Monday, 25 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer him to the superannuation provisions in the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions accord mark II. I ask: What criteria or test must be met to qualify as an isolated circumstance? Are the current claims by the Transport Workers Union of Australia and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia isolated circumstances? Are there any others? What action has the Minister taken, in light of the Government's so-called special relationship with the union movement, to persuade the Transport Workers Union and the Storemen and Packers Union to drop their irresponsible industrial action in pursuit of those claims? Mr WILLIS —The claims by the Transport Workers Union and the Storemen and Packers Union in respect of superannuation are matters to which the Government has been giving considerable attention. Let me say firstly in respect of the Storemen and Packers' claim that it is not a claim, as I understand it, for payment prior to 1 July next year but a claim about its right to have payment into a storemen and packers' superannuation fund rather than into some industry scheme. This is a matter, therefore, of the type of superannuation fund or the particular superannuation fund rather than a dispute about when payment should commence. The Government has made several attempts to bring that dispute to an end. We have been in touch with the ACTU about it several times. The Government appeared in the case before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last Thursday but, unfortunately, the dispute still continues and it has had a substantial effect on the vehicle building industry, with stand-downs of several thousand employees. Given the fact that the dispute has not been resolved, I have called a meeting of all the parties for tomorrow afternoon to see whether we can finally resolve this issue. The claims that have been made by the Transport Workers Union are in respect of the major companies, and it has been said that they may form some special or isolated circumstance. The Transport Workers Union is not asking for the whole of the transport industry to have superannuation commence from some time prior to 1 July. That is most certainly not the case. In discussions I had with union representatives, it was agreed that for the industry as a whole there would be no commencement prior to 1 July 1986. However, the union has insisted that there is some special and isolated circumstance in relation to some companies. We have said to the union that if there are such particular circumstances it should put them to us and we would then consider them. At this stage that has not been done. I understand that discussions are occurring this afternoon between the Transport Workers Union and Mayne Nickless Ltd, one of the largest transport companies. It remains to be seen what comes out of those discussions. However, I should say that I have spoken to the company about that and I believe that the company is concerned to ensure that there is as little flow-on as possible in respect of superannuation prior to 1 July and it may well be that there will be no flow-on of any kind. We said to the Transport Workers Union and to the companies involved that, if they are to argue that there is some special and isolated circumstance, that must be done in the context of negligible cost, because that is involved in the Arbitration Commission's wage fixing principles. Principle No. 11 states that, if there are any claims outside those which are picked up in the rest of the principles, they should be of negligible cost. If they are not of negligible cost they should be reported to the Full Bench of the Commission for consideration. The Government believes that that is an appropriate way to go. If there is any suggestion of some payment outside negligible cost, in the way that that is understood under the wage fixing principles, it should go to the Full Bench of the Commission for consideration one way or the other. Mr PRICE —I ask the Prime Minister: What is the Government's view of the recent United States of America-Soviet Union Summit meeting? Was there any progress on arms control and other issues of interest to Australia? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I know that you and the House will excuse me if I preface my answer by saying how pleased I am sure all honourable members on both sides of the House are to welcome back the honourable member for Chifley after his severe illness. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence and I were particularly interested to receive this morning a briefing on the Summit meeting from Mr Allen Holmes of the United States State Department, who had come to Canberra from Geneva to brief us as the personal representative of President Reagan. That courtesy extended to us by the President reflects the courtesy and closeness extended to the Government in the pre-Summit period. The Australian Government is encouraged by the outcome of the Summit. It was clear from the briefing that we received this morning that President Reagan and General-Secretary Gorbachev have engaged each other's respect and interest as world leaders. While acknowledging, of course, that serious-in some respects quite fundamental-differences continue on a number of critical issues, they have committed themselves to a process of confidence building and expanded dialogue between their two countries. Given the complexity of the subject matter and the importance of the interests involved, it is not surprising that there was no particular breakthrough on arms control and disarmament. We are anxious, of course, that both sides carry through their commitment to give political impetus to the Geneva arms control talks. Even before the Summit had taken place the Summit itself had the beneficial effect of stimulating both sides to develop their negotiating positions in a constructive manner. Australia was particularly encouraged by the new commitments to co-operate in the areas of nuclear non-proliferation and limiting chemical weapons. Australia has been particularly active in these areas and it was pleasing this morning that our leadership in the area of chemical weapons was positively acknowledged by Mr Holmes. Looking ahead, another encouraging point to emerge from this morning's briefing is that the United States Administration is determined to improve the relationship with the Soviet Union in steady, incremental steps, avoiding the wild swings that have so far characterised relations between the two countries in the post-war period. That sort of realistic approach to East-West relations is entirely consistent with the policies of this Government. Mr HOWARD —Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the guidelines currently being determined to govern the superannuation arrangements outlined in the renegotiated accord will require appropriate employee contributions? Mr HAWKE —All I have to say on that matter is that the Treasurer is currently formulating those guidelines. He will be doing that in consultation with the business community and the trade union movement, and he will be making a statement in the near future on that matter. Mr BILNEY —Has the Minister for Trade seen reports that bauxite and alumina sales from the Gove project in the Northern Territory involving Swiss Aluminium Limited have been made at artificially low prices which have been arrived at on a less than arms length basis? In this connection I refer the Minister to reports in the National Times of 11-17 October which claims to cover the history of this project, and refer to the pricing policy by which attempts were made to subvert Australia's national interests and its control over this important commodity. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member get to his question. Mr BILNEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister advise what action he is taking in respect of these exports? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Kingston for his question. I take this opportunity to commend him on his job in representing the Australian Government at a recent meeting of the International Bauxite Association. He was called upon to chair that meeting held in Kingston, Jamaica. It is not the first time that the honourable member for Kingston has served his country with distinction in Kingston, Jamaica. I welcome this opportunity to refer to the matter raised by the honourable member because the bauxite and alumina industries are important industries for Australia, representing some $1.5 billion of export income, or some 5 per cent of our gross income. It has been the policy of this Government to encourage mineral resource exports and to achieve pricing levels which maximise the returns for Australia. Unfortunately in some cases this has not been the case, and in this particular case exports to Swiss Aluminium Limited by its Australian subsidiary, Austraswiss and Gove Aluminium Limited, a subsidiary of CSR Limited, have been made at unreasonably low prices for several years. This matter was brought to a head recently when approval was sought to reduce substantially the price of bauxite being exported from the Gove project. I have recently notified both companies that these arrangements are not acceptable and that I will continue to approve exports only if they are made on conditions which reflect fair and reasonable long term market pricing levels. The sales contracts under which these contracts take place predate the introduction of export controls on bauxite and alumina. They are based on prices related to the cost of production and certain contracts have pricing arrangements which do not always achieve what is accepted as a fair international price. Since the mid-1970s successive governments have pursued these matters with the company, Austraswiss, in an attempt, through discussions, to have it change the terms and conditions of those contracts so that the prices can be more fair and reasonable in market terms. Whilst some changes were made in 1977 in respect of bauxite, the company has been unwilling to address the question of its more important contracts in relation to the export of alumina. As well, the company, Austraswiss, has been reluctant-in fact, it has refused-to indicate to the Government the prices at which it on-sells its bauxite and alumina and to whom. The House will know that the annual reports of Austraswiss have indicated that that company has paid no company tax since this project began in the 1970s. The Commissioner of Taxation-this is now a matter of public record-has reassessed the company's income for the years 1976 to 1979 and has increased the notional company income by $100m. He has provided assessments to the company involving increases in income taxation of $4.7m in 1978 and $10.6m in 1979. The company has steadfastly resisted these attempts by the Commonwealth to ensure that a fair price is received. Also it has vigorously resisted attempts by the Commissioner of Taxation to extract taxation from this company. Indeed, its strenuous attempts, using all legal avenues available to it, have involved an expense to both my Department and the Australian Taxation Office in trying to resist requests for information from this company-requests which involve information provided to the Department of Trade on a confidential basis by other exporting companies. This is a shabby story. It involves important issues as far as Australia is concerned. The Commonwealth has an obligation to secure from these projects the maximum benefits for Australia. Whilst in relation to the export of bauxite alumina I have recently released some proposals for the relaxation of export controls, we are not prepared to relax those controls to the point where Australia's national interest can be compromised. I have, as have my several predecessors, given these companies adequate opportunities to put these affairs into order, to try to ensure that a reasonable return is received from the export of these important commodities. I am still prepared to discuss these matters with the companies, but I can assure them that I will be prepared to discuss these matters only on the basis that we can secure a better return for Australia and maintain the very strong reputation that these industries have in the international market-place. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer to my question to him on 21 November regarding the Australian Institute of Sport. I ask: Has the Minister found the letter from Sargent and Burton Pty Ltd which was sent to him on 27 May and did a member of the Minister's staff tell Mr Dempster of Sargent and Burton that he-the Minister-had called for a report from the Institute in June 1985? If so, what did the report say? If the Minister has not found a copy of the letter, would he like me to give him one? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am not in the habit of asking other people for a copy of my correspondence; it usually stays in my office. I said in the House on Thursday that I could not recall whether I had received a letter from Sargent and Burton. I have obtained a copy of that nefarious letter and its sinister implications from my Sydney office. Perhaps if I read the letter to you, Mr Speaker, you will understand why I had forgotten it: Dear Minister, Reference your letter 24 January 1985. Mr G. Hartung has been kind enough to reply to me re the Australian Sports Commission on issues that I raised and my reply to Mr Hartung is enclosed and is self-explanatory. I had the opportunity to be in the audience when you officially opened rowing and water polo into the A.I.S. May I compliment you on these initiatives. It is a wonder that I did not remember that bit. The letter continued: May I also take this opportunity to request an appointment be made available preferably before the 24 June 1985, to meet with you either in Canberra or your electoral office to discuss a matter which is important to sport in general and the A.I.S. in particular. Yours sincerely That sort of letter would burn deeply into everybody's consciousness! I do remember getting all those sorts of letters! For the information of honourable members I table the letter. Mr Sinclair —And you did not call for a report. Mr JOHN BROWN —No, I did not call for a report. I certainly have not asked my staff whether the woman in question has responded to Mr Dempster's phone call in those terms. I am certain that every member in this House would agree that that letter certainly would not imply that that sort of response would be required by my staff or anyone else. The simple fact of that Sargent and Burton complaint, as I mentioned in the House the other day, is this: The firm made an offer to sell some boats to the Institute and it missed; it lost. Someone else won the contract. Somebody loses a contract every day in respect of every government department. The firm subsequently complained about the processes which were undertaken in order to decide who was going to supply the boat. It made some requests under the freedom of information legislation. Documents were supplied. Subsequently, the firm went through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and complained that all the documents had not been made available. Its request was refused; the AAT ruled against it. It strikes me as being very much of an overkill for the Opposition to keep pursuing these matters. However, despite the innocuous nature of the charges that have been made a full report will be furnished to the House on Thursday. For the information of honourable members I table the letter from Sargent and Burton. I apologise for the fact that my memory was deficient in not remembering that I received it. Mr White —What about the attachments? Mr JOHN BROWN —There were no attachments. Mrs DARLING —I direct my question to the Minister for Health. I refer to the fact that the Brisbane Women's Health Centre will close down on 13 December, allegedly because of a lack of funding. I ask: Why is the women's health service in Queensland receiving no funding? What is the specific amount of the Federal Government's allocation of funds to Queensland under community health block grants this year? Which States provide funding for the women's health service, and how much do they provide? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of difficulties with the funding of the Brisbane Women's Health Centre as referred to by the honourable member for Lilley. However, I have to point out that primary responsibility for community health services does lie with the States. The Commonwealth, of course, has provided additional funds to States for new and expanded community health care services under the Medicare agreement. This year, 1985-86, Queensland will receive $3.109m. The State Government is free to apply that extra money to its community health services. Indeed, I point out that South Australia has allocated $178,000 of its increased funding to a women's community health centre at Noarlunga. This issue of concern about the funding of the Brisbane Women's Health Centre was raised with me by honourable members from Queensland. I consider it sufficiently serious to speak to the Queensland Minister for Health about. He pointed out, quite clearly, that the philosophy of the Queensland Government was that it would not provide special community health services for particular groups whether they be Aborigines, others in need or women; it was the philosophy of the Queensland Government not to provide such special services. I think, therefore, that it is very much a responsibility of the Queenslanders here and those in the State to ensure that, like other States, Queensland does address the health needs of particular groups in the community, particularly women, Aborigines and others. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to the housing finance statistics released today which show a 5 per cent fall in the number of housing loans in September which follows a 1 1/2 per cent fall in August. I ask the Minister: Does he still stand by his claim that the Government's high interest rate policy and tax changes, including the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes, are not significantly affecting the housing sector? Mr WEST —The first thing I want to assure the House is the the latest figures, that became available today, regarding the number of loans from all significant lenders show that the rate of lending to September is holding up extraordinarily well. There will be no deregulation of savings banks' interest rates, nor do we have any intention of increasing the rate of 13 1/2 per cent. At least this Government is very certain about what it is doing on these matters, but the Opposition finds it very difficult to decide on anything. It does not seem to be able to get its wage policy or its tax policy clear and certainly we do not know what to expect from it as far as regulation is concerned. If one compares the results of our policy of no deregulation and no increase in the ceiling with the policies that we think the Opposition proposes-deregulation, not now, but later-one will see that, under our policies, current savings bank borrowers will face no increase above the 13 1/2 per cent rate and, as I will show in a moment, significant amounts of finance will still be available, at 13 1/2 per cent, albeit within certain conditions. Let us look at the situation. Any reduced lending that occurs during 1985-86 will occur off a very high base indeed. I reiterate the figures that I gave the House last week. In 1981-82 the total of housing lending by major lenders was $6.5 billion; in 1984-85 it was almost $13 billion. The figures that came out today indicate-and I say this for the benefit of the honourable member for Deakin-that in September a total of $620m was lent by savings banks which compares with $622m during August. During September the savings banks made available 2.3 per cent fewer actual loans than they did in August. For the year to September 1985, the number of savings banks loans was up 11.5 per cent. So savings bank lending to September was holding up well. Let us see what the banks are saying about all this. The point I am making is that any reductions that occur are coming off a very high base. Let me quote Mr Will Bailey, the Group General Manager of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. The other day Mr Bailey said that it was true that the volume of housing loans was falling, but he pointed out that the level was still well above that of 1982, before the Hawke Labor Government was elected. He said that in the third quarter of this year loans were winding down a little so that by the end of this year the amount being lent would be closer to $450m. In the first quarter of 1986 this would be further reduced to maybe around $400m, but-and this is the important point-this would be still twice the figure that was being lent in 1982. I am not saying that, as a result of the high real level of interest rates and the present figures for savings banks deposits, we will not see any reduction in either savings banks deposit growth or the flow of finance to housing. What I am saying is that during 1984-85 and during the first months of 1985-86, lending has been at a very high level indeed and, as I have shown, at least to September there has not been much reduction at all in the total amount of lending by savings banks. Those figures are available today. The fundamental point to make is that any reduction in the volume of lending which occurs over the next few months will be from an extremely high base-indeed, from a record base in the history of Australia. Mr TICKNER —I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of developments relating to the hijacking of the Egyptian airliner to Malta. Mr HAYDEN —I am sure honourable members are aware of many of the tragic circumstances surrounding this incident. I am able to announce the following facts at this point: Egyptian Airlines flight 648 was hijacked at 04.30 hours Australian time on Sunday, 24 November, 22 minutes after departure from Athens to Cairo. It landed at Malta's Valetta Airport at 08.16 hours Australian standard time. A number of different nationalities were on board, including two Australians. The crisis centre in the Department of Foreign Affairs had been manned continuously by at least two officers throughout the night to follow developments. The entire Maltese Cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, stayed at the airport to deal with the crisis. The crisis obviously was taken very seriously by the Maltese Government. Our small mission there of three Australians handled the crisis very competently. One of the Australian staff, the High Commissioner, Mr Ross Smith, was almost continuously at the airport and then at the hospital throughout the crisis. Mr Smith was briefed by the Maltese Prime Minister after the storming of the aircraft. The aircraft was stormed by the Egyptian commandos at 06.20 Australian standard time on Monday, 25 November. Tragically, 63 passengers were reportedly killed. One Australian man on board, Mr Anthony Roystan Lyons, is safe. He currently resides at Cambridge in the United Kingdom. A young Australian woman-at this stage I prefer not to divulge her name as one of the parents has not been advised of the likely outcome-is believed to have been killed during the storming of the plane when the hijackers let off fire bombs and possibly other explosive devices. Research into past terrorist incidents revealed no other Australian fatalities other than the death of two Australian children in the Frankfurt Airport bombing of 19 June this year. Mr Speaker, I would like to go on and mention some other facts. The United States Administration has issued a statement regarding the tragic loss of life, supporting the difficult decisions of the Egyptian and Maltese governments to end the brutal hijacking and stating that those who support despicable acts must know that justice will be done. The United States Government states that it was not asked for direct assistance and there was no direct United States involvement. There has been some comment about security at the Athens Airport. Perhaps I should mention this: Following the hijacking of a Trans-World Airlines Pty Ltd airliner from Athens Airport in June, Qantas Airways Ltd conducted a security inspection of Athens Airport and advised our mission in Athens on 18 July that Qantas considered that important improvements had been made to security at Athens Airport which it believed was then probably safe to fly from. The American State Department announced on 22 July that its travel advisory to American citizens issued on 18 June regarding security at Athens Airport had been cancelled. The American statement said that an official American team had found that Athens International Airport met international airport security requirements. Mr Speaker, with your further indulgence I will mention something about the hijackers about whom very little is known personally. The three, possibly four, armed men said to be holding Moroccan and Tunisian passports who hijacked Egypt Airlines flight 648 claimed to be members of the Egyptian Revolution. As far as we are aware, they gave no reasons for their action and made no demands-such as the release of prisoners-other than to have the plane refuelled and later a request for food, which the Maltese Government refused. The only previous occasion we have heard of the Egyptian Revolution was following the shooting of an Israeli diplomat in Cairo on 21 August 1985. A group claiming to be the Egyptian Revolution claimed responsibility for that incident and said it had made an unsuccessful attempt on the life of an Israeli diplomat in 1984. The group issued a statement opposing the Camp David agreement. Subsequent to that incident Abu Nidal during an interview confirmed the existence of the Organisation of Egypt's Revolutionaries which was hostile to the Camp David accord. Abu Nidal indicated he supplied the group with weapons. Press reports refer to comment that the hijackers, who spoke Arabic, did not speak with Egyptian accents. The Palestine Liberation Organisation and Libya have both apparently disclaimed any involvement in or responsibility for the incident. We have seen reports that both Tunisia and Libya refused to give permission for the aircraft to land. Reports indicate that Europeans were apparently separated from the Egyptian passengers. However, those who were killed when the final assault took place appear to have been of all nationalities. I need scarcely say that the Government of Australia, indeed this Parliament, condemns categorically the behaviour of terrorists, in particular the behaviour of these terrorists on this very sad occasion. Their behaviour is that of criminal desperadoes and in no way deserves any understanding or sympathy because there can be no room for sympathy or understanding when innocent civilians are slaughtered in this way. