NHMRC. I will shortly be forwarding to State and Territory Health Ministers for comment a draft agreement to establish a National Food Standards Council of Ministers to oversee the adoption of these standards. It is anticipated that a formal agreement will be concluded in time to enable the Council and the adoption by reference mechanism to be operative from January, 1986. (Question No. 1480) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable members's question is as follows: Title: Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin. When established: Originally November 1974. Incorporated into Australian Prescriber in 1979. Became separate publication again in November 1982. Section responsible: Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee Secretariat, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Medical Officer Class 3-12.5 per cent, Medical Officer Class 2-12.5 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 8-9.0 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 2/3-3.0 per cent (mailing), Clerical Assistant Grade 1-3.0 per cent (mailing). Frequency of publication: Quarterly. Printer: Watson Ferguson and Co., Brisbane Total circulation: 50,000 Target audience: Doctors, dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, hospitals and some overseas regulatory authorities. Editor: Dr J. McEwen, Secretary, Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee. Stated objectives: To inform doctors, dentists and pharmacists of contemporary problems with medicines; to promote activities of ADRAC; to encourage reporting of all suspected adverse drug reactions. Costs: Printing: $23,500 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Australian Prescriber. When established: 1975. Section responsible. Drug Evaluation Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Medical Services Adviser 2-10 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 8 (fulltime), Clerical Administrative Class 6 (fulltime), One journalist Grade A1-15 per cent. Frequency of publication: Quarterly. Printer: Ambassador Press, Sydney. Total circulation: 43,500. Target audience: All health professionals and medical, dental and pharmacy undergraduates in Australia; health professionals overseas who request journal; medical and dental students in Fiji and Sri Lanka. Editor: Dr R. C. Hall, senior Medical Services Adviser, Drug Evaluation Branch. Stated objectives: To assist clinicians, whatever their field, to prescribe the most appropriate treatment. Costs: Printing: $59,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Health Reporter. When established: 1984. Section responsible: Executive and International Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: One full-time journalist Grade A1. Frequency of publication: Monthly. Printer: Canberra Publishing and Printing, Canberra. Total circulation: 5,500. Target audience: Media outlets, State and Federal MPs, health professionals and academics (some overseas) and Department of Health staff. Editor: Mr D. Blewett, Journalist, Public Relations Section. Stated objectives: To publicise the Department's activities and to inform staff of those activities. Costs: Printing, $8,500 per year. Salaries are coved under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Journal of Food and Nutrition. When established: 1944. Section responsible: Food and Environmental Protection Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science Officer Class 5-5%, Science Officer Class 3-5%, Clerical Assistant Grade 1-5%. Frequency of publication: Quarterly. Printer: Graphic Services, Adelaide. Total circulation: 3,650 (free), 1,238 (paid, through Australian Government Publishing Service). Target audience: Home Economics Departments of High Schools; hospitals, universities and other tertiary institutions; dietitians and nutritionists; doctors, dentists and libraries of overseas institutions. Editor: Mrs R. English, Principal Nutritionist, Nutrition Section. Stated objectives: To disseminate food and nutrition information, including the results of original Australian nutrition findings; to improve nutritional knowledge of community; to publicise food and nutrition policy statements of the Department and statements of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Costs: Printing, $16,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: National Acoustic Laboratory News. When established: 1974. Section responsible: Auditory Communication Therapy unit of NAL. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Class 3 teacher-2.5 per cent Frequency of publication: Two a year. Printer: AGPS contractors. Total circulation: 12,000. Target audience: Parents of hearing-impaired children. Editor: Mr G. Plant. Stated objectives, To communicate between NAL and parents and teachers of deaf children. Costs: Printing, $3,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Technical Information Bulletin. When established: 1970. Section responsible: Drug Dependence Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Clerical Administrative, Class 6-40 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 5-40 per cent. Frequency of publication: Three to five times a year. Printer: Various AGPS contractors. Total circulation: 8,000. Target audience: Health, welfare and related professional and law-enforcement bodies in Australia and overseas. Editor: Mr G. M. James, Assistant Secretary, Drug Dependence Branch. Stated objectives: To provide a digest of current literature dealing with all aspects of drug dependence matters, particularly drug-abuse prevention. Costs: Printing, $15,000 to $25,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Approved Chemists. When established: 1948. Section responsible: Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science 4-2 per cent. Science 3-8 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 9-1 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 8-10 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 6-15 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 5-20 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 5-20 per cent. Frequency of publication: Three times a year (April, August and December). Printer: Government Printer, Hobart. Total circulation: 8,350. Target audience: Chemists. Editor: Mr M. Clarke, Assistant Secretary. Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch. Stated objectives: To inform dispensers of the range of pharmaceutical benefits available and restrictions that apply to those items as benefits so that the community can obtain maximum benefit from the scheme. Costs: Printing, $57,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Approved Chemists Amendments. When established: 1948. Section responsible: Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science 4-2 per cent, Science 3-8 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 9-1 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Clas 8-10 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 6-15 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 5-20 per cent, Clerical Administrative, Class 5-20 per cent. Frequency of publication: Monthly. Printer: Government Printer, Hobart. Total circulation: 8,350. Target audience: Chemists. Editor: Mr M. Clarke, Assistant Secretary, Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch. Stated objectives: To inform dispensers of the range of pharmaceutical benefits available and restrictions that apply to those items as benefits so that the community can obtain maximum benefit from the scheme. Costs: Printing, $12,300 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Medical Practitioners. When established: 1948. Section responsible: Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science 4-2 per cent, Science 3-8 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 9-1 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 8-10 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-15 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 5-20 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 5-20 per cent. Frequency of publication: Three times a year (April, August and December). Printer: Government Printer, Hobart. Total circulation: 32,300. Target audience: Medical practitioners. Editor: Mr M. Clarke, Assistant Secretary, Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch. Stated objectives: To inform dispensers of the range of pharmaceutical benefits available and restrictions that apply to those items as benefits so that the community can obtain maximum benefit from the scheme. Costs: Printing: $39,450 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits Bush Nurses' Notes. When established: 1948. Section responsible: Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science 4-2 per cent, Science 3-8 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 9-1 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 8-10 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-15 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 5-20 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 5-20 per cent. Frequency of publication: Three times a year (April, August and December). Printer: Government Printer, Hobart. Total circulation: 200. Target audience: Bush Nursing Centres. Editor: Mr M. Clarke, Assistant Secretary, Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch. Stated objectives: To inform dispensers of the range of pharmaceutical benefits available and restrictions that apply to those items as benefits so that the community can obtain maximum benefit from the scheme. Costs: Printing: Absorbed in $39,450 cost of Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Medical Practitioners. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the department appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Dental Practitioners. When established: April 1979. Section responsible: Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science 4-2 per cent, Science 3-8 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 9-1 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 8-10 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-15 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 5-20 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 5-20 per cent. Frequency of publication: Annually in December. Printer: Government Printer, Hobart. Total circulation: 8,000. Target audience: Dental practitioners. Editor: Mr M. Clarke, Assistant Secretary, Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch. Stated objectives: To inform dispensers of the range of pharmaceutical benefits available and restrictions that apply to those items as benefits so that the community can obtain maximum benefit from the scheme. Costs: Printing: $2,500. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Communicable Diseases Intelligence Bulletin. When established: 1978. Section responsible: Communicable Diseases Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Science 3-fulltime, Science 2-75%. Frequency of publication: Fornightly. Printer: Highland Press, Canberra. Total circulation: 2,000. Target audience: Health-care providers (mainly medical practitioners) hospitals, universities and libraries throughout the world. Editor: Dr I. F. Cook, Director, Information Review &Policy Section. Stated objectives: To disseminate information on communicable diseases matters. Costs: Printing: $18,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: NHMRC Session Report. When established: 1936. Section responsible: National Health &Medical Research Council Secretariat, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Section of 50 clerical and professional staff involved for varying proportions of their time, plus one journalist Grade A1-10% Frequency of publication: Twice yearly. Printer: Varies under AGPS contract arrangements. Total circulation: 1,000. Target audience: Medical research community. Editor: Mr A. Charlton, Journalist Grade A1, Public Relations Section. Stated objectives: To report the proceedings of twice-yearly Sessions of NHMRC. Costs: Printing: $30,000 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: List of Recommended Medical Specialities and Appropriate Qualifications. When established: 1972. Section responsible: Medicare Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved and percentage of time: Clerical Administrative Class 8-10%, Clerical Administrative Class 6-25%, Clerical Assistant Grade 4-20%. Frequency of publication: Annually. Printer: AGPS contractor. Total circulation: 2,000. Target audience: Medical practitioners intending to specialise; recognising/registering bodies; medical colleges and professional associations; other interested organisations. Editor, or editorial controller: National Specialist Qualifications Advisory Committee. Stated objectives: To act as a reference document for those required to register or recognise specialists as well as those planning careers in a specialist field. Costs: Printing: $2,500 per year. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Medicare Benefits Schedule Book. When established: 1973. Section responsible: Medicare Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved: Clerical Administrative Class 9-60 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-30 per cent, Clerical Assistant Grade 4-50 per cent. Frequency of publication: Annual reprint and six-monthly amendments. Printer: AGPS contractor. Total circulation: 47,000. Target audience: All registered medical practitioners in Australia; and interested organisations and individuals. Editor: Dr L. O'Keefe, Principal Medical Officer. Stated objectives: Provide a list of medical services and associated fees which attract medicare benefits. Costs: Printing: Annual reprint $22,000; six-monthly amendments $71,000. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Medicare Benefits for Services by Dental Practioners. When established: 1973. Section responsible: Medicare Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved: Clerical Administrative Class 9-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Assistant Grade 4-5 per cent. Frequency of publication: Periodic amendments as required. Printer: AGPS contractor. Total circulation: 5,500. Editor: Dr L. O'Keefe, Principal Medical Officer. Stated objectives: Provide a list of medical services which attract Medicare benefits. Costs: Printing: $4,500. Salaries are covered under division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Medicare Benefits for Consultations by Participating Optometrists. When established: 1975. Section responsible: Medicare Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved: Clerical Administrative Class 9-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-2 per cent, Clerical Assistant Grade 4-5 per cent. Frequency of publication: Periodic amendments as required. Printer: AGPS contractor. Total circulation: 5,300. Target audience: All participating optometrists in Australia; State and Federal Departments; and other interested organisations and individuals. Editor: Dr L. O'Keefe, Principal Medical Officer. Stated objectives: Provide a list of medical services which attract medicare benefits. Costs: Printing: $5,000. Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. Title: Medicare Benefits for Services by Accredited Dental Practitioners in Treatment of Cleft Lip and Palate Conditions. When established: 1981. Section responsible: Medicare Benefits Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health. Number of staff involved: Clerical Administrative Class 9-2 per cent, Clerical Administrative Class 6-1 per cent, Clerical Assistant Grade 4-2 per cent. Frequency of publication: Periodic amendments as required. Printer: AGPS contractor. Total circulation: 14,800. Target audience: All participating orthodontists in Australia; State and Federal Departments; and other interested organisations and individuals. Editor: Dr L. O'Keefe, Principal Medical Officer. Stated objectives: To report on the scheme for the payment of Medicare benefits for services associated with the treatment of cleft lip and palate conditions in patients aged less than 22 years. Costs: Printing: $15,000 (for original edition in 1981). Salaries are covered under Division 325/1 of the Departmental appropriations and administrative costs under Division 325/2. Apart from this, costs are not recorded in a way that enables the details sought to be readily identified. To extract the information would require an unreasonable diversion of resources and I am not prepared to authorise this. (Question No. 1528) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: With regard to his letter of 16 May 1985 explaining the mini-budget to pharmacists, what was (a) the full list of names and addresses of the recipients of the letter, (b) the cost of the letter's printing and distribution and (c) the name of the person or section responsible for composing the letter. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) A copy of the letter was mailed to each of the 5,483 pharmacists then approved under the National Health Act to supply pharmaceutical benefits. I am reluctant to seek to have published in Hansard the names and addresses of the recipients because of the work that it involves. However if the honourable member wishes me to confirm that a particular pharmacist was sent a copy I will do so. (b) Approximately $3,060. (c) The letter was composed by my staff and officers of my Department. (Question No. 1633) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports in the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 May 1985 and the Weekend Australian of 7-8, September 1985 claiming that the proposed construction of a NASA installation on Easter Island would endanger the ecology of the island, the way of life of its inhabitants and the ethos of one of the archaeological wonders of the world. (2) Can he state whether there is any substance in the claims; if so, will he express concern to the US Government at the adverse effect the installation may have on the island and its inhabitants. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My attention has been drawn to press reports to this effect. (2) I am advised that reports that proposed NASA facilities on Easter Island would have an adverse impact on the island's environment are speculative. An agreement was signed in early August between the United States and Chile permitting NASA to use the island's runway as an emergency landing strip for the space shuttle. The agreement provides for lengthening of the runway from 2930 metres to 3353 metres, using land that is already part of the airport premises. The proposed extension would not encroach towards any of the statues, which are nearly all in locations 2 to 12 kilometres distant from the airport. Only very small numbers of NASA personnel would be permitted entry to the island on a regular basis. The likelihood of a space shuttle landing ever occurring is judged to be remote. There could be implications for increased travel and tourism, with the eventual introduction of wide-bodied aircraft on the Chile-Easter Island-Tahiti route. Whether this would have a significant effect on the island's ecology or way of life is not clear. From reports which are available, there appear to be some divisions among the islanders in their attitudes to the project. Because possible economic benefits might enable them to improve their standard of living, at least many appear to be in favour. There is no doubt that the monoliths, artifacts and environment of Easter Island together constitute a unique heritage. However, in the light of the reports I have received, it would appear premature to consider making representations about possible effects of extending the island's runway. (Question No. 1654) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Is he able to indicate (a) where the proof and experimental establishments are in the other American, British, Canadian, Australian (ABCA) countries which perform the same or similar functions to those carried out at the Port Wakefield establishment, SA, and (b) in what way those other establishments differ from Port Wakefield in terms of topographical characteristics. (2) Does Australia have an equivalent establishment in a tropical area; if so, (a) where and (b) what capacity has it to perform the functions performed at Port Wakefield. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b). There is only one Proof and Experimental Establishment (P&E) in the other ABCA countries which is capable of performing exactly the same functions as carried out at Port Wakefield. This is the P&E at Shoeburyness in the UK, which also possesses all the topographical and other characteristics that permit soft recovery of projectiles through the medium of water (over-water recovery-OWR), the best means of ensuring the structural integrity of projectiles after firing. The following establishments in the other ABCA countries perform similar or the same functions as those carried out at Port Wakefield: United States of America- 1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, located near Baltimore on the shore of Chesapeake Bay, is now used mainly for experimental type testing rather than for production proof. Over water recovery firings have been conducted in the past, but under extreme difficulties created by maritime activity, unsuitable water depth and silt. No long range firings are carried out. 2. Naval Surface Weapons Centre, Dahlgren, is located on the Potomac River estuary in Virginia, about 65 km from Washington DC. It carries out mainly gun and propellant proof. Overwater recovery is not possible because of similar topography to Aberdeen and the rocky nature of parts of the river estuary floor. 3. Jefferson Proving Ground is located 100 km from Louisville, Kentucky. It is a land locked, undulating area permitting short and medium range tests. It is understood some firings are made into prepared soft soil areas. This technique cannot provide assurance with regard to shell integrity (i.e. the main purpose of overwater recovery). 4. Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, is located near the city of Yuma. It is a very large, landlocked range used for range and accuracy testing. Attempts to develop alternative projectile recovery techniques, including creating an artificial lake in the adjacent Mojave Desert, have not been successful. United Kingdom- 1. P &EE Shoeburyness. This range is in the Thames estuary less than 80 km from London and has tidal characteristics similar to Port Wakefield, which was modelled on it when established in 1928. Shoeburyness has a significantly greater range capability than is currently available at Port Wakefield, having approximately twice the sand recovery area. 2. P &EE Eskmeals. This is located on the Cumbrian coast. It undertakes ordnance, tank gun ammunition and range and accuracy testing by firing out to sea, with no specific range limits, but with regular interruptions because of shipping. It does not fire for overwater recovery. 3. P &EE Inchterf, Scotland, and P &EE Pendine, Wales, carry out a range of testing and development of small and medium calibre weapons and ammunition. There are no similarities to Port Wakefield in regard to overwater recovery or range and accuracy functions. Canada- Canada carries out similar functions at the Proof and Experimental Test Establishment (PETE) at Nicolet, located midway between Quebec and Montreal. Firing for shell recovery is mainly conducted in winter months between November and April onto the snow layer over the lake ice sheet. (3) Australia does not have an equivalent establishment in a tropical area for the functions in question. (Question No. 1841) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) What area of land in each State and Territory has been (a) affected by dryland salting, (b) made totally unproductive by forms of salination caused by land clearance and farming practices and (c) affected by salination arising from irrigation. (2) Has the Government taken steps to arrest the decline of land fertility as a result of salination; if so, what are the details. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) According to a report prepared by the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation in 1982, the area of land in Australia affected by dryland salinity is 42,030 km2. In addition, there is a further 282,000 km2 of naturally saline land which is not considered degraded. The distribution of dryland salinity, excluding natural saltland, is as follows: Queensland... 5,900 km2 New South Wales... 9,240 km2 Victoria... 1,500 km2 Tasmania... 50 km2 South Australia... 12,550 km2 Western Australia... 5,990 km2 Northern Territory... 6,800 km2 (b) It is difficult to precisely determine that area of land made totally unproductive by salinisation as a result of particular land use activities. Due to uncertainty with respect to future prices and technologies it cannot be stated whether or not land currently affected by salinity is totally unproductive such that future use is precluded. Salinisation is not an irreversible process. A change in the relative profitability of land use activities due to commodity price changes or changes in technology may provide sufficient incentive to reverse the degraded state of the land. (c) Appropriate data indicating the distribution of irrigation salinity between the States are not readily available. However, data are available on a Drainage Divisions basis. Irrigation salinity is confined largely to the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, where a total of 1,219 km2 are affected. In addition, there is approximately 6 km2 of salt affected irrigation land in Queensland and 5 km2 in Western Australia. In total, the area of land affected by irrigation salinity is estimated to be 1,230 km2. (2) The Commonwealth Government removed taxation concessions for land clearing in August 1983. This concession was seen as inappropriate in view of the relationship between the removal of native vegetation and the incidence of dryland salinity. The National Soil Conservation Program is funding projects in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania for the mitigation of dryland salinity. These projects range from research on processes of salinisation and control techniques, through demonstration trials of reclamation methods to the preparation of salinity control plans for whole catchments. The Federal Water Resources Assistance Program provides funds for salinity and drainage activities by way of non-interest bearing, non-repayable grants on a dollar for dollar basis with the States. In 1985-86 the salinity and drainage sub-program will receive $6.908m. Projects funded are the Murray Valley Salinity and Drainage Program and a salinity control program in Western Australia. The Commonwealth Government also assists in the control and prevention of salinity through its involvement in the National Tree Program. In 1984-85, the Commonwealth allocated $0.5m to the program. For 1985-86, $0.6m has been allocated. (Question No. 1842) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) How many social security pension recipients living in the Electoral Division of Ballarat have had their pensions (a) affected or (b) cancelled, under the provisions of the assets test. (2) How many social security pension recipients living in the electoral Division of Ballarat have (a) appealed and (b) had their pensions partly or wholly restored as a result of appeals, under the hardship provisions of the Social Security Act. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) 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. (2) (a) and (b) Figures are not available for the number of appeals lodged in a particular Electoral Division. (Question No. 1846) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, 17 September 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether the Indonesian Government has made public lists of 154 East Timorese who have been tried and convicted and of 50 prisoners released in April 1985; if so, will he request the Indonesian authorities to furnish (a) details of the particular offences for which those on the lists have been convicted and (b) a list of all other persons who have not yet been brought to trial. (2) Is he able to say whether 3 people who had been listed as `disappeared' in Amnesty International's report on East Timor, appear among those on the Indonesian Government list as being in Indonesian detention; if so, will he request the Indonesian authorities to investigate whether any other persons listed in the Amnesty International report as having been executed or as having disappeared are in Indonesian custody. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government has received from Amnesty International two lists which Amnesty claims the Indonesian Government has released. The first list names 154 East Timorese prisoners who have been tried and convicted. The second list names 50 prisoners released in April 1985. (a) and (b) The Government has sent the lists to which Mr Tickner refers to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. The Embassy will request the Indonesian Government to provide details of the particular offences for which the 154 people have been tried and convicted and to list all East Timorese persons who have not yet been brought to trial. (2) The names of three people, who had been listed in Amnesty International's report on East Timor as `disappeared' or executed, did appear on the Indonesian Government list as being in Indonesian custody. For this reason, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta is being instructed to approach the Indonesian authorities to request them to investigate whether any other persons on Amnesty's list are in Indonesian custody. (Question No. 1849) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether the United Nations (a) is committed in principle to general and complete disarmament to the extent of reducing all national armed forces to the level required for internal national peacekeeping only and (b) has supported the McCloy-Zorin draft agreement as an agreed basis for gradual parallel confirmed disarmament. (2) Has Australia proposed that existing armament surveillance systems under US and USSR control be in part combined with, or supplemented by, international surveillance systems as proposed by France since 1978 at the United Nations; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The United Nations is committed to `general and complete disarmament under effective international control' by the Final Document of the First Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament. That document states that `in accordance with the Charter, the United Nations has a central role and primary responsibility in the sphere of disarmament'. The Final Document also sets out a Program of Action which inter alia provides that: `Together with negotiations on nuclear disarmament measures, the limitation and gradual reduction of armed forces and conventional weapons should be resolutely pursued within the framework of progress towards general and complete disarmament'. The Final Document does not specifically mention the reduction of all national forces to the level required for internal peacekeeping. (b) The McCloy-Zorin principles were tabled in the UN on 20 September 1961 and in 1962 the United States and the Soviet Union separately tabled draft treaties on general and complete disarmament. However, instead of pursuing this ambitious overall program, the attention of the international community turned to negotiation of individual arms control measures. A series of multilateral agreements were concluded in the period 1963 to 1977. In 1978, complete and general disarmament was again addressed by the United Nations at the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament as noted above. The task of negotiating a Comprehensive Program of Disarmament was given to the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference has not, however, given this agenda item high priority, reflecting the general consensus that the international circumstances of the past few years were not conducive to making progress on this comprehensive approach. The Conference on Disarmament is due to submit to the UN General Assembly in 1986 a final draft Comprehensive Program of Disarmament. This is likely to reflect many of the same principles as those enunciated by McCloy and Zorin. It remains to be seen whether the late 1980's will be more propitious for a comprehensive approach to disarmament than were the early 1960s. (2) The Government supports the French proposal for an Independent Satellite Monitoring Agency. If such an agency were established, it would be open to the United States and Soviet Union to contribute to it in whatever way seemed appropriate. Australia has proposed another type of international monitoring system, namely a global seismic monitoring network for the verification of a future comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. As part of this proposal, Australia envisages the establishment of an International Management Panel to manage the seismic network. This proposal has been tabled in the Conference on Disarmament by Australia and it was endorsed by the United Nations in 1984 when the General Assembly adopted a resolution sponsored by Australia and New Zealand which, inter alia, urged the Conference on Disarmament to set up an international seismic monitoring network. (Question No. 1850) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Did the Prime Minister state on 22 August 1985 that the Government has raised and will continue to raise the question of human rights in East Timor. (2) What is