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to the report in today's Australian Financial Review which refers to a confidential Treasury document, critical of the BIS-Shrapnel study challenging the Government's estimate of $310m in revenue savings from the prohibition of deductions for entertainment expenses. Will the Treasurer make details of the leaked document available to the House and, perhaps more importantly, when will he make available for public scrutiny details of exactly how the Treasury arrived at its estimate of $310m? Mr KEATING —Of course I will not. The former Treasurer never did. No one has ever expected governments to do so and I will not start the practice now. The Treasury's view is that the whole basis of the calculation is basically ill-founded. The notion that one is taking that sort of money out of circulation in the economy which is, apparently, one of the basic premises of the analysis, is of course a false premise. All of the proceeds of these-- Mr Carlton —Well, let us see both documents then. Mr KEATING —Of course the honourable member would like to see them but he is not going to see them. I have told him that I will not give them to him. Apparently the basis of the analysis is that the savings of revenue of the change in regard to entertainment expenses will be lost to the economy. That is not so. The Government is returning all of these funds to the economy. Therefore, the Treasury is very much confirmed in the view that its estimate on this measure is right. Mr FREE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What benefits will become available to those who served during the Vietnam war on HMAS Sydney, her escorts, the Boonaroo and the Jeparit as a result of legislation which was recently passed by this House? Mr HOLDING —The Government has decided to extend repatriation benefits under the Veterans' Entitlements Bill to certain defence personnel who were not previously treated as having been allotted for special duty in a special area. My colleague the Minister for Defence has announced that he will deem, for the purposes of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, these defence personnel, including those who served on HMAS Sydney, her escorts, the Boonaroo and the Jeparit during the Vietnam war, to have been allotted for such prescribed special duty. This will have the effect of conferring eligibility from 5 December 1985 for the following benefits subject to the usual legislative and policy conditions: The disability pension for service related incapacity or death, a service pension, repatriation treatment entitlements, and defence service home loans, but with no retrospective adjustment of mortgages. The eligibility of these personnel for tax exemption for time spent in the war zone and for a grant of a returned from active service badge are matters which fall within the portfolios of my colleagues the Treasurer and the Minister for Defence respectively. I shall bring that aspect of the honourable gentleman's question to their attention and ask them to let him have a reply. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that the Treasurer has still not produced a clarifying statement on detailed aspects of the capital gains tax that he has promised repeatedly over many weeks. In view of this, will the Prime Minister postpone the commencement date of the capital gains tax from 19 September to such time as the Government is able to tell the public of its obligations and liabilities under the proposed tax? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr DUNCAN —Is the Minister for Health aware of proposals to introduce into the United States Senate a Bill designed to repeal section 801 of the 1938 United States Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act which prohibits the export of drugs which have not been approved for use in the United States? Is the Minister aware that the dumping of unapproved drugs takes a devastating toll on the health and safety of consumers in the Third World and that the proposed Bill will aggravate this already dismal situation? In light of the recent experience with the import of heart valves from the United States to this country, has the Government formed a view towards this proposed Bill and, if so, what is the Government's attitude? Dr BLEWETT —In responding to the question from the honourable member for Makin, I would first point out that the Government would not presume to advise the legislatures of other countries on measures before them. However, I am aware that a member of the United States Congress has introduced a Bill in relation to the export of pharmaceutical goods from the United States. I am not aware of the attitude of the American Government to that measure. What I can say is that the Australian Government has been active within the World Health Organisation in striving for standards of conduct in relation to the manufacture, sale and export of pharmaceutical goods for very much the same reasons that were noted in the question by the honourable member for Makin. We, as a government, would be very concerned indeed if any measure led to an increased export of non- approved drugs, particularly to developing countries. Mr HICKS —I refer the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to his recent speech in which he mentioned the possibility of the Australian Government building an incinerator ship to dispose of dangerous toxic wastes produced in Australia and South East Asian countries. Can the Minister inform the House when this ship will be constructed? What are the Government's policies on the destruction of dangerous toxic wastes? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his question because this is a very serious matter. Last week in Melbourne I opened a national conference on the disposal of hazardous wastes. It was very widely attended by over 300 people. I have said that in the past the only means of disposing of very poisonous liquid hazardous waste was to take it out to sea and burn it. The SS Volcanus came here a couple of years ago and that was how some of the waste was disposed of. At the moment probably about 85 per cent of the more dangerous waste is located at the ICI Australia Ltd plant in Botany, Sydney. As a community we can no longer continue to ignore the very serious ramifications of stockpiling it. There is no alternative which is without risk. If one takes hazardous waste to sea one cannot get rid of the solid waste. If one transports it to some other part of Australia-Broken Hill in the honourable member's electorate has been mentioned and the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has been mentioned as a possible alternative-the problem is transportation. Certainly the waste can be got rid of in an area which is not nearly as dangerous to the bulk of the community. If one disposes of it where it is located obviously there will be an outcry from the local community where many hundreds of thousands of people-in fact millions-live. The risk is very minimal; nevertheless the fears are genuine. A whole range of alternatives have to be looked at but doing nothing is not an alternative. Everybody-academia, governments, conservationists and local communities-must participate in finding a solution to an intractable problem. Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment been drawn to recent Press comments concerning the Australia Council and some confusion that appears to have arisen in the arts community? Will the Minister inform the House of the continued statutory independence of the Australia Council, the principle of arm's length funding, and the process of peer group assessment and decision-making? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Throsby for his question. As we all know, he is one of the most cultured men ever to come into this House. In fact, it is said of the honourable member for Throsby that he has done for art what Colonel Sanders did for the chicken. The Australia Council Act sets out the relationship between the Council and the Government. It is a principle that this Government will maintain. Last Thursday-I think it was-the Prime Minister and I met a group called the Arts Alliance, which represents a range of people, to confirm to that group, as I did a few weeks before to the Australia Council, the principle of arm's length funding. The Government has emphasised on many occasions that decisions on individual grants are matters for the Council and its art boards. However, it is important for the Government to indicate its expectations in matters of broad direction, especially where large sums are concerned. The problem really comes down to what one does about the major flagship companies. This is a problem which has bedevilled previous governments, including the Fraser Government. We do not believe that decisions made by the Council which could mean the demise of one of the major companies could be taken without guidance from the Government. I believe that I have explained this to the Australia Council and to the Arts Alliance. I think that they understand our problem. I believe that, between all of us, we can finally find a solution to this problem, which, as I say, has bedevilled governments for many years. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the fifth periodic report of the Government of Australia under Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the Department of Trade annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Poultry Research Advisory Committee report for the period 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969, I present the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the National Soil Conservation Program progress report 1983-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Pursuant to sub-section 148 (1) of the Social Security Act 1947, I present the Department of Social Security annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, I present the Australian Institute of Marine Science annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Science annual report for 1984-85, with Halley's comet on the cover. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur and Mr McGauran. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioner as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Covention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse affect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and 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: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c. per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c. per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c. per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives 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 Duncan and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give 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 the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not `windfall gains', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornagraphic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia show that reference to God should be made in the National Anthem as Australia is considered to be a Christian nation and therefore we believe inclusion of His name is appropriate and desirable. The suggested request being to alter the last line in each verse to ``in joyful strains then we all sing God bless Australia fair'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environment repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising 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. 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 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. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characterstics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 percent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers in general. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully `showeth' that the recent cuts announced in the Mini Budget to Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. Policy to make Child Care Services available to all at an affordable cost. Further that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restore all Federal Funding to Children's Services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. 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 in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia show that on the subject of the tropical rainforests of north east Queensland, that this wilderness is under threat. According to your own scientific report and consultants' opinions, this wilderness is one of the most significant regional ecosystems in the world, is of outstanding scientific importance and adequately fulfils all four of the criteria defined by the World Heritage Convention for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Your petitioners therefore ask that you reconsider your decision not to nominate the Queensland rainforest for World Heritage listing. We ask that you act according to your responsibilities, and nominate the area so that it can be protected for this generation and all to come. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petition 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: Your petitioners pray that Your Honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: 1. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; 2. That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; 3. That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; 4. The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that furthermore are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; 5. That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew,Dr Blewett,Mr Campbell,Mr Porter 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 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 per cent 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 doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate 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. 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 repectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (ie, set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, 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 penalises 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 certain electors of the division of Gippsland respectfully showeth that it would seem a city the size of Sale needs an additional nursing home. There are no nursing home beds at Evelyn Wilson wing. A number of nursing home type patients are being cared for at Ashleigh House and in acute nursing beds at the Gippsland Base Hospital. A nursing home which caters for these people plus those who are being cared for at home is urgently needed. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives ensures that sufficient funds be made available to ensure that a nursing home be constructed in Sale. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductibility 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 deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain Wollongong (citizens of Australia electors of the Division of Cunningham) shows: Living Music Radio has been allocated 104.5 mh on FM radio band and has blocked out all Sydney FM radio reception. Those stations affected are 2 Triple MMM-2 Day FM. Your petitioners therefore pray that they allocate (a) further (here terms of action petitioned stated) down the FM band. (b) Reduce power out put in transmission. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr West. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985 Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Cash Bidding) Amendment Bill 1985 [No. 2] Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Bill 1985 Bounty (Agricultural Tractors and Equipment) Bill 1985 Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious implications for economic control and power in our community posed by the ACTU-Government deal on superannuation. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.56) —The issue of superannuation is, day by day, assuming more importance in the economic and political debate in Australia, and well it may because the current campaign for superannuation benefits which flows out of the renegotiated prices and incomes accord owes more to a Chicago-style extortion racket than it does to a proper and logical extention of superannuation. The activities, particularly of the Storemen and Packers Union, that have led to the stand-down of thousands of fellow workers at the Ford plant amount to nothing other than attempted expropriation by that union. All these events and developments can be sheeted home to the actions of the Government and the nature of the arrangement that it made with the Australian Council of Trade Unions only two and a half months ago when it renegotiated the prices and incomes accord. It is very appropriate that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is in the House to reply to this matter of public importance because he was the real pacesetter on this matter. He was the man who gave everybody the bright idea that instead of agreeing to a pay rise that was outside the wage indexation guidelines, all the Government had to do was patch up a phoney pay rise, call it a superannuation benefit, fix it to an amount of $11 a week and then it would solve an industrial problem. In 1983 an arrangement was made in respect of the building industry whereby the Government, in order to forestall a break-out from the wage indexation guidelines that were then only a few months old, went behind the back of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, with the blessing of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, reached a deal that ran roughly like this: `Give them a superannuation arrangement, mark it down at $11 and dump it all on the employer. We have not breached the guidelines, you have what you wanted, the employer is footing the bill and we can run around the country saying that the wage indexation guidelines are still intact'. That was a phoney, dishonest deal contrived at the time by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Of course, that action is now coming back to haunt the Government. More importantly, it is coming back to haunt the poor unfortunate employers of Australia. The employers were not given a seat at the renegotiation of the accord. They were not asked two and a half months ago whether they believed in paying 3 per cent more in respect of superannuation. They were not asked whether they approved the handing over of $3 billion a year to union controlled superannuation funds. They played no part in that at all. That is apparently what this Government means when it talks about industrial democracy. It is some kind of democracy that says to one segment of the Australian community: `You can pay for all of it but we will not ask you to participate in the arrangement'. That is exactly what happened because when it sat down two and a half months ago and renegotiated the accord, Bill Kelty was astonished and said that to his great amazement the unions had got the superannuation gains that he thought would take 20 years to achieve. No wonder he was astonished. Would not honourable members be astonished if they got 20 years worth of superannuation benefits and did not have to pay a penny for it? That is exactly what is going to come out of this deal. Significantly, at Question Time, when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) whether the guidelines were to include any requirement on employees to make a contribution, the Prime Minister rabbited on about the Treasurer (Mr Keating) getting a statement together. The reality is that when those guidelines come out they will not contain any requirement on employees to make a contribution. This is not a bona fide superannuation deal; it is a disguised pay rise and nothing more. The unions will use all the industrial blackmail and muscle that they can muster, and engage in all the contortions and explanations that they can possibly lay their hands on in order to dress it up as some kind of bona fide superannuation arrangement. But it is not a bona fide superannuation arrangement, and I will give the House four reasons why it is not. Firstly, the real goal of this exercise is a massive transfer of economic power in this community to the trade union movement. That is what it ultimately is about. It is not enough for the unions to be given Budget secrets ahead of everybody else, to be able to predict what will be in the Government's tax package-I will come back to that in a moment-to have a heat at the right hand of the Prime Minister and to be above the law, as they have demonstrably been able to be, while the Prime Minister and the Government have sat around and done nothing about it; on top of that the trade union movement wants to put its hands on an enormous amount of additional economic power in this community. This is what this superannuation imbroglio is all about. If the community-the business community in particular-and this Parliament stand by and allow it to happen, under the guise of bringing superannuation justice to Australia, we will watch one of the most significant and lasting transfers of economic power in this community that we have witnessed taking place. It is the role of this Parliament, and particularly of the Opposition, to point out to the Australian public the things that are really at stake over this whole superannuation issue. We are not talking about basic superannuation justice. Nobody argues that companies able to make proper provision for superannuation should not join with their employees in doing so. But that is what is under attack here. Under the arrangement that has been devised by the ACTU and the Government, even those companies that have already made superannuation provision for their employees are being dragged in against their will. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) nods his head. Apparently the Australian Labor Party thinks that is okay. Companies, irrespective of whether they have done the right thing by their employees, are to be bullied and bludgeoned into joining a union controlled superannuation fund. What kind of justice is it to say to a company: `Thank you very much for making generous provision for your employees and for doing the right thing. We appreciate that very much, but it is not good enough. We want 3 per cent on top of that, we want you to put all of your employees into the union controlled superannuation fund and, to boot, if you do not do that we will close you down for a while; we will make you stand down thousands of your workers until you come to your senses'? That is exactly what is happening with this superannuation deal at the moment. It is not an attempt to get legitimate justice for the employees of Australia; it is an attempt to extort, stand over and bully even those employers who over the years have done the right thing. I have already had, as no doubt many honourable members on this side of the House have had, letters from employers complaining that, having done the right thing, having provided superannuation for their employees, they now find, much to their distress, that they are being forced, at the sharp end of industrial blackmail, to provide another 3 per cent. It certainly is not a bona fide attempt to provide justice. There is no mention yet of any contribution from an employee. Whoever thought of a bona fide superannuation scheme that did not require any kind of contribution from an employee? What employee, faced with the option of staying in a scheme where he had to make a contribution or joining a scheme where he did not have to make a contribution, would opt for the former? Of course, no employee would. What kind of superannuation arrangement is that? Why does the Government not be honest and say that the superannuation arrangement is an enormous bust-out of its own beloved wage indexation guidelines? It makes a total mockery of the wage indexation guidelines and it is nothing more than a further pay rise, a further impost on top of the wage bills that the employers of Australia are already carrying. To boot, this time the benefit will not be paid to the individual employee as a normal pay rise would be paid, although it will cost the employers just as much; it is going to be picked up, holus bolus-a sum calculated by many to be about $3,000m a year-and dumped into the lap of the union dominated superannuation funds, representing a most enormous transfer of economic power in one stroke. No wonder Bill Kelty could not believe what was happening at the ACTU Congress. No wonder some of our industrial relations writers, those supporters and admirers of the way in which our industrial relations system works, said that there was an air of expectation at the ACTU Congress, a feeling that they had achieved something beyond their wildest dreams. They found that a government, already believed by them to be compliant and always ready to accommodate, had been remarkably accommodating and remarkedly supportive. They had got in one stroke what they honestly believed it would take many years to achieve. Of course, it all seems okay now. It is all dressed up as superannuation, but in a year's time, when the employment and profitability consequences of this superannuation deal start to sink in the Australian community, when the Australian community starts to realise what an enormous power transfer has taken place, when superannuation funds controlling billions of dollars under trade union control and domination start to flex their muscles, the community will have a much better idea of precisely the extent of the sell-out of its interests in which the Minister and the Treasurer participated when they negotiated this superannuation deal. This superannuation deal will do more damage to the small business community of Australia than many other actions that this Government has taken. There is no requirement in what the Government has agreed to as to whether a firm can pay the superannuation; no questions are asked as to whether the firm has done the right thing; and the Government has made no attempt, in advance of the bargaining, bullying and badgering that are now taking place, to lay down any guidelines. The Prime Minister says: `The Treasurer will make a statement before too long'. I say to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that their statement is too late. Right now businesses are being closed down, people are being put out of work, the unions are flexing their muscles and all over the place it is very clear that this superannuation deal will become a very major battleground between the trade union movement and the business community. The reason why that has happened and the blame for that can be sheeted home directly to the relationship that exists between this Government and the ACTU. They have pretended, they have fibbed and they have misled the Australian public about the nature of this superannuation deal. It is yet another demonstration of the degree of influence, control and power that the ACTU exercises over this Government that, in one stroke, it could get a deal which, in effect, busted the wage indexation guidelines, gave workers the equivalent of a 3 per cent salary rise without having to prove a productivity claim; and gave the unions the potential to exercise enormous economic power over sums of up to $3 billion a year; and inflicted upon the small business community of Australia in particular an impost from which many members of that community will not recover. No wonder people bubbled over with excitement and there was an air of expectation at the ACTU Congress in Sydney 2 1/2 months ago. The unfortunate thing is that everybody in Australia except the trade union movement will have to pay the cost of that bubbling expectation, will have to foot the bill. What else can we expect from a government whose Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) yesterday said that the sugar industry of Australia, which is absolutely flat on its back, has to pay the full 3.8 per cent wage increase? What else can we expect from a government that has such an idiotic economic attitude as that? But we should not really be surprised. If we think this year, economically or indeed in any other way, has carried any surprises it was all foretold, certainly on the economic front, by none other than Mr Kelty himself when he addressed the Socialist Forum on 4 February 1985. This is what he said, and it is remarkable prescience: The ACTU has predicted a bumper year for wage and salary earners, including two national wage rises, additional money for low income earners, no tax increases and superannuation for every worker. That was on 4 February 1985. The report went on: He also foreshadowed a push by the ACTU for a government crackdown on perks-such as company cars, expense accounts and education fees . . . and an expansion of the taxation `pot' into currently non- taxable areas. The Government might as well have had no Summit and it might as well have not had a parliament this year because right there, on 4 February, at the beginning of this year, Bill Kelty predicted it all. He told the Government and he told us exactly what was going to happen and that demonstrates the extent of domination over this Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.12) —We have just heard a quarter of an hour of claptrap from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who found it very hard to fill in the time and had to repeat most of his theme over and over again. The Government has no qualms in saying that it strongly supports the extension of superannuation to that part of the work force which does not have superannuation at present and it believes that to do so would be to correct a substantial social inequity. We have no qualms about supporting that development. It is our view that that extension of social equity to the rest of the work force-that half that does not have superannuation at present-should occur in a way that is economically responsible. That economic responsibility aspect is built into the approach which we have taken in the extension of superannuation. All honourable members would be aware of the basis upon which that extension of superannuation is to take place but let me remind the House, for the benefit of those honourable members who might have forgotten, that it will take place over the course of at least a couple of years. The wage fixation guidelines provided for a productivity case this financial year. That case has been postponed and there will be no outcome from that case, under the agreement between the Government and Australian Council of Trade Unions, until the end of this financial year. Therefore, we will have no impact from a productivity case in respect of superannuation this financial year. Over the course of three financial years-all years of strong economic growth-we have had no real increase in wages and nothing happening apart from indexation increases. That is a factor of some significance and real importance to this matter. If honourable members take the view that any increase in labour costs is wrong they are living in an unreal world-a world which obviously the Opposition, when in government, could not maintain. It is a fact that, as prosperity is developed over time, there will be an extension of that prosperity to the work force and it is right and proper that that happen. The point is, though, that it must happen in a way which does not add to inflation and does not undermine that economic prosperity. We have had two years of very strong economic growth-growth of around 5 per cent. In conjunction with that there has been growth in employment of about 5 per cent and growth in productivity of about 5 per cent over the course of the last two years. In the current financial year we are again witnessing strong growth of the economy, strong growth of employment and strong growth of productivity. We cannot just simply have that strong growth in productivity continuing to pile up in profits. Profit share has increased considerably over the course of the last couple of years. That was right and proper because profit share was low and was certainly a great inhibition to the improvement of investments. With that increase in profit share we have seen investment beginning to turn around. We are now looking at real growth in investments and we expect that that will continue. It is an absurd situation to take the view, as the Leader of the Opposition has in this debate and as speakers on the other side of the House perpetually do, that any increase in labour costs is somehow wrong and incorrect and should never occur. It is an absurdity. It means that they are saying that wage earners should never share in economic prosperity and should never get a share of productivity. That is a nonsense. It must occur and will occur. If it does not occur in any orderly way it will occur in a disorderly way through massive industrial disputation. What we have done is to ensure that we avoid that substantial industrial disputation by adopting an approach which brings superannuation about through a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. What we have seen in the history of this country has been the gradual spread of superannuation in a way which has been utterly uncontrolled. There has been no accounting of that in wages policy and in general economic policy; it has simply been occurring outside the general parameters of government policy. There certainly have been taxation arrangements in respect of it but there has been no way of controlling what happened from year to year. So we have had the development of superannuation as though it had no economic implications. What the Government is doing, with the concurrence of the ACTU, is bringing superannuation out of that uncontrolled area into wages policy so that it has its extension built into wages policy. The Government has done so with the approval, we hope, of the Arbitration Commission-that will certainly be the application which we and the ACTU will make under the agreement-so that the Arbitration Commission will be in control, for the first time ever in the history of this country, of a very substantial element of labour on-costs. We keep hearing from honourable members on the other side of the House this terrible thing about labour on-costs. They did nothing whatever, when in government, to control labour on-costs. When we bring about a process which controls them and ensure that that increase in superannuation occurs only in a way which is in line with economic capacity, honourable members opposite say that this is a terrible thing, that this is handing over control to the unions, that this is a disaster and that it is not real superannuation and so on. It is all absolute nonsense. It will be real superannuation and it will be done in a way which is thoroughly economically responsible. Another benefit to the economy will come from this in the form of increased savings. There will be a considerable increase to savings as a result of that superannuation extension and that savings increase will enhance our capacity to increase investment and so provide a stimulus to the economy in that area where it needs it most. We believe that this is an important quantum leap in the level of savings that will occur through the development of superannuation and, through that process, a quantum leap in investment, which is certainly essential if we are to redevelop the Australian economy in the way which the Australian Government is seeking very much to achieve. The substantial advantages are the extension of superannuation, bringing it under control and also adding to the level of savings and so promoting investment. As I have said, that is all happening in a way which is thoroughly responsible. We totally reject the ludicrous sorts of allegations that have been coming from honourable members on the other side of the House about how this is handing over control to the unions. The fact is that we will be establishing criteria in respect of superannuation which were never established by the previous Government. Honourable members will recall that when the previous Government was in office superannuation was one of the great tax rorts. It was one of the great areas where one could use the tax laws to rip off taxation and make substantial gains that way. It was only when there was a great outcry over tax avoidance that the previous Government moved to do anything about it. We say to those honourable members opposite who have said to us that we are allowing superannuation to develop in a way which is not real that they are the ones who allowed taxation rorts in respect of superannuation. They did nothing to control the extension of superannuation and they did nothing to account for it. We will do all that and we will provide criteria which will ensure the development of superannuation which is real superannuation, which is not just deferred pay and which provides real benefits to employees in their retirement. The real benefit is that it will greatly increase the retirement living standards of wage and salary earners in this country. We want to avoid people going from a reasonable wage at work to a much lower income in retirement, as half the work force now does. With the superannuation arrangements we are developing, people will be able to have a real increase in their retirement benefits. But they will get that only if proper criteria are established. Criteria have to be established in respect of the preservation of the benefit and in respect of vesting in the employee, and various other controls will be built into those criteria to ensure that superannuation cannot be rorted any more, that it will not be just deferred pay but an improvement in the retirement incomes of wage and salary earners. In that way we will get to the situation in which, with an aging work force, people will be much better able to look after themselves in their retirement than is now the case. Also we will have the long term benefit that as they are so able to do that there will be less demand on the taxpayer to fund them in their retirement. All of those are substantial benefits. We reject totally the argument that this is some phoney pay deal, that this is not real superannuation. It is a totally false allegation which the Leader of the Opposition can in no way justify. We can only make an allegation which is totally unjustified, and when he sees the criteria which will be brought out shortly he will see that every attempt has been made, in a way which was never made by him in his many years as Treasurer, to ensure that superannuation is real and that it does bring substantial retirement benefits. He said that a great fault in what we were proposing is that there is to be no contribution from employees. Of course he does not know what is in the criteria yet so that is a somewhat early allegation. When the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer he allowed tax deductions to be taken in respect of superannuation schemes involving no employee contributions. It has not been a requirement in this country that there be an employee contribution, and it was because of that fact that some of the tax rorts occurred under the previous Government. It is a nonsense for him to argue now that we would be at fault if we do not require an employee contribution when in his five years as Treasurer he never required that to be the case. It is absurd of him to make that allegation. It is highly desirable that there be employee contributions and we will do what we can to encourage that. It has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, who is burbling away here like some sort of half-witted idiot, that there is some fault in the Government because there will be some union control of superannuation funds. He seems to think that it is an outrage for superannuation no longer to be controlled by an employer. Of course it depends on how these things develop. He said that if that were to be the case it would be an outrage; it should be regarded as a travesty of justice if unions have some say in the control of superannuation funds. We totally reject that absurd notion. We believe that unionists and employees have a right to some say in what happens to their superannuation contributions or funds which are contributed in their names. They have a right to that because their end benefits are at stake. We believe that employees and employers should have a right jointly to say what happens concerning the investment of funds. It is a nonsense to say that employees should not have any such say. If that is what is being said by the Leader of the Opposition-I take it that it is-we regard it as being an absolute nonsense. If members of the Opposition want to say that employees have no right to any say in the investment of their funds, that is their privilege. I would have thought that it was a fairly outrageous position to be taking. I totally reject the allegation that we have pretended and fibbed on the superannuation deal, which is the way it was put by the Leader of the Opposition. There has been no pretence and no fibbing. We have made it clear from the outset that we support superannuation. In the agreement we reached with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which renegotiated the accord and made the adjustment to wages policy, it was stated clearly that we supported superannuation but only on certain conditions, including the fact that these arrangements will not operate until 1 July 1986 except in special and isolated circumstances. That is the way it will be. There will be no extension of superannuation on anything but the most minute scale between now and 1 July. When it does occur it will be spread over a couple of years. I emphasise that. It will not all happen on 1 July. The implementation of these arrangements will occur over a two-year period; some workers will be getting this benefit only by the middle of 1988. So the implementation of that benefit will be very prolonged. To describe that as economically irresponsible is incredible, particularly when that description comes from people who never controlled in any way the development of superannuation in this country. They never took it into wages policy, but regarded it as something that ran along totally outside economic and wages policy. We are proud of the fact that we are extending superannuation and we believe that it will bring great social benefits. The fact that it will be caught up in wages policy will also bring great economic benefits to Australia. It is part of a deal which will be to the benefit of the whole of the country. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(3.26) —The prices and incomes accord mark 2 and the superannuation deal that goes with it is a shabby back room deal done by the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions which casts aside the whole principle of consensus which was once so advocated by the Government. It casts aside the Government's concern that it once said it had for the business community and the capacity of the business community to create wealth in the economy. It has replaced those things with a kind of latter day Vichy government that we have on the other side of the House-a Vichy government which in effect is under the thumb of the occupation forces; in this case the ACTU. We have just heard a most interesting speech from the Marshal Petain of that Vichy government when it comes to the issue of relations with the trade union movement. Quite simply, as most members of the community are increasingly coming to realise, this whole superannuation deal is one of the most underrated threats to the future stability of Australia's economy, and indeed to the capitalist system so hated by the people in that corner of the House, and it is something that the community increasingly will become concerned about and will increasingly debate-I believe at the long term expense of the Government itself. This is a dramatic leap towards the objective of socialism by a government which is already being dictated to by the ACTU which is clearly predominant in this country at the moment. Two basic questions need to be addressed in regard to the whole of this superannuation package: First, is this productivity deal justified in the first place; and, secondly-this is the very fundamental question covered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-is this superannuation deal in any case the right way to go? On the productivity deal, the Confederation of Australian Industry in a very considered report has argued that there is no case for a productivity deal at all at this time because since March 1983, when productivity per hour worked equalled $12, productivity has actually declined to $11.95. That is a decline of 0.4 per cent in labour productivity in this country. In other words business in those two years has had imposed on it additional costs. What this superannuation deal does-if you like, this productivity deal-is impose yet another cost on the business community. But even if one does argue, as the Government and the ACTU clearly do, that there have been productivity gains, is not the fundamental question how these gains should be taken; how they should be distributed through the community? Should they be taken through a de facto wage increase, which of course is what this superannuation deal is, or should they be passed on to consumers through lower prices and indeed to business so that it can compete more effectively in the international market-place? No one here needs to be reminded of how desperately important it is that business be able to compete more effectively in the international market-place. Equally I think it is reasonable to argue that any increases in productivity should also ultimately be passed on to the community in the form of higher investment in our corporate sector, greater efficiency in our corporate sector and, again, greater productivity in that sector which will allow it to continue to compete and, indeed, continue to create jobs. Instead, what the Government has done is to agree to the ACTU's demands to pass on this productivity increase, insofar as it exists at all, just in the form of a wage increase. The second fundamental point is whether this productivity gain should be taken in the form of the quite extraordinary so-called superannuation deal. The Opposition has made it clear time and again that we support the extension of the concept of occupational superannuation. We want that to be extended as far across the working community as is possible. Indeed, our record shows how much we have achieved in that area already. During the period of the Fraser Government superannuation coverage rose from 29 per cent to just under 50 per cent. There was an enormous leap forward during the period of the Fraser Government. We understand that that coverage has to be extended still further because the burden of the state pension on the Budget is one that is growing progressively year by year. Indeed, with an aging population in Australia it is all the more urgent, for budgetary reasons alone, that we try to replace the age pension with occupational superannuation schemes. What the ACTU-Government deal has done is to provide a scheme which ultimately will put those superannuation funds into the hands of the unions. This will create maximum confusion in the community as the new scheme is introduced. Already in Australia there are some 180,000 different superannuation schemes. Nobody knows yet what effect this deal will have on those 180,000 schemes. How will the superannuation deal affect the existing contributors to those 180,000 schemes? Will they be taken out of those schemes and put into trade union dominated and controlled superannuation schemes? We do not know. Also we do not know how the new contributors themselves will relate to those schemes or, indeed, what direction those schemes will be forced to go in by the ACTU. We have however some indication of what will happen. We have an indication from the ACTU and the trade union movement in general in the form of the already existing so-called industry schemes which, as the House knows, are in effect schemes run by the trade union movement itself. Already we have the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation superannuation scheme. We have the Transport Workers Union of Australia superannuation scheme, which we can read about every day now in the newspapers. The Transport Workers Union is arguing that that scheme should be introduced prematurely, apparently contrary to the words of the agreement reached some two and a half months ago. We also have the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia scheme. This is a scheme of which people in South Australia in particular are very aware. These superannuation schemes have certain features in common. I believe all of these schemes ultimately will undermine the very economic system we have in this country. The trustees of these schemes are not people in the community; they are not businesses or organisations such as that. The trustees of the schemes are the union officials themselves. All of the trustees, not just some of the trustees, are from the trade union movement. The schemes are entirely controlled by the trade union movement itself. The second feature of these superannuation schemes is that all contributions made to it come from the employers. There is no employee contribution whatsoever. Thirdly, I think one should point out quickly that great pressure is building in the ACTU-in the trade union movement generally-to ensure that all employees join these superannuation funds and that membership of a trade union dominated superannuation fund be contingent on a person in the first place being a member of a trade union. In other words, it is a back-door method of ensuring compulsory union membership. These superannuation schemes are being introduced. They are being bullied through by the various unions involved. The bullying and the cajoling of those unions is not being resisted by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), it is not being resisted by the Government and it is not being resisted by the Labor State Premiers. Let us look very briefly at the Storemen and Packers Union dispute and the effect that union's demands are having on the paint industry and flowing through to the rest of the industry. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that a number of workers had been laid off at a Ford motor vehicle factory. Let us look at what is happening this very day in my own State of South Australia. As a result of these extortionate claims by the Storemen and Packers Union-claims which are not being resisted by the Government as they should be-1,300 workers at the General Motors-Holden's Ltd Elizabeth plant have been laid off this very day. Today all 1,300 of those workers are going home without work because this Government has not acted to stamp on the actions of the Storemen and Packers Union. As well, 1,200 workers are being laid off in Dandenong. The Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd motor vehicle plant in Adelaide is facing closure by the end of the week, again because of inaction by the Government. Six hundred workers from the Kelvinator Australia Ltd factory in Adelaide also are facing retrenchment. This is because the Government has done nothing and because Premier Bannon in South Australia has done nothing. Premier Bannon was asked 11 days ago by Kelvinator to do something about the dispute. In 11 days he has not even replied to that company's demands. I think there could not be a better example than that of the South Australian Bannon Labor Government, supported by honourable members opposite, supporting the gangster tactics of the union in railroading through superannuation schemes which within one year will give union control of $4 billion worth of superannuation funds-funds that will be invested throughout the economy to the disbenefit of Australians. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.07) —If there had been any doubts about the precise reasons why the Opposition introduced this matter of public importance today I think those doubts would have been dispelled by the comments of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) at least made some attempt to camouflage the real motivation behind this MPI. They have referred to it in these terms: The serious implications for economic control and power in our community posed by the ACTU-Government deal on superannuation. We need to be perfectly clear and perfectly aware of the two chief reasons for introducing the MPI today. The first reason was so that the Opposition could speak as strongly as it could against the expansion of superannuation schemes in Australia, particularly the expansion of such schemes to lower and middle income earners who hitherto have not been able to enjoy schemes of that kind to the same extent as higher income earners have been able to. In fact, about 50 per cent of people in Australia have had no access to any superannuation schemes at all up to the present. That situation will be significantly changed as a result of this important initiative by the Australian Government, in connection with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, under the important provisions of the prices and incomes accord. The second thing that the Opposition has indicated it is concerned about in this matter is the accord itself. The Opposition has taken advantage of this opportunity to continue its campaign which has been in force and in vogue as far as the Opposition is concerned ever since the important incomes and prices accord was entered into by the Government. I pay a special tribute here to the work of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who led for the Government in the debate on this MPI. The Minister, more than any other single member of the Government, before we came into government was responsible for very intense, prolonged and very effective negotiations with the trade union movement to put that accord together. The success of the Minister and the success of the Government in implementing the accord has been applauded by the community generally and, of course, was re-endorsed by the community at the last election. Concern has been indicated by the Opposition about the extension of superannuation. The Opposition of course is concerned, as we would expect it to be, that, instead of the employers being able, as they have been in the past, to monopolise the superannuation funds-monopolise the operation of the schemes, the terms of the schemes, the direction of the investment-as a result of this Government's actions the trade union movement will now be given, correctly, an opportunity to be involved to a greater extent in the operation of those funds; as it should be. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) drew my attention to the fact that when he was intimately involved in the trade union movement, before he became a member of the Parliament, the surveys undertaken within the trade union movement indicated the very high priority that employees in Australia gave to the opportunity that they should be given to participate in superannuation schemes. For far too long, lower and middle income earners in Australia have been denied access to superannuation schemes which have been freely provided to other people in the community. The extent to which all of these circumstances were misrepresented by both the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Mayo in their contributions knows no end. People who are familiar with the circumstances of this arrangement, the intentions behind it, the benefits which will accrue from it and the details of it will understand the extent to which those very serious misrepresentations occurred. I refer to only one, that is, the suggestion by the honourable member for Mayo that the present Storemen and Packers Union scheme, about which so much is being heard at present, makes no provision for employee contributions. Either he does not understand the terms of that arrangement or he has deliberately misrepresented the arrangements, because the simple fact is that the scheme does make provision for employee contributions. The honourable member for Mayo referred to the sorts of difficulties that might be created for the small business community as a result of the operation of this scheme. Before the honourable member became a member of this Parliament he had a responsibility, out there in the community, to represent small business. He represented small business at the time when small business in Australia was being economically devastated, thrown to the wall, thrown into liquidation and bankruptcy, as a result of the policies of the previous Government. So how is it possible for him to suggest now that this Government, which has been responsible for the most significant economic turnabout and revival in the history of this nation, is in some way damaging private or small business? If he had been adequately monitoring the problems of small business, when he was charged specifically with the responsibility of representing small business, he would know that what I am saying now is spot on. He would not be attempting to interject and to refute what I am saying. We need to understand the content-- Mr Downer —What about the point I made concerning-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member for Charlton will resume his seat. The honourable member for Mayo has spoken in this debate. He should now extend the courtesy that was given to him to the honourable member for Charlton. I call the honourable member for Charlton. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member is completely unruly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will not comment; he will continue his speech. Mr ROBERT BROWN —We need to understand the context in which this arrangement was made. It results from the fact that the trade union movement, in the negotiation of the second instalment of the accord, was prepared to forgo and to modify the undertakings which had been given in connection with productivity gains. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations indicated the extent to which productivity has increased, despite the fact that, quite clearly, there was an attempt on the part of members of the Opposition to deny it. Again, either they are not familiar with the details about which they should be familiar or they are deliberately attempting to misrepresent this situation as they have so many others. It was also suggested that employers had been bludgeoned into extending the existing provisions of superannuation. Only a small proportion of the private industrial sector gives any credence at all to the Opposition. Most employers are a little more rational. The vast majority of people who are involved in the private sector know that as a result of this arrangement not only will a significant benefit be extended to all of those people who until the present have not been able to benefit from superannuation but also the private sector in Australia will benefit, because rather than having the possibility of the equivalent of, say, a 3 per cent wage increase going directly into the pockets of the employees, those employees will be able to benefit, as they have sought to benefit and as they now continue to seek to benefit, from superannuation schemes. Instead of the funds being fed straight out into consumption expenditure by wage and salary earners in Australia in these income areas, the funds will be channelled into the capital market in Australia to provide additional funds for investment. As we know, in the past the superannuation funds have been a traditional and an important area of investment funds. That will now be expanded. The second thing that the Opposition, quite clearly, was trying to do was to continue its campaign against the prices and incomes accord. Anyone with any degree of understanding at all now knows the tremendously important role that the accord has played in making it possible for this Government to bring about low inflationary growth after inheriting a situation where economic growth in Australia had been negative. For the past two years we have been able to secure an average growth of 5 per cent each year with another 5 per cent on the drawing board at present. This has been a remarkable turnabout. It would not have been possible to promote growth of that kind from an 11 1/2 per cent floor of inflation that we inherited, without significant inflationary pressures, without this Government having an alternative economic package available, and, of course, that was the prices and incomes accord. It was within that context that these improvements have been possible. The Australian people generally know that. They applaud it, and they will continue to applaud it, because of the tremendous importance it has been for the Australian nation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Australia Bill 1986 concurrently with the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.48) —The Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill which are now before the House are important, if uncontroversial in the sense that there is no objection from the Opposition to the Bills. Indeed, we support them. The purpose of the Bills is to terminate, or get rid of, constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom and between the Australian States and the United Kingdom which are anachronistic, which are no longer needed and which do not reflect the needs of this country or of the States. The constitutional linkage between Australia and the United Kingdom has been a close and unique linkage and reflects the history of the founding of the Australian colonies and the way in which we developed until the time of Federation. Each of the main areas of settlement of our country was founded and developed under quite different conditions-something that is frequently forgotten by outsiders and Australians. Each of those areas of settlement was prisoner of the tyranny of distance which has shaped not only Australia's relations with the outside world but also relations between its main population centres, and which has so influenced the different and characteristic developments within different parts of our country. It is often forgotten that one reason for the traditional rivalry between Sydney and Melbourne, to take an example, and the traditional rivalry which is still felt at some levels between the States is to be found in the simple fact that before the advent of modern communications, particularly in travel, telecommunications, radio and television, the different parts of the country were in a very true sense, isolated from each other. People could and did live and die without having any real understanding of how Australians in other parts of this vast country lived. Australia's linkage with the United Kingdom has been close not only constitutionally, in a very unique way, but also in a deeply personal way. It reflects our settlement, our development and the common language, customs and traditions which were imported into this country from settlement. Perhaps, above all, this close linkage is a reflection of our place, first in the empire, later in the Commonwealth of Nations but most especially in the fact that until the end of the Second World War a very great majority of settlers in this country, or their ancestors-indeed more than 90 per cent of them-had come from the United Kingdom and Ireland. But tides change in the affairs of nations. Over the last 40 years we have drawn migrants from all over the world and have markedly changed the ethnic mix, character and destiny of our nation, although we are still desperately underpopulated for such a rich country in a world that is short of resources and living space. We have witnessed over the last 40 years the transformation of Britain from a world power to a second order power and, with Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, we have witnessed an historic change in Britain's perception of its place in the world. Incidentally, there has also been a loss of free entry by Australians into Britain and by Britons into Australia. The Bills before the House are, in an historical sense, notable. For all that some may look back with nostalgia and a sense of loss to our past, it is something that cannot be recreated. These Bills give effect to an agreement reached between the States and the Commonwealth under section 51 of the Constitution which provides for such agreements. The purpose of the Bills is to remove outmoded constitutional links and restraints that presently exist between the Commonwealth of Australia and the States and the United Kingdom, and to replace them with arrangements that reflect our sovereignty, nationhood and independence. The Bills will be reflected and given effect to by mirror legislation that will be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. I shall speak briefly about the changes that the Bills will make-changes that have been put to the House by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). In part, what these Bills have done is to put certain things beyond doubt. I shall outline some of the changes. First, there is the termination of the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for Australia. One would think that this was something that did not exist in any event. The ordinary Australian would be surprised if he or she were told that theoretically such a power existed. Next, it is to be made clear that the States will have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of each State and that in doing so their laws may have extraterritorial operation. It is also to be made clear that the legislative powers of each State parliament include all the legislative powers that the United Kingdom Parliament might have exercised before the commencement of the Australia Bill which will come into operation as an Act in 1986. The other Bill is the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill. Incidentally, this does not mean that States will be able to establish diplomatic relations with other countries-a very wise inhibition on State power. The Bill also provides that no law of a State made after the commencement of the Australia Act, as it will be called, shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the laws of England or to any law of the United Kingdom Parliament. In future the Queen's representative in each State of Australia will be the Governor and advice to Her Majesty in relation to the exercise of her powers and functions in respect of a State will be tendered by State Premiers instead of advice going through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom-a somewhat cumbersome, ancient and outmoded procedure. Another provision of the Bill is that States may not, in the future, make laws with respect to the constitution, powers or procedures of a State, unless these are made in such manner and form as may be required by a law of a State parliament. The Australia Act will require a State government not to withhold assent to a Bill passed according to the requirements of the Parliament of a State and the power of the Queen to disallow State laws and any requirement of State laws to be suspended pending the signification of the Queen's pleasure are to be put to an end. Other changes were outlined in the Attorney-General's second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum. Save for one area, there is nothing more that I wish to say about the provisions of the Bills. Much in the Australia Bill is of a rather theoretical nature in the sense that it deals with questions which have, for the most part, been of little real practical importance to this country. However, one part is of great importance-and that deals with the termination of all rights of appeal to the Privy Council. This has been a longstanding right and it has had many adherents, not simply amongst lawyers who might desire to take a trip at a client's expense. The arguments advanced have been largely three-that one needs consistency in development of the common law, that one needs an impartial outside tribunal and that one needs something in the nature of a Commonwealth court. I must say that I have never been able to accept any of these arguments. Let us look at the argument of consistency. What about a case in which we believe the Privy Council is wrong? That seems a very high price to pay for consistency. What of impartiality? I have heard many lawyers advance the view that if one goes to London one might get a more impartial view of things. I have never checked but I sometimes suspect that the provisions safeguarding appeals to the Privy Council might have been introduced originally at the request of sectional interests. Putting my suspicions to one side, I have never been able to understand why Australians should think that they would get a more impartial hearing in London than they would in their own High Court. I have never been able to understand the suspicion of the High Court that some highly intelligent Australians have felt in the past. I think that some people still believe that it is better to go to London than to the High Court. Lastly, there is the argument that we should have a Commonwealth court. That is understandable, but it is an opportunity that has passed. The Privy Council was never a