the Government's position on (a) regular bilateral approaches by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta to request open access to the territory of East Timor by the Australian mission, (b) promotion of visits by non-government organisations to assess the human rights situation in East Timor, (c) lobbying for the reintroduction of the question of East Timor on the agenda of the UN Commission on Human Rights, (d) regular briefings of Australian Ministers and official visitors to Indonesia about the Government's concerns regarding human rights violations in East Timor and (e) raising human rights issues in forums such as the Inter Governmental Group on Indonesia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Permission to visit the province of East Timor is requested by the Australian Embassy in Jakarta from time to time as the opportunity arises. There is no regular schedule of visits to the province by Australian Embassy staff who, in the normal course of their duties, visit the different provinces comprising the Republic of Indonesia. The Embassy is aware of the importance of making regular visits to particular provinces such as East Timor and Irian Jaya and is seeking to increase the frequency of visits by Embassy personnel. Permission has been sought for an Ambassadorial visit to the province. (b) As stated by the Prime Minister in Parliament on 22 August, Australia has, since 1979, recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. This has enabled Australia to seek permission for visits to the province by Australian delegations, including by non-government organisations. The Government has also sought free access to East Timor for international humanitarian organisations and aid workers because of our continuing concern about the human rights situation in the province. (c) On the basis of information available the Government does not intend to lobby to put the question of East Timor on the agenda of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The Commission voted in closed session at its 41st session in 1985 not to keep the human rights situation in East Timor under review. Australia preferred that the situation should be kept under review, and voted to keep it under review. This view was not sustained by the Commission. The closed session work of the Commission is based on matters referred to it by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a body of independent experts. In August each year the Sub-Commission decides which countries the Commission should examine at its next session on the basis of evidence indicating continuing and gross violations of human rights. In August 1985 the Sub-Commission decided that new communications on the human rights situation in East Timor did not warrant its re-inclusion on the list of situations to be considered in closed session at the Commission's 42nd session. While it would be possible for Australia to lobby for consideration of East Timor in public session, new information suggesting a continuing pattern of gross violations of human rights would be required to justify this. The Government is not aware of substantial new information of the human rights situation in East Timor which could convince the Commission to take up the question. The most recent information was that presented by Amnesty and others to the 41st session which has already been taken into account. Action on Australia's part concerning the Human Rights situation in East Timor should be judged primarily by our capacity to bring about an improvement in the situation. An attempt to revive the issue in public session in 1986 in the absence of evidence of significant new developments would probably fail. Such an initiative may also weaken Australia's capacity to exert positive influence on the Indonesian authorities over events in East Timor. (d) It is standard practice for the Department of Foreign Affairs to provide briefing on aspects of the bilateral relationship to visiting Australian Ministers and officials. The content and amount of briefing material provided naturally varies according to the purpose of the visit. Human rights considerations, including our concerns about human rights in East Timor, are treated in the context of our overall bilateral relationship with Indonesia. (e) The Inter-governmental Group of Indonesia (IGGI) is a consortium of various countries, including Australia, set up in the late 1960s to disburse aid to Indonesia in accordance with sound development goals. Its primary focus therefore is the performance of the Indonesian economy. In adopting its position at IGGI meetings of donor nations, the Government takes into account a variety of considerations which have a bearing on that aspect of our relationship with Indonesia. The Government has succeeded in having one human rights issue raised at IGGI. In June 1984 Indonesia agreed to an Australian proposal that the Indonesian Government arrange a briefing on the transmigration program as a whole for interested IGGI representatives in Jakarta. This briefing was held in Jakarta in March 1985 and was attended by officers of the Australian Embassy. The Government looks forward to further constructive discussion on transmigration, including the transmigration program in Irian Jaya, with the Indonesian authorities. (Question No. 1851) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Does the United Nations Charter require the Security Council to establish an international force; if so, what steps have been taken to ensure that such a force observes the principles established for ad hoc United Nations peacekeeping forces rather than declaring war to end war? (2) Has Australia taken steps to press for such a force; if so, what are the details? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Article 43 of the United Nations Charter requires Member States to make armed forces, assistance and facilities available for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Article 43 called for a special agreement or agreements governing these forces to be concluded as soon as possible. However, negotiations on the special agreement(s) failed and the collective security provisions of the Charter have never been implemented. United Nations Peacekeeping Forces are established on an ad hoc basis by the Security Council, not directly under the collective security provisions of the United Nations Charter. The establishment of peacekeeping forces is in keeping with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. (2) Australia has not taken steps to press for the establishment of an international force, but has joined with other member states in urging a fresh look at the collective security provisions of the Charter. In 1984, Australia voted for General Assembly resolution 39/158 which proposed an examination of ways of implementing these provisions. There has been no progress with the proposal in 1985. (Question No. 1854) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Further to his answer to question No. 797 (Hansard, 13 May 1985, page 2263), (a) does the policy of the Navy with respect to asbestos in the workplace conform to standards accepted in: (i) private civilian employment; and, (ii) the Australian Public Service; and, (b) is regular monitoring of asbestos levels on ships undertaken; if so, what is the nature of the monitoring. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The current Royal Australian Navy policy on the management of asbestos in the workplace conforms to the guidelines endorsed by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. These guidelines were originally published as `The Report on the Health Hazards of Asbestos' by an ad hoc subcommittee of the National Health and Medical Research Council in June 1981 and are widely accepted in Australia. The question of the conformance of standards used by the Australian Public Service (APS) to those accepted in private civilian employment does not fall solely within my portfolio. However, I am advised that when issues concerning asbestos arise, the APS, like the RAN, seeks the guidance of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. (b) An extensive program of assessment of asbestos hazards in RAN ships is being conducted by Naval occupational health officers with assistance from officers from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. This program has two phases. The first phase aims at the identification and registering of the presence of asbestos in ships. This phase is well advanced. The second phase is aimed at confirming that the airborne asbestos fibre levels in operational ships are below the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission's recommended threshold limit values for asbestos. The results to date have all been well below these recommended values. The determination of airborne asbestos fibre levels is accomplished using the `Membrane Filter Method for estimating airborne asbestos dust'. This method is prescribed by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. (Question No. 1864) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Are there treaties between Australia and other countries which permit the discovery and proof in Australian courts of banking records in overseas countries in cases of narcotics offences and international fraud; if so, what are the details. (2) Is the Government conducting negotiations with any other country to improve any existing treaties directed to these matters or to implement new treaties; if so, (a) with which countries are negotiations being conducted and (b) when can Australia expect to be in a position to ratify any new treaties or amendments to old treaties. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government has accorded high priority to the conclusion of treaties for mutual assistance in criminal matters with as many other countries as possible. Accordingly, a draft model treaty is being prepared and consultations will take place in the very near future with the States and the Northern Territory to settle an agreed Australian negotiating position so that bilateral negotiations with non-Commonwealth countries can commence. Australia is also taking an active role in the settling of a `Commonwealth Outline Scheme relating to aspects of mutual assistance in criminal matters within the Commonwealth of Nations' being devised by the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is hoped that a Commonwealth Law Ministers' Meeting to be held in mid-1986 will adopt this Scheme. Meanwhile, extradition treaties recently signed by Australia with Italy and the Netherlands included clauses providing for the provision of mutual assistance in criminal matters at the investigative and prosecution stages pending negotiation of formal mutual assistance treaties. Australia has received approaches from several non-Commonwealth countries and negotiations will commence as soon as the Australian draft model treaty is settled. The draft treaty will enable, inter alia, access to business and banking records in an evidentiary form that would be admissible in our courts. In addition the question of Federal legislation enabling evidence to be obtained overseas for use in prosecutions under Federal law is under consideration by the Government.