Commonwealth court, although if one looks at law reports one sees that occasionally a judge from one country or another-sometimes Australia-appears as a member of the board of the Privy Council hearing an appeal. If there had been an opportunity to establish a Commonwealth court, I wonder how good it would have been. Whilst parts of the Commonwealth have produced great judges, equally parts have produced judges of far lesser calibre. I would also put the argument against the retention of the appeal to the Privy Council on broader grounds. As an Australian, I have always found it incomprehensible that we should go to London to learn what our law is. I can recall going there in 1966 on a constitutional case. It was an application for special leave and we had already lost five nil in front of the High Court presided over by Mr Justice McTiernan, with Justices Kitto, Menzies, Windeyer and Owen sitting on that Court. We went to London in mid-1966. As a practising barrister I was delighted to accept the fee and fascinated with the opportunity of being in London. I want the House to understand quite clearly that I felt no qualms about going to London. The only sorrow that I entertain about the Privy Council in terms of my days in practice is that there were not more occasions to go there. But when we arrived in London we were struck with the same feeling of what we were doing here, particularly when I recall the counsel who appeared in that case. The name of the case was Beal v. Marrickville Margarine. The leading counsel was Mr Aickin of Queen's Counsel, later Sir Keith Aickin of the High Court and, sadly, deceased. The second Queen's Counsel was Mr Mahoney, now Mr Justice Mahoney of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The third counsel in the case was a promising junior by the name of Ninian Stephen, later Sir Ninian Stephen of the High Court and now the Governor-General of this country, and the last counsel was myself. Mr Lionel Bowen —You have all done well. Mr SPENDER —I was very glad to be on board that team. Just by way of an anecdote, I must tell the House that after Mr Aickin had presented a lucid analysis of the law for the purposes of the Privy Council, the Presiding Law Lord turned to the Solicitor-General for New South Wales, Mr Harold Snelling, who was there to intervene and said `We don't need to trouble you, Mr Snelling', and that was the end of that. The other side was not even called upon and one cannot lose a special leave application more directly than that. If honourable members remember the kind of lustre that surrounded the Dixonian High Court at the height of its eminence-of all the courts that was probably the most eminent court this country has had-they really must ask people who say that we should keep this remnant of a colonial past why it is when that Court was generally regarded throughout the English speaking land as the pre-eminent court in the English speaking land that we have to go elsewhere for the purposes of learning our law. I therefore welcome this Bill, although I do appreciate the feelings of some of my colleagues at the Bar who will look on this repeal of the final way of getting to the Privy Council as a gross trampling on their rights, freedoms and privileges and the opportunity to go forum shopping and to choose between the High Court and the Privy Council in those few circumstances where an appeal is now open. I welcome the step made by the Attorney-General in bringing forward this Bill and I also welcome the Bill itself. Let me conclude with a few general observations. This Bill is not, of course, a step in the direction of Australia becoming a republic. This country does not need to be one and it does not want to be one; nor, if I may say so, as the Attorney-General is at the table, is it any justification-I do not think he would suggest that it is-for a wholesale amendment to the Constitution. People can have different views about whether we need a new Constitution and can sincerely entertain quite different views on that subject. We on this side of the House are still awaiting the justification of the Government's proposition that we need a new Constitution for 1988, which is our Bicentenary. It is a simple-minded proposition for the Government to argue that it would be nice to have a new Constitution for 1988. I would be glad if the Government or the Attorney-General would sometime in the very near future take the trouble to spell out in detail the defects in the existing Constitution. Nobody would claim that it is perfect; nobody would claim that improvements could not be made to it. But making improvements is one thing-a wholesale change is a quite different matter. I notice on the speakers list the names of one or two members from the other side of the House whom one of my Tasmanian colleagues sometimes refers to as members from Moscow corner. I do not know what they are going to say on the subject, but if they do have any views about this country becoming a republic which they would care to express, I am sure the Australian people would like to hear those views even though the Australian people would massively disagree with those views. Once again, I congratulate the Government on bringing these two Bills forward. I wish them a speedy passage in the Parliament and, of course, in the United Kingdom Parliament where we have to join the queue of Bills for the purposes of finally disentangling ourselves from anachronistic restraints and arrangements which simply do not reflect the status, the sovereignty and the future of this country. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.07) —The Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill arise from a desire by the Federal Government and all State governments to remove outmoded residual constitutional links that still exist between Australia and the United Kingdom Parliament and the Government and the judicial system. In some ways it is amazing that this action was not taken many years ago, but when one compares the attitudes even of Australian Labor Party Prime Ministers since Federation it is easy to understand that the change in public perception of the relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom has been gradual. Speaking of the Mother Country in 1914, Andrew Fisher said: Australia will stand beside our own to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling. This was prior to a war of very dubious justification. Let us compare this statement with a well-known statement of another Labor Prime Minister in 1941. John Curtin said: Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. This was said at the start of a war of more justifiable origin. It was a long time before Australia realised that, as a nation, it did not depend intimately and comprehensively on another country, a country which could not really be much further away. A former Minister in this place, Gordon Bryant, is said to have made the point that the reason French is a major language in Australia is that France is across the channel from England. World War II should have taught us something we ought never forget. When Singapore fell there was a stage when Australians realised Australia was defenceless against invasion. We should have learned then that our great and powerful friends are there with us for their own interests as well as ours. Conversely, we should have learned that independence does not always mean freedom even if it reaches the extent of isolation. That isolationist attitude is always out there in the electorates of Australia, but it is generally held by people who give little credence to the events of history. We do not want to break our friendly ties and indeed have not broken our friendly ties. Relationships with the United Kingdom are not attacked by this legislation. They will continue with the Commonwealth of Nations. Some would say that Britain gave birth to our nation. I would say the Britain laid the egg that was to yield the nation, but laid it in someone else's nest. There was some nourishment from outside. The United Kingdom peopled this country and thus cultured it in its own way. The original inhabitants, though, are certainly questioning that culture today. There are people who claim that the slate with England should now be clean. John Pringle wrote: Yet, when all is said, everything that Britain could do for Australia as a nation was done long ago. Britain discovered Australia, founded her as a place to dump her criminals, governed her, peopled her, nourished her and finally set her free. Australia long ago repaid any debt there was hundred times over with the blood of her young men killed in three wars. There is nothing to regret; the slate is rubbed clean. The legislation brings a number of changes. It removes outmoded constitutional links. The Queen will now be advised directly by State Premiers on her exercise of power relating to the States. No longer will she be formally advised by United Kingdom Ministers on State matters; she will be advised by the Premiers. The United Kingdom Parliament may no longer make laws for Australia, and the Privy Council in England will no longer be a place of appeal from Australian courts. The High Court of Australia will be the final court of appeal for Australian courts. I have quoted a little today from our history books. I might conclude by mentioning the growing trend to republicanism in Australia, particularly among young people. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) mentioned that he was anticipating some republican-type sentiments from what he termed `Moscow corner' on this side of the House. Mr Ruddock —He was not suggesting you were in it. You just sit close to it. Mr SNOW —No, I thank him for that. I suggest that other members are not necessarily in it, either. I was surprised to hear Ron Barassi-who I noticed was being accommodated in this House a few days ago by a section of the Liberal Party-at a meeting in Cooma state that it was time that we got away from mother's apron strings. He was talking about a break with the United Kingdom, not just to the extent contained in this Bill, but in our relationships with the monarchy and our total relationship with the United Kingdom. There are those from all sections of Australian politics who, I guess, will try to slow down that process. There are also those from all sections of Australian politics who would speed it up. It seems to me that the breaks will continue to happen, especially when one considers that this legislation that we are debating today involves all States asking for this Bill, the Australia Bill 1986, to be enacted. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.12) —I am not sure what were the breaks that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) said needed to happen, because as I understand it the Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill constitute the measures left for this Parliament to play its part in patriating to Australia its constitutional arrangements or, in the words of the explanatory memorandum, to sever the remaining constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom. If this legislation does that, I do not know what is left to be done, unless of course the honourable member is suggesting that we should abandon our role as a consitutional monarchy and that the Queen should be removed as Queen of Australia. If that is what he means by breaking the links, let him say it openly, but as I understand it these Bills constitute the measures left for this Parliament to play its part in repatriating to Australia its constitutional arrangements. Nothing more is left to be done. Even so, nobody, I am sure, has felt that we are less than an independent nation. For my part, in participating in this Parliament, I have never felt that. We have our own Parliament and our own policies. We have determined our own taxes. We have declared war. Yet despite all of this having occurred, it is still said in terms of our legal links that we have ties with the United Kingdom. Like most Australians I have in no way felt intimidated by those links or threatened by the possibility of the United Kingdom's intervention. This, I suspect, is because of the way in which Australia's constitutional arrangements have developed over time. Yet we still have these residual links which, for those involved, have caused some difficulty and, for the purists, some exasperation. What are the matters requiring this complex co-operative effort on the part of Australia, the States of Australia and the United Kingdom Government? First, it is the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Australia and the States in strict legal terms; second, the continuing subordination of some State laws to the laws of the United Kingdom; third, the power of the Crown still to disallow Commonwealth and State legislation; fourth, the remaining appeals to the Privy Council from State supreme courts on State matters; and fifth, the obligation of States when nominating Governors and proposing honours to advise the Crown through the British Ministers rather than directly. These are not new initiatives of a republican Labor government desirous of overthrowing our traditional and valued links with the British Crown; rather, they are a co-operative effort of Labor, Liberal and National Party governments, past and present, State and Federal. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has advised, the States of Australia have already put in place their legislation respecting this Commonwealth action. The Attorney in his second reading speech acknowledged the role of the Government, albeit guardedly, by the use of the phrase `in accordance with the established policy of successive Commonwealth governments' and more generously by the reference to consultations `dating from the 1982 Premiers Conference under our predecessors'. I think he clearly recognises the involvement of the former Fraser Government in developing these proposals. It was Attorney-General Durack who in 1982 was able to achieve from a Premiers Conference a decision to adopt a package of proposals to sever the constitutional links. Such was the concern at misinterpretation that it was stressed that this did not involve cutting links with the Crown or, in the Attorney's words, `impair the position of the Queen as Queen of Australia'. Since 1982-83 discussions have progressed on this matter rather slowly to the point of this legislation, which is somewhat different in some areas of peripheral legal importance, but nevertheless symbolic to the States. In the time during which agreement was not possible a great deal of difficulty arose, particularly in relation to appeals to the Privy Council, and this a matter which I will return for comment shortly. That delay was occasioned by the need for resolution of these questions: How State Governors would in the future be appointed and how imperial honours, in those States which retained them, would be recommended. The solution proposed in this package is that on those two matters the Queen will be advised, not as in the past by United Kingdom Ministers, but by her State governments directly. Administratively, until now Premiers would offer what an official once described to me as little `a' advice to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the United Kingdom and the Minister of that Office would then offer big `A' or capital `A' advice to the Queen. The first solution proposed was that the Queen would in future be advised on these matters, not by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a British department of state, but the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. In other words, advice on who should or should not be a State Governor or who should be the recipient of an imperial honour would come from the State Premier to the Governor-General, who would then advise the Queen-no different from the old arrangement, but through a more appropriate postbox. It seems to me that the Commonwealth of Australia, if it means anything at all, should be able to speak as one, particularly in tendering advice to the Queen as Queen of Australia. Nevertheless, the Queen, in the spirit of compromise that this legislation represents, will now have to deal directly with as many State Premiers as Australia has now or may have at some future time. It seems to me that this issue was a stumbling block in the discussions which occasioned a delay of several years in advancing these proposals. This delay has been significant in the area of Privy Council appeals. Since the passing of the 1968 Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act and the 1975 Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act, it has been accepted that the High Court of Australia was the final court of appeal. This decision to abolish appeals in Federal matters set the scene and put an end to any ideas that some, like me, may have harboured to see the development of genuine Commonwealth court of appeal in lieu of the Privy Council. By that I mean a court of the Commonwealth of nations and not the Commonwealth of Australia. The Privy Council, while it retained very distinguished jurists, not only from the United Kingdom but from the Commonwealth, appeared to many to be anachronistic and, as a result, its role was limited. A Commonwealth court could have drawn from a wide membership of Commonwealth countries generally, as the inheritors of the common law of the United Kingdom. While courts still pay regard to the judgments of superior courts of other common law countries it is most likely that the laws of each country will become increasingly unique and the common law will be no longer common. The High Court became the final court of appeal for Australia but not for decisions from State supreme courts. In 1975 a Bill entitled Privy Council (Appeals Abolition) Bill was introduced to this Parliament to abolish unilaterally all remaining appeals from State courts. The Bill failed. In 1978 the High Court in Viro and the Queen unanimously decided that it no longer regarded itself as being bound by decisions of the Privy Council. This created some problems of interpretation for State supreme courts, which could find themselves bound by precedents from the Commonwealth High Court in conflict with Privy Council decisions. The anomalies that this could create were seen, as early as 1975, as likely to be significant. In 1984 the Australian Law Journal in its June current topics section dealt with two cases-the Attorney-General v. Finch and Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v. XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd. It noted that appeals to the Privy Council came to an end in Canada in 1949. In commenting on these cases it stated that the High Court's concern at delays in finalising the abolition of appeals because of conflicts created was best summed up in the words of the majority of the Court in the Caltex and XL case as `a piecemeal approach to abolition'. The High Court acknowledged that it was possible in the same litigation for an appeal to lie on the one hand with the High Court and on the other with the Privy Council. In considering the consequences of this proposition the Court then considered what would be the assumed result were contemporaneous appeals considered by each court. Now that the High Court is not bound by Privy Council decisions the old hierarchical relationship between the two courts no longer applies. What the High Court has had to assume for the management of such cases is that the Privy Council should stand aside while the High Court dealt with the same matter. I suspect this was done more in pleading than in the sense of there being any reality of any particular power of the High Court. It is clear that delay has led to uncertainty and appeal forum shopping with the possibility of conflicting judgments of different courts. One other contemporary decision of this Parliament served to exacerbate these problems. That was the decision to restrict appeals to the High Court by the removal of some appeals as of right. I am not critical of that decision, rather I am drawing attention to its consequence. The conflict of authorities are well understood but the Chief Justice of our High Court, the Rt Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs, wrote about it in the following terms when he addressed the twenty-third Australian Legal Convention in Melbourne on 5 August: The situation was described as intolerable by my predecessor, Sir Garfield Barwick, in his address on ``The State of the Australian Judicature'' in 1977. It has become worse since that time, because the fact that no appeal may now be brought as of right to the High Court provides a reason or at least an excuse for taking appeals to London. Indeed, Priestly J. A. recently said that New South Wales case-law is growing relatively more quickly in London than in Canberra. Litigants from Western Australia, previously no great clients of the Judicial Committee, now appear to find it cheaper to appeal to London direct from a decision of a single judge than to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and then to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court. In a significant number of cases the unsuccessful party in an action in a Supreme Court now has it both ways, and institutes an appeal to the Judicial Committee and at the same time applies for special leave to appeal to the High Court. It has recently been announced that agreement has been reached between the Commonwealth, the States and the authorities in the United Kingdom to abolish the remaining right of appeal to the Privy Council. Nevertheless, I have felt it necessary to point to the difficulty and inconvenience of the present situation, because progress in this matter has been so slow that one feels that not all of those concerned understand the urgency of the need to lose this chapter in our judicial history. I, too, join the Chief Justice in lamenting the delay in processing these Bills to fruition and encourage the Attorney-General to have the matter concluded as soon as possible. I am glad in a sense, like the Attorney, that the matter will be carried into operation via the power exercised under section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution whereby legislation is enacted at the request of all States. This avoids the possibility of the United Kingdom Parliament having to legislate to hand these matters back to the States. It also avoids a problem that we may have suffered; the problem the Canadians suffered when their repatriation arrangements were being considered. Some United Kingdom members saw it as appropriate to raise questions relating to the American Indians and the treaties that the British had previously entered into. They used this as an opportunity to intrude, in a way which most of us would find quite unexpected, into the internal affairs of Canada. One hopes that the United Kingdom members would not want to do this to Australia's affairs in relation to, say, our Aborigines. Some people may seek to raise this matter overseas with a view to embarrassment rather than to extending helpfully questions relating to our Aboriginal people. How ludicrous it would be as evidence of our sovereignty if the United Kingdom Government were to use its residual power to legislate a scheme of arrangement to patriate the Constitution which was not in a form acceptable to the States. One other matter addressed in this legislation is the provision to retain those sections of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 which provided the legislative basis for certain manner and form provisions in State constitution Acts. These provisions, which are restricted to the powers or procedures of State parliaments, can be the basis of binding successive parliaments to an electoral arrangement which cannot be readily revoked or changed. Provisions requiring a referendum before changing upper House arrangements for New South Wales were upheld under those provisions in the significant case of Clayton v. Heffron, a case with which I am sure the Attorney is familiar. In my judgment it is appropriate that legislation of this sort should not seek to change the status quo. It is appropriate that this legislation is supported by the Opposition. While it in no way enhances the freedom most Australians have long enjoyed and taken for granted, nevertheless it is still the culmination of a series of events which complete all the legal steps necessary to ensure that even technically nobody in any other country can make laws for Australia. It properly reflects Australia's status as an independent and sovereign nation. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.27) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Australia Bill 1986, an historic Bill. I say it is historic because in November 1985, almost 200 years from the time of the first settlement, we are about to sever the last remaining outmoded, antiquated and anachronistic residual constitutional links with the United Kingdom. We are about to divest ourselves of our convict shackles and give Australia the status it so richly deserves, that of an independant and sovereign nation able to stand on its own feet and be legislatively and judicially independent. Yet whilst we break these last remaining constitutional links with the United Kingdom, we still accept and recognise Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia and we still remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. What is probably more remarkable is that this historic occasion of our coming of age has been achieved not only with the co-operation of successive Commonwealth governments but also, at long last, with the co-operation of the States. For some years now, although successive Commonwealth governments have desired to be legislatively and judicially independent of the United Kingdom, for some reason or other the States have failed, until recently, to reach agreement on this important and sensitive issue. In essence, the Bills before us are the culmination of Labor, Liberal and National governments' efforts. The Attorneys-General, both present and former, who have brought about this historic occasion are to be commended. The Bills also represent the co-operation and agreement of Her Majesty the Queen and the Commonwealth and United Kingdom governments. I now turn to some of the important legislative and judicial aspects of the Australia Bill 1986. Following agreement reached at the Premiers Conferences in Canberra on 24 and 25 June 1982 and 21 June 1984, the States have requested the Commonwealth Parliament, under paragraph 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution, to take measures to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation. The Bill contains several major changes, one of which seeks to end the powers of the British Parliament and Government in relation to the States, including power to legislate to affect the States and the Queen's power to withhold assent from or disallow State laws on the advice of British Ministers. The Bill also seeks an end to British legislation still restricting the legislative powers of the States. The repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which can, at best, be described as a colonial relic, means an end to the humiliating subordination of the State parliaments to imperial legislation. The inability of the States to free themselves of some of the provisions of the imperial Merchant Shipping Act 1894, is a good example of some of the problems faced by the States. Consequently the repeal of sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 means that the States are now free from the restrictions imposed by these sections of the Act under which certain State laws on merchant shipping are subject to confirmation of the Queen acting on the advice of the United Kingdom Ministers, or reserved for the signification of the Queen's pleasure. No doubt this procedure was invaluable to the United Kingdom in the 1890s to ensure that the lifelines of the empire, the shipping lanes, remained unimpeded by colonial legislative control, but its relevance today is non-existent. Of major significance in this Bill is the move to end the right of appeal to the Privy Council, thus making the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for all Australian courts. This is an important and long overdue step. It is absurd and anachronistic in this day and age to have a Privy Council in the United Kingdom deciding whether decisions made in our supreme courts are correct. This belief is also apparently shared by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which, in 1981, handed down a decision in a damages case from the South Australian Supreme Court and warned that in future it would dismiss such appeals. It made it abundantly clear that because of the increasing social and economic differences between Australia and Britain, the High Court of Australia was the only proper tribunal to hear damages appeals. The Bill contains special arrangements which will apply in relation to State Governors and recommendations for imperial honours, so that United Kingdom Ministers no longer advise the Queen. The Bill establishes a new constitutional principle of allowing State Premiers to advise the Queen directly on the appointment and dismissal of State Governors. Thus the present outdated requirement of State Governors to be appointed on advice from British Ministers will cease. If the States are to preserve that degree of independence that was clearly intended at the time of Federation, it is fundamental that they retain absolute control of the right to secure the appointment of Governors of their own choice. Under this legislation State Governors are to be vested with the Queen's existing powers and functions in respect of the States, except those in relation to their own appointment and dismissal, and in relation to the awarding of imperial honours. Clearly, imperial awards remain the prerogative of the Queen and are not affected by this legislation. State Premiers wishing to recommend imperial honours may do so directly to the Queen. However, when the Queen is personally present in a State, she will be able to exercise a power or function in relation to a State but will do so only if there has been mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the relevant Premier that it would be appropriate for her to do so. The State Premiers have confirmed their acceptance that such mutual and prior agreement is an essential ingredient of the proposed arrangement. As I said earlier, this legislation has been achieved with bipartisan support, and by the enactment of similar legislation in the United Kingdom the last remaining impediments of our colonial status will disappear. It is highly appropriate at a time when we are approaching our bicentenary that Australia now has the status of an independent and sovereign nation. Accordingly, I commend these Bills to the House. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(4.35) —The Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill purport to provide the legislative basis for the ending of residual and outmoded constitutional and other legal links with the United Kingdom. These links, such as appeals to Her Majesty in Council, the retention by the States of a colonial status despite the Federation and some other residues, are anachronisms which are entirely incompatible with our constitutional and political status as an independent nation. Only on two occasions has the mechanism of section 51 sub-section (xxxviii) of the Constitution been used to request of the Westminster Parliament, and gain its consent to, the exercise of its legislative power in connection with Australia. Indeed, it seems most unlikely that this mechanism will be used again during our lifetime. As I said in my maiden speech, I am committed to the retention of the constitutional monarchy in Australia. I believe that these Bills will, in fact, enhance the position of Her Majesty and her heirs as monarchs of Australia. This is because the monarchy will exist here in an entirely Australian context. I know that ardent republicans might portray these views as very unfashionable, but these people would argue that any defence of our British heritage, including the great institutions of our constitutional and political system, are perhaps meaningless in the so-called multicultural eighties. I would say to these people that they are doing a grave disservice to institutions which have a proven performance in the defence of democratic government and the freedoms and liberties of the Australian people. I am proud of the British patrimony of this nation. I am proud to see that we fly the Union Jack in the hoist of the Australian flag. In our flag we make a clear and unequivocal statement about our nationhood, our origins and our belief and commitment to certain principles and freedoms not enjoyed by less happy lands. I would be bitterly opposed to any attempt by any Australian government to champion what passes for fashionable prejudice amongst certain circles in our country and change our nation's ensign. Like the American State of Hawaii, we have every right to be proud of our history and to proudly fly a national flag which includes the Union Jack. I would be equally opposed to any attempt to alter the position and powers of the monarch in Australia. Mr Cowan —You'll have a lot of friends. Mr NEHL —Yes, I know that. Our Constitution, notwithstanding the destructive knocking which it has received from some sour partisans of the Labor Party during the last 10 years, is the product of a great constitutional and political settlement which saw six disparate and very independent colonies federate to produce a Commonwealth. The creation of this Commonwealth resulted in one federated nation straddling an entire continent. It produced a Commonwealth committed to freedom, liberty and democratic government, and no amount of vindictive invective from the Labor Party can alter the fact that the Australian people retain a commitment to the system of constitutional government which we have today. Our masters, the people of Australia, have consistently asserted their faith in our Constitution and the system of government enshrined therein. This has occurred in referendum after referendum. Where the Australian people wished to alter the Constitution, they did so, and conversely, where they wished no change, they denied proposed alterations. This is just as it should be. While I support the thrust of this legislation, as outlined by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech, I believe that these Bills are fundamentally defective. We are once again being treated to the dubious spectacle of the Hawke Government seeking to pass legislation which is binding on a subsequent parliament. The Attorney-General is asking the Parliament to pass legislation which, following enactment by the Parliament at Westminster, will purport to bind succeeding parliaments at Westminster. This flies in the face of the accepted doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which exists in both English and Australian constitutional law. I remind the House that, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as outlined by constitutional authors such as Dicey, Wade and others and as accepted by courts both in the United Kingdom and in Australia, no parliament can purport to bind a subsequent parliament so that the latter must follow the legislative fiat of the previous parliament. The contrary proposition is a nonsense. Only a fortnight ago we saw the Attorney-General and the Government passing futile legislation which purported to subject future Commonwealth parliaments to the legislative provisions contained in the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. Today the House is once again presented with this proposition in clause 1 of the Australia Bill which is repeated in the Schedule of the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill. The Government is asking this Parliament to pass a clause which says: No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory. While this Parliament, and ultimately Westminster, can bring this clause into legislation it is in reality a mere puff, the effect of which is to bring the exercise of legislative power by both parliaments into disrepute. Such a clause will be effective only so long as this Parliament and Westminster abide by its spirit. There is no power on earth which can stop a future parliament either in Canberra or in Westminster from repealing the Acts incorporating the Bills before the House. While some academic authors challenge the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the fact remains that it is clearly upheld by the courts. For as long as the system of jurisprudence which underlies our system of constitutional law remains in place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty will remain a functioning part of our constitutional law. I would suggest to the House that, if the Attorney-General is serious in his attempt to find a method of abolishing the capacity of Westminster to make laws affecting Australia, the most sensible way would be to patriate the Australian Constitution and extend to the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act the provisions for altering the Constitution which are found in section 128. A similar scheme would need to be devised for the States and Territories so that in the end the origins of legislative power are the Australian people and the citizens of each and every State and Territory. Unfortunately, the structure of the relationship between Westminster and Australia can still be changed by any future Federal government. An extremist government, whether of the far Left or Right, could tamper with the Constitution by making advances to an ideologically similar government in the United Kingdom, and persuading it to act legislatively. Our Constitution and our system of government are not safe from this possibility, far-fetched though it may be. It behoves this Parliament to ensure that the Australian Constitution and the system of constitutional monarchy that it enshrines emanate from the Australian people, who are in reality the source of all power in this nation. In this way, neither our Constitution nor our democracy will ever be threatened because they will be firmly guarded by the ultimate source of power in this nation, namely, the Australian people. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(4.45) —When preparing my speech for this debate on the Australia Bill 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill, I felt that this was an historic piece of legislation. To say that is to repeat myself because, twice before in the last two weeks, I have made similar statements about two other pieces of legislation. However, I stand by my view. This is truly a piece of legislation that indicates a coming of age with respect to constitutional development in Australia. It is important to emphasise that this legislation is, to the best of my knowledge, supported by all parties represented in the Australian Parliament. Also, and equally importantly, it is supported by all the States of Australia. It is my personal opinion that the present constitutional arrangements governing the conduct of government in Australia will, despite the passage of this legislation, remain woefully inadequate. I compliment theAttorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on his initiative in trying a new way to achieve constitutional reform. Clearly the Constitutional Conventions have failed us all, have failed Australia as a nation, and we must think of new alternatives and a way to bring about the bipartisan support that is so necessary to achieve constitutional change. Speaking in the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights the other day, I referred to one of the innumerable examples of the inadequacy in the present Constitution. I referred to section 25 of the Federal Constitution which entrenches the principle of racism into our own national Constitution. That is but one of hundreds of examples where the Federal Constitution, and equally State constitutions, remain inadequate and will do so following the passage of this legislation. Australian history tells us a number of things about constitutional change. The first is that we will not achieve substantial constitutional change in this country until there is a bipartisan support on the initiatives to be undertaken. Secondly, we will not achieve constitutional change unless there is a powerful and popular movement of people who are committed to that change. In the first respect I compliment the Opposition on its support for this initiative and indeed pay tribute in particular to Senator Durack, of whom on other occasions I have been most critical, for his constructive initiatives which are substantially responsible for this legislation. I hope that that bipartisan spirit will be further reflected in years to come because I am sure that people of good will on both sides of the House can reach agreement on the need for other constitutional reforms, many aspects of which are the subject of public debate but on which as yet we do not have that bipartisan agreement. However, those challenges and reforms are for the future. The passage of this legislation that is now before us is a source of pride for the Government. Perhaps the best way to highlight the significance of the reforms is to outline briefly the unbelievably outmoded nature of the relationship that exists at this very moment between the United Kingdom and Australia and the Australian States. At this very moment I wonder how many Australians realise that State governments do not have the legal authority to advise the Queen in relation to State matters but must, instead, communicate such advice through a foreign government, namely, the Government of the United Kingdom. Thus, also at this time State governments have no absolute right to secure the appointment of governors of their choice. In 1865 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Colonial Laws Validity Act. One of the effects of that legislation is to subordinate State parliaments to legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament which applies to the States. This power of the United Kingdom Parliament, this overriding legislation, brings about absolutely ludicrous situations. In 1894, the United Kingdom Parliament passed the imperial Merchant Shipping Act which was designed to ensure that the then lifelines of the empire, the merchant shipping lanes, remained unimpeded by colonial legislative control. One of the cases highlighted in a research paper prepared by the Australian National University is the China Ocean Shipping case heard by the High Court in 1978. In this particular case, if the port installation damaged by a ship in South Australia had not been crown property we would have had the ludicrous situation that the liability of the owner of the vessel would have been limited to a figure calculated according to the ship's tonnage, multiplied by eight pounds sterling, which was the fixed rate in 1894. I do not think any of us want that sort of constraint or outmoded provision on the statute books and in the legal framework of the Australian nation. Another effect of the passage of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 is to require that certain Bills be reserved for royal assent as well as to require that laws with respect to the Constitution, powers or procedure of the legislature must be passed in the manner and form laid down by existing law. In 1931 the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster which had the effect that the Colonial Laws Validity Act no longer applied to the Commonwealth. However, 54 years later that outmoded legislation still applies to the Australian States despite the fact that in 1931 the United Kingdom Parliament passed a law to apply that legislation no longer to the Commonwealth. The Crown still has unfettered power to disallow Commonwealth and State Acts and certain Bills are required to be reserved for royal assent. It is still at present legally possible to appeal to the Privy Council sitting in the United Kingdom in respect of cases heard by the State supreme courts on State matters. However, even in advance of legislative action by the Parliament, the Privy Council indicated in 1981 that it would dismiss such appeals where they related to damages. It is a matter of national pride that as a result of this legislation the High Court of Australia will henceforth be the final court of appeal in all cases. Turning to the other provisions of the Bill, which override the anachronisms that I have referred to, clause 1 provides that no Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of the Australian Act shall extend to the Commonwealth or a State. Thus, in one clause, the legislative independence of Australia from the United Kingdom is spelt out. Clause 3 of the Bill is modelled on the key clause of the Statute of Westminster to which I have already referred and will mean that State legislatures gain for the first time the sovereign power to legislate inconsistently with Acts of the United Kindgom Parliament which extend to the States. Clause 6 of the Bill is important because it picks up the principle enshrined in section 5 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 and will mean that, after the commencement of the Australia Act, any law passed by a State parliament shall be of no force or effect until it is made in the manner and form, if any, required by a State legislature. I believe that in years to come this will be a particularly important principle in Australian democracy. It is to the credit of the New South Wales Government that one of the reforms it has made has been to entrench into the New South Wales Constitution the principle of one vote one value. This is another area where I hope people of good will on both sides of the Parliament will translate their expressed faith in the Australian people into constitutional amendments in all the Australian States. I hope that there will be inspiration at a national level to ensure that in the years to come we will not have the electoral rorts in this country that currently exist. We need to make sure that the right of people to decide the future of their government through the principle of one vote one value is really respected. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that, subject to limited exceptions outlined in the clause, the powers and functions of the Queen in respect of a State shall henceforth be exercisable only by the Governor of the State. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that, after the commencement of the Australia Act, no State Act that has been assented to by the Governor of a State shall be subject to disallowance by the Queen or have its operation suspended pending the signification of the Queen's pleasure, while clause 9 nullifies any law purporting to require reservation of a State Bill for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. Clause 10 of the Bill achieves the complete executive independence of Australia from the Government of the United Kingdom. Finally, I refer to clause 15, which has the effect that the important reforms initiated by the Australia Act could be set aside only by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament which was passed with the concurrence of all the State parliaments. My concluding hope and plea to the Parliament is that people of good will on both sides of the chamber can work together through the changes and the ideas implemented by the Attorney-General to inspire constitutional change. Hopefully, we can make the reforms that are so desperately needed to our constitutional framework. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.56) —I just want to take up one point that was put to the House by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner). I am always most amused to hear members of the Australian Labor Party carry on about the principle of one vote one value as though such a thing was possible to achieve in a country like Australia. I think the advocates of one vote one value would be more honest if they pointed out that it is simply impossible to achieve this objective in a federation like Australia. One has only to look at the value of a vote in, for example, Tasmania and the value of a vote in the more populous States such as New South Wales to realise that that objective simply cannot be achieved and it is quite wrong to mislead the people of Australia with that continuing shibboleth. Let me get back to the legislation at hand. The Australia Bill 1986 and the Australian (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 gather up some of the residual problems which are left over from the legal situation which identifies the Queen as the Queen of Australia. This was a widely acclaimed development-a change from the old style and title, where Australia received a secondary reference. The concept of the Queen as Queen of Australia, constitutional Head of State, holding herself legally separate from her role as Queen of the United Kingdom and other realms and territories, is, I believe, a valuable innovation which has reinforced the position and acceptance of Her Majesty as Queen of Australia. The Australia Bill has picked up some residual anomalies which need to be put out of the legal system. It is known that the merchant shipping legislation has been particularly anomalous, where sections of the relevant United Kingdom Act have been part of Australian State legislation. This legislation has had the capacity to complicate some of the essential work of co-ordinating maritime law between the Commonwealth and the States. Australia is very fortunate in the way we have been able to identify the residual problems and, through the machinery of the Premiers Conference, gather the necessary consensus to bring these matters forward into this Parliament. Canada, of course, had an analogous problem, but it went through a constitutional adjustment known to that country as a process of repatriating the constitution. It was a very difficult process indeed. I believe that our system has proved to be much superior. Our constitutional development, of course, was quite different and proceeded from an agreement between the self-governing States to come together in one nation, the Commonwealth of Australia, which would act for Australians in foreign affairs, defence and Customs and be the focal point of Australia's nationhood. That this Constitution proceeded so quickly to give full effect to the growing sense of Australian nationhood is, I believe, a wonderful testament to those wise men who drafted it. If we stand off and look at this legislation today and place it in the context of the vast accumulation of authority that speaks in the name of Australia, I believe we can truly say: `Was that all there is to be done?' It is not very much. I believe that those people who attack the drafters of our Constitution really have no concept of the very real wisdom that was brought to bear in bringing it into place. That we have moved so smoothly through the various stages of tidying up the Statute of Westminster, the Style and Titles Act and the present legislation says a lot for the path on which Australian constitutional monarchy has been set. In some ways there are some losses. The system of appeals to the Privy Council, until this Act limited in opportunity, enabled Australian legal minds to test the quality of contemporary British legal thinking which is of continuing world significance. Having said that, I am not against cutting off the right of appeal to the Privy Council. I just make the point that this process allowed some quite eminent legal brains to test their minds against their British contemporaries. I believe that my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is one of those who had that opportunity. There are some in Australia who have made the point in recent times that the High Court of Australia has not been a brilliant court in recent years. In some ways it faces quite major difficulties. I am not about to enumerate them here, but they act as shadows over the thinking of many Australians as the Court moves into its position as the unquestioned interpreter of all the law of this land. This legislation has another important general message. That message is that the institution of the monarchy has never been an inhibiting factor in Australian constitutional development. In fact, I believe that it has been a factor which has accelerated changes. The contribution of the institution was one which provided the umbrella of certainty, which meant that all our necessary changes since Federation have taken place quietly and efficiently. We have heard many complaints from the Whitlam school about the Constitution. Mr Whitlam was long a proponent of overwhelming the rest of Australia with a rule from Canberra. He saw the salvation of Australia as more and more power to Canberra, and his recent activities suggest that he has lost no faith in the capacity of the growth of Canberra bureaucracy to solve all Australia's ills. But we have to face the fact that our national administration is remote from most Australians and that so many Australians are removed from it. The reality is that the States can have a much more intensive understanding of the needs of their people than the bureaucrats in Canberra. So we cannot regard with equanimity the thirst that exists in those who want to rubbish the States and State powers. The States have vital powers, and they need them. This Government did a great disservice to the States when it argued the Franklin dams case in the way it did. The Attorney-General of the day, who I think could be described as a legal bureaucrat if ever there was one, set about the task of demolishing every argument for maintaining the rights of the State in the face of international conventions which are determined by the United Nations, largely by countries which have no intention of applying them. The drafting of many of these so-called treaties is often appalling, and we do not have the time to put in the national effort to get them licked into shape. Most of them go to matters of law which are correctly the concerns of State governments and parliaments. The whole procedure is a mess and is laying up a great store of trouble for the future of Federal-State relations. The decision in the Franklin dams case induced by the action of this Labor Government was a sad one for the balance of the relationships with the States. Thus the High Court, which under this legislation finds itself sole master of every legal issue in this nation, has much to ponder about the future quality of its work. We have imposed great powers on the Court and we trust that the legal profession in this country will match the quality of that trust. I now turn to the issue of the powers of State Governors. The system of their appointment has been outmoded for years, as we have heard in discussion today. The Governor was appointed on recommendation to the Queen through the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Relations. It was wholly unsatisfactory that a British politician should have been interposed between the recommendation of a State Premier and the Queen. The effect of this legislation is to increase the direct relationship between the Queen and the Premiers of the States. It is made clear that when the Queen is personally present in a State she will be able to exercise a power or function in relation to a State where there has been mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier that it would be appropriate for her to do so. Therefore, it is quite mischievous to suggest that this legislation weakens the Queen's identity in the States. If anything, it does the opposite. It also, it seems to me, strengthens the concept of statehood. There are those who would see any retention of the royal presence in our system as something which looks to the past rather than the future. In recent weeks, as we will all recall, we have been having a further heart-searching about the sacking of Prime Minister Whitlam by the Governor-General of the day. We are led by some in the Government to believe that the processes under which the Governor-General acted were provided by the founding fathers with very little thought. But, of course, this is not so. The Constitution came to invest the Governor-General with powers to ensure parliamentary government for the wisest and most essential of reasons. The logic is that, if parliamentary government is destroyed, democracy is gravely threatened. We saw what happened when that came about in nazi Germany. The key to the authority of parliament is the authority to control the public purse. Under the Constitution the proviso is controlled by a joint action by the House of Representatives and the Senate to approve Supply, that is, the supply of money for government. There are those who say that, as the Prime Minister is responsible to the lower House for his majority, the Senate should not have the powers that it has been given under the Constitution. To my mind, this is a very strange argument. The Senate is elected by proportional representation, the most representative of all forms of voting. It is impractical for the House of Representatives, but it happens to be the system for the Senate. There can be no doubt in my mind that the Senate has an important claim to retain its powers over Supply. The problem for the Governor-General was the notice the Prime Minister of the day gave to the effect that he would go outside parliament for funds to run the Government. This became a crucial issue which no Governor-General could ignore. That this issue was to the fore in public debate at the time is often overlooked by the critics of the sacking. The dismissal is pertinent to this discussion, in dealing with the critics of this legislation who suggest that our constitutional arrangements are not in keeping with our fully democratic ideal. I believe that the essence of the practical ideal is that the elected representatives of the people should at all times be supreme. They exercise that supremacy through the control of the purse. The head of state is there to protect that authority. The House will recall that the Australian newspaper published a supplement on the dismissal and that this included the front page facsimile of some of the key headlines of the day. Let me just quote them. On Saturday, 1 November we had the headline `Whitlam says he'll carry on without the Budget' and, on Thursday, 6 November `Hayden calls bankers to money talks'. We will all recall that Mr Hayden was then Treasurer, a shadow of his later self. On Friday, 7 November we had `Banks asked to meet wage loans' and, on Tuesday, 11 November `Banks ready to refuse to pay public servants' and `Court action considered to stop loans'. It is against this public knowledge of the intention of the Government of the day to go outside parliament that the Governor-General of the day acted. Those who say that under a republican constitution the Prime Minister would have remained supreme in his authority, that the Prime Minister's authority would have remained unchallenged, ignore the fact that republican constitutions have provisions to rein in the Executive, to protect the people and the parliaments from the misuse of Executive powers. Most democratic constitutions place in the head of state, and not the head of government, special powers to protect the constitution. Indeed, republic presidents have more powers than our Governors. No system can work without the co-operative good sense of those responsible for working it. It is amazing how well the separate responsibilities of Premier and Governor have been handled by their respective occupants. I shall not dwell on the problems which arose in Victoria, but I am quite sure that the office of Governor as an institution is one which means a great deal to the people. I recall the governorship of Sir Roden Cutler in New South Wales. There could not have been a more highly respected figure in any public life. It is vital to have a public institution which is free of politics and which can carry the many essential activities of leadership outside the framework of politics. That is what really happens when the Queen's representative takes his or her rightful place in the government of the States. This legislation removes a very outmoded system of appointment, and that is a sound development. The legislation makes no claim to change the quality of the relationship between the State Premier and the Queen. If anything, it brings the relationship into a more obvious standing. It is to be welcomed for that achievement and for the subtle legal clarifications which ensue. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.09) —There have been a number of contributions on the Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill and I believe that it is important that we emphasise some of the characteristics of the legislation. I believe that it is also important to deal with a couple of matters that have been raised by preceding speakers. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) addressed himself to the question of one vote one value. He stressed the importance of the fact that in New South Wales there has been a substantial declaration by the State Government of the principle of one vote one value. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) took issue with that and pointed out that it was very difficult, in the context of a federation such as Australia, to have one vote one value when one compares perhaps the population of Tasmania with that of New South Wales. I think that is well understood in the Australian community and I think it is well understood in this House. I also think it is equally well understood that the arrangements that have been foreshadowed for Queensland by the Queensland Government and the arrangements that prevail in Western Australia in the upper House clearly are well away from the goal of one vote one value. I suggest to the honourable member for Warringah that what has to be addressed is the question of intention. Since we removed the 20 per cent allowance for rural electorates-which really was an opportunity for some degree of gerrymander-there has been the intention of one vote one value in this Parliament. This is certainly so in South Australia. To strike a bipartisan note, the redistributions in South Australia under a Liberal Premier and then taken up by Labor governments have been sound and fair and have been recognised as such. But that is a long step from the foreshadowed arrangements in Queensland and also the arrangements that prevail in Western Australia, which clearly are well removed from the principle of one vote one value. In fact in Western Australia we have the extraordinary situation at the moment where the Burke Government is being held up by a most unrepresentative upper House, where some people can be elected on a very small voting basis, whilst others, usually on the Labor side of politics, need something like 10 times as many voters. That is clearly far removed from the principle of one vote one value. Obviously the situation in Queensland is so extraordinary that, in international terms, one really has to look very hard to find something quite as unrepresentative as those arrangements. I make those remarks because I believe that they have some relevance in the context of this debate. There is a need to make some other points about this legislation. The Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech, made what amounts to the substantive points about this legislation. I think it is necessary to reflect on these again because we will find that, in the context of this debate, there is a tendency for some honourable members opposite-I do not say this about all honourable members opposite-to misrepresent. The important point that has to be established is that this is not some sudden surge and urge for Australia to get rid of all its historical connections or to do away with the monarchy but it is a recognition that Australia, as a collection of States and as a national government, can on a consensual basis come to an arrangement to change some of our existing arrangements with the United Kingdom. It is important to emphasise that one of these pieces of legislation bears the title Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 because this Bill results from the co-operation of the States, the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom Government. This legislation has been drafted clearly on a co-operative basis and it is important to emphasise that. It is also important to emphasise that we are now getting clarified in this legislation something that vexed the founding fathers. I know that honourable members opposite pay great attention to the question of history, sometimes, I believe, for their own sakes. A substantial debate raged between a group represented by Deakin, who was arguing that all State communications, in a sense, should go through the Governor-General before they were directed to the United Kingdom, and a group represented by Kingston, whose view was that it should be possible for the States themselves to have direct communications with the United Kingdom. In effect, the Kingston view won out in the draft Constitution of 1891. The Deakin position was not carried; the Kingston view was carried, which gave the capacity for States to have direct communications with the United Kingdom. The only problem with that has been that we have tended to find that the representations of the States have gone through the United Kingdom Ministers and not directly from the States as such. This legislation removes that requirement. It will now be possible for the States to deal directly with the United Kingdom Government rather than to have to go through the Ministers. I think that is a maturing of the process. Clearly, this was an important matter for debate in the 1890s. It was a matter which both Kingston and Deakin had considerable debate about but which was resolved in Kingston's favour. I say to honourable members opposite that it is important to remember that they talked about the powers of the States to deal directly with the United Kingdom as distinct from going through the Commonwealth. We are now saying that that power can be clarified because, clearly, there was some debate about it in the 1890s. On these matters, the legislation will put an end to the present position under which the Queen is advised by United Kingdom Ministers, following recommendations by the State Premiers to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government. Instead, the Queen will be advised directly in each case by the Premier of the State concerned. That is a far more mature basis than the previous arrangement. I think it is also necessary to say, with respect to the comments made by the honourable member for Warringah on the question of the developments in 1975, that there was at stake both a legal position and a convention position. One of the things to which conservative parties in Australia have often paid scant attention is the question of convention. Conventions have been something that they have carried around with them and have made great play of, but when it has been necessary to overturn them they have done so. History in Australia has shown a great willingness by people on the conservative side of politics to overturn conventions when it suits their short term political objectives. The Australian community recognises that substantially. I say to those opposite who talk in this place about the powers in terms of the Constitution and link those to the practice of politics that the practice in politics carries with it another requirement-that is, the issue of conventions in politics. The Australian community is now very sensitive about whether or not people in politics should obey some of those conventions. I must say that the conservative parties in Australia are getting a very bad reputation for overturning conventions. I hesitate to draw a parallel between their behaviour and what has happened in cricket in recent times but, clearly, the Australian community has begun to see that the conservatives are really willing to make a mockery of conventions when it suits them and the conservatives need to be reminded of this. Another issue that needs to be addressed is the question of appeals to the Privy Council. This legislation removes that right. However, if there are any current appeals or if notices of appeal have been lodged, clearly they still stand. But it is also important for us, as Australians, to say that we should not have to have that avenue of appeal to the Privy Council. We are a nation in our own right; we have matured. The 1890s saw the great nationalist period in Australia when Australia sought to stand up for itself. Sadly in 1914-1918 it exhibited that it was able to. I say sadly because the circumstances were unfortunate. Australia has been able to demonstrate that it has matured as a country and it is very important that we recognise this. I am sure that the nationalists and people such as Henry Lawson would have been disturbed that it had taken us so long. Nevertheless, we have reached this point and it is important that we have reached this point. What we are seeing here is really a set of arrangements which makes good sense in terms of Australia as a country. This legislation represents a set of arrangements which we on this side of the House recognise as being quite capable of being misrepresented by those who have a more short term objective in politics-which is simply to score points for the day. But the objective in politics is also one of having a longer term notion of what is good for a country. We on this side of the House believe that this legislation represents a statement about that. We also believe that appeals by people such as Bruce Ruxton of the Returned Services League in Victoria to what I would term the baser motives in the Australian community-the inherent Anglo-Saxon objectives that he turned into a racist argument-have to be identified. We are saying that we as a country can stand up for ourselves. We are a nation that now represents a wide variety of communities. We have the good fortune of having inherited a system that works but we are now bringing that system more up to date. We are saying, as a mature country, that we are about the business of conducting our affairs as a nation. That makes good sense but I also believe it is important that we recognise that in debate here. Accordingly, it is my pleasure to commend this legislation to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.20) —The Australia Bill makes four major changes to our relationship with the United Kingdom Parliament, Government and legal system. I must say in considering the Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill that I accept the Government's declaration and that contained in the agreement of the State governments that nothing in this legislation will impair the position of the Queen as Queen of Australia. The first major change is that the Queen, instead of being formally advised on State matters by United Kingdom Ministers, will now be advised directly by State Premiers in her exercise of the power concerned. Secondly, the Bill will terminate any powers that might still remain in the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws having effect as part of Australian law. Thirdly, the Bill will remove the remaining avenues of appeal from Australian courts to the Privy Council, which obviously makes the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for all Australian courts. Fourthly, for those few States which still retain imperial honours, arrangements have been made for those honours to be awarded by the Queen upon the advice of the Premier of the State concerned. In considering the Australia Bill, which does cause us to reflect on our relationship with the United Kingdom, I find myself wondering about the extent of the knowledge of many Australians, particularly young Australians, of the institution now under discussion. All members of parliament would be aware of the frustration and general dissatisfaction that is permeating the community at present. Yet so many of the problems that Australia faces revolve around attitudes. Governments cannot legislate to correct all wrongs, or to correct all injustices. That is a lesson that this Government and its State Labor government counterparts have not yet learned. The real solutions to Australia's economic and social problems lie more in a change of attitudes than they do in legislation and regulation. Therefore, I believe that our institutions and all the traditions that brought them about need strengthening. Parliamentary democracy, executive government responsible to a house of elected representatives, an independent judiciary and a non-political Public Service are the basic institutions which guarantee Australians a freedom not experienced in most other parts of the world. As we are looking at changing many of the institutions which link us with the United Kingdom, this is an opportune time to examine how this Government regards those institutions, bearing in mind that those institutions have been developed over decades-indeed, 200 years. Much of that time, if not all of it, has been dominated by the Judaeo-Christian ethic. I believe, as so many other members of this Parliament on both sides believe, that this Government's prime responsibility is to ensure the security and the standing of these institutions. It ought not weaken them by responding to the demands of strident minorities which will always chip away not just at the edges but at the central core of the institutions we value so much. Institutions are fragile things and need constant nourishment if they are to survive and flourish. Sadly, I find that young Australians do not have the knowledge of and often the respect for our institutions necessary to guarantee their prosperity. One of the great difficulties for the present younger generation is its lack of moral certainty. If we look at the generations throughout the history of Australia we see that each seemed more or less, in general terms, to be pointed in the one direction. Of course the generation growing up before the First World War had to deal with that awful problem; then there was a reconstruction following that war and the next generation was tragically confronted with the Second World War. The next generation, together with the magnificent influx of immigrants, sought to deal with the problems confronting them and set about meeting the challenge of reconstruction. But the present young generation does not have that unanimity of view. There is not refuge for any individual in a commonly held set of values and goals. The one cry of the young generation, above all others, is for leadership. It is true to say that this lack of forced values that the present generation is encountering often works to the individual's betterment because he or she is able to set goals and set about achieving them in a way that often their parents could not. But there are also tremendous risks and consequential challenges for legislators in dealing with the present state of moral uncertainty in our society. The leadership that this Government, or any government, can best provide is to work through the institutions already in place-institutions that often have been brought about by mistakes but more importantly by blood, sweat and tears. It is important for the Government to reiterate on every opportunity available that we do not seek to repeal or forget our past as we move into some brave new socialist world. There is every reason to be proud of Australia in the development of our institutions. Therefore it saddens me that Australian history, to cite just one example, is not a compulsory subject in the latter years of secondary schooling. Making Australian history optional to the extent that it is, in my view, weakens the young's appreciation of the structure of society and the institutions which guarantee so many of the rights and freedoms which this Government believes, as demonstrated by its Bill of Rights, need to be legislated for and need to be stated. The point was made by many Opposition speakers during the debate on the Bill of Rights last week that we do have the institutions in place-common law, the Constitution and the Parliament-to guarantee the freedoms and rights of the majority. Yet this Government's action in passing that Bill of Rights through the lower House, and together with the Australian Democrats almost certainly through the Senate, weakens and bypasses those institutions. I do not for a moment suggest that the Australia Bill will in any way weaken the institutions I have mentioned, but, if we look at the sophisticated research carried out by Government into the attitudes of the young, the surveys show that the most commonly held goal is that of security. Security for the young is represented, as this survey bears out, by a family and employment. The security that the young seek to achieve at a time of tremendous technological and social change is guaranteed by the present Westminster system of parliament, an independent judiciary and a non-political Public Service. For that reason I believe the Government ought to be stronger in so many of its dealings with those who would seek to undermine those guarantors of freedom. We have in Victoria at present an example of a government that is tolerating an open denigration of the rule of law; namely, by the Builders Labourers Federation, the Hospitals Employees Federation and the railways union. This Parliament, together with the State Parliament, to protect the rule of law which the BLF, to choose one of the three as an example, openly challenges, must pass legislation to deregister that union. The Federal Government and the State Government are working through the institution of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and it is giving the BLF through that slow, inefficient process the opportunity to continue on its lawless way. Why does this Parliament seek to play a game with rules which have long been thrown out the window by the BLF? This Government, supported by the State Government of Victoria, must bite the bullet and pass legislation through this Parliament which will put an end to the destruction by the BLF not just of institutions but of attitudes throughout the community. No government can tolerate the campaign of war and hatred by the BLF against the established order. In conclusion, I say again that the Australia Bill does much to reinforce our pride in Australia. However, at a time of uncertainty and growing dissatisfaction with the workings of the Parliament throughout the community, I believe the duty of this Government-as it will be the duty of the following government-is to shore up and to strengthen the institutions available. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.30) —As previous speakers have outlined, the Australia Bill 1986 and cognate Bill reflect the agreements reached between the States, the Australian and United Kingdom parliaments and governments. These negotiations have taken place over many years. I am somewhat concerned about the provisions of these Bills. However, thanks to the very hard negotiations by the States, most of the more obnoxious elements which the Australian Labor Party would have liked in these Bills have in fact been cut out. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) claims that the Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill have been introduced at the request of all State parliaments. That may well be so but, while certain benefits will flow to the States from this legislation, where there are pluses there are also minuses. The Labor Party, an avowedly republican party, wishes to see the position of the Queen abolished. Fortunately, thanks to the States in this country, the Commonwealth has not been successful in subverting our Constitution to that extent through these Bills. It is pleasing to see that in future the Premiers will be able to advise the Queen on matters relating to State jurisdiction in lieu of the present provisions whereby United Kingdom Ministers must deal with the Crown. I am a bit concerned that there may have been blackmail by the Federal Labor Government of some of the States; in other words, the Commonwealth may have said: `We won't enact the beneficial parts of this legislation unless the States agree to the detrimental parts'. If this is the case the Government should stand absolutely condemned in the eyes of all Australians. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the people listening to the broadcast of these proceedings will realise that we on this side of the House must view with concern any constitutional measure introduced into this Parliament by the Labor Party. The Labor Party is one which, almost since Federation, has sought to subvert the Constitution as we know it. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased that the honourable member for Denison is in the chamber agreeing with my statement. It is quite clear that time and again the ALP has misused certain powers in the Constitution. The most recent power to be so misused is the external affairs power, under which the ALP, in government, has enacted treaties with other countries and then used those treaties as the basis for increasing the scope of the Commonwealth constitutional power. We are very suspicious and always will be suspicious of the ALP's motives, because it does not believe in a federal system-it does not believe in the system of government that we have had in this country since 1901. We have all read the newspapers. We have all heard ALP speakers call for an end to the monarchy, the abolition of the position of the Queen. That is why we on this side of the House simply do not trust the Hawke Government. As I mentioned earlier, it is pleasing to see the position of the Crown enshrined in this legislation. In fact, the Queen and the monarchy will become closer to the people of the several States. The Crown will now deal directly with the States. The Bills will create a very serious and definite reduction in the ability of the Commonwealth to interfere with certain powers of the States. Mr Nehl —That is a step forward. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Cowper said, that is a step forward. I am very worried about the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. While I believe that we as a nation should be proud of our courts-as a lawyer I am proud of our courts-I think that there should be provision in certain cases for appeals to be made to the Privy Council. The Privy Council is a court which is entirely removed from Australia. It is a court which is absolutely neutral. We must remember that Australia has a relatively small population; it is a nation of little more than 15 million people. As a result, there have been cases of great moment about which everyone in this country has a view one way or the other, before in fact it is argued in court. While I do not wish in any way to impugn the integrity of judges in this country, they, like everyone else, read the newspapers. In those sorts of cases there should be provision for appeal to a totally impartial court, a court that is able to look at and consider these matters in a purely legalistic way without the introduction of any domestic bias or considerations. I mentioned earlier that there are certain favourable provisions in this legislation as far as the States are concerned. The mechanics of the legislation are rather interesting and rather technical, but the idea is, of course, that all the States will enact similar legislation requesting the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom parliaments each to pass their respective Australia Acts. I think that the States must be congratulated, because they faced the full onslaught of the ALP. I compliment in particular the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Robin Gray. Those two gentlemen have, with the leadership in the Opposition, led the fight against the socialists in this country. What a daunting task must have confronted them in entering into these negotiations with the Commonwealth officers and representatives who simply do not believe in the fundamentals of our constitutional system. I think it is favourable that State governments now be vested with all the Queen's powers and functions in respect of the States. Her Majesty's representative in each State shall be the Governor. That is a very positive step. It means that those extremist elements opposite who wish to establish a republic will find it very difficult to do so. Sadly the States have had to give up certain things in exchange for the ultimate benefits which will flow from the implementation of this legislation. My colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) mentioned the Australian Bill of Rights Bill brought in by Labor. We know what a terrible piece of legislation that was when it was inflicted on this Parlaiment and the people of Australia, with a very short time allowed for debate last week. The Government should be condemned, because we on this side of the House believe that the rights of our citizens are protected by common law, the Parliament and the courts. We do not like to see governments interfering and fiddling with people's rights. Sadly, this almost invariably results in the ordinary citizens having fewer, rather than greater, rights. Another terrible thing about the Bill of Rights is the way in which members of this Parliament were not permitted to debate the provisions at length. The provisions were guillotined through the Parliament. Mr Hodgman —Shame, shame! Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member for Denison is quite correct. The Government stands condemned for its actions in this area. Mr Lionel Bowen —We had 12 hours to debate the Bill. Mr SLIPPER —There may well have been 12 hours in which to debate the Bill, as the Attorney-General said, but I do not believe that there was sufficient time to debate something which could well subvert the entire constitutional structure of this country. Many honourable members were not permitted to talk and those who were on the speakers' list were ruthlessly cut from that list. Mr Nehl —The people had no chance. Mr SLIPPER —The people had no chance. No referendum was placed before the people of Australia. This Government said that it would impose that legislation on the people of Australia. We said that we did not want it to happen and that we were opposed to this form of action, but the Government said: `We have the numbers and it does not matter what you or the people of Australia say. We intend to force the Bill of Rights legislation through the House'. I know that the people of Australia will not forget that. I know that they will remember what the Government did. I am certain that when the next election comes they will sweep this Government from office. Fortunately the Bills before the House are Bills which will enshrine the position of the Crown in the States. Consequently, they will protect certain elements of the Constitution. Indeed, I know that certain extremist members of the Australian Labor Party will be somewhat disappointed with their content. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(5.41) —I rise with some trepidation after hearing the contributions made by a substantial number of lawyers on both sides of the House, but I do so because I have great personal concern as to the consequences of this legislation. Whilst not opposing it-the expression used by the Opposition's representatives at the table-there is no doubt at all that we are elevating the High Court of Australia at the very time when many question marks can be seen in that direction-questions of very great concern about the way in which the Constitution of this country is interpreted and as far as the rights of the parliaments, the rights of the people and the rights of the constitutional segments of this nation are concerned. I refer, of course, to the decision of the High Court on the Franklin dam issue. Consequences flow from this which are very pertinent to the Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill which are before the House today. The consideration of the legislation arises as a result of decisions taken by an earlier government and the action of the present to follow through those decisions. In that respect I allude to the determination that no longer shall there be appeals to the Privy Council. In its stead we find an alteration in respect of the powers of the States, and that concerns me greatly. One honourable member who spoke earlier said that the States had given up certain things in order to accomplish some more direct responsiblity. I believe that in the future, without doubt, constitutional questions which flow from that decision could weaken the States' consitutional powers in relation to the Commonwealth, and this really opens very crucial questions of concern for every Australian. Let me take it one step further. Reference has been made in this debate to the philosophical consideration: Where does Australia stand in relation to the United Kingdom and the United States of America? I do not believe those comparisons are valid in the matter that we are considering. What arises is: Where does our constitutional status rest under the changes that come from the Australia Bill and the actions of governments which preceded it; for example, elevating the High Court by giving it greater power? Mr Slipper —Is that good? Mr IAN ROBINSON —I do not believe it is. What of moves that come from various political levels, such as the suggestion that a one-House system is desirable? Certainly, a referendum would be necessary to achieve this. The mere existence of a belief that we can reduce the processes of the government of this country to a one-chamber system with recourse only to the High Court as presently constituted leaves very limited scope for the checks and balances that are so much a part of our democratic system and so much a part of the Westminster system. I see in this a further weakening of the elements of common law that are inherent in the whole system that has made Australia strong to the point it is today. Quite frankly, there are dangers in the legislation that we are considering today. There is no doubt that moves wll follow to try to weaken our link with the monarchy, to try to weaken the recognition of the traditions that are so much part and parcel of a firm and dependable common law system. For all that has been said by those of greater eminence who certainly have a greater background in the field of law, as an ordinary member of this House I express my very great concern as to where this legislation takes us and what it does for the future of Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.47) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I am very pleased to know that the Opposition does not oppose the Australia Bill and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill although, after listening to some of the speeches which have been made, one would think that there was something drastically wrong with the legislation. Either there is nothing wrong with the legislation or the speeches were on matters that are not contained in the legislation and seemed to be contributions more appropriate to other recent debates. We are not dealing with the Australian Bill of Rights Bill as such or other matters that seem to concern people. We are dealing with something to which the State parliaments have readily agreed. The legislation has been introduced on the basis that there would not be still applying to them anachronistic provisions which go back to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and that their respective constitutions, particularly those in Queensland and Western Australia, would have the appropriate amendments from a formality point of view. The real issue is that the States want the opportunity to recommend to the monarch the people they want as Governors and also to recommend honours. I do not see anybody disagreeing with that from the point of view of legal efficiency. The legislation also provides for the termination of appeals to the Privy Council and the termination of the responsibility of the United Kingdom in relation to State matters. I do not think that any Australian of this modern age would think there was anything wrong with those provisions, nor is there. I just want to say this: I think that it ought to be clear to the Opposition that speakers it puts up ought to be consistent in what they are about. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) is definitely against the proposal put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who led for the Opposition. Mr Peter Fisher —We're democratic over here. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a matter of being democratic. The honourable member for Fisher does not believe in the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. Let the Opposition be a bit consistent about the matter. It is not much good complaining that there is a problem with the High Court of Australia being elevated. It cannot be elevated any higher than it is. It is the absolute judicial body in Australia. That ought to be made very clear. In fact, it does not even have to follow the basis of decisions in the Privy Council. That has been known for some time. I make no criticism of the honourable member for that, but it certainly goes against the whole concept of what the Opposition is all about. Honourable members opposite are trying to interject. Interjections will not help them at this stage. It goes against the whole grain for the Opposition to suggest that the Government intends to do away with the Senate. The honourable member for Fisher talked about safeguards. His State, Queensland, does not even have an upper House. Members of the Opposition have looked at all of these issues which have nothing to do with this legislation. The honourable member for North Sydney is worried-I believe it is a valid point-about what might be happening in respect of the Constitution. Nothing can happen to the Constitution of Australia unless the people of Australia agree that it should happen. I am indebted to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) for making the point that the people rule this country, nobody else. Whilst I can understand that, I cannot understand why the honourable member is concerned about the expression in the Bill that from hereon in the laws of the United Kingdom shall not apply. That is logical because that is the position. We are supposed to be an independent sovereign nation with a federation; that is the structure. It is worth while taking a few moments to mention the fact that the United Kingdom itself is now in the European Parliament. It is also a member of the European Economic Community and it will not be long before Britons have the appropriate passports and even the appropriate currency. One wonders what honourable members opposite are talking about in relation to our situation in this part of the world. The United Kingdom has no responsibility for us anymore; it has its own problems, its own political structure and its own methods of laws which I believe will become common to Western Europe. That is very significant for us because it makes it very clear that we can no longer return to the days of the eighteenth century. It is important when one looks at the economic problems facing this country, to talk about matters that the honourable member for Cowper adverted to in passing. There is the matter of economic control from the point of view of trade and commerce and from the point of view of whether one has a wheat marketing authority or a sugar authority. We can imagine what would happen if every State wanted to do all its own things at the one time, given the problems we already have in marketing our resources and the problems that we are now facing with coal and iron ore and so on. Is it any wonder we have such a high current account deficit when we look at the inability of this country to talk about working in partnership federally? Local government does not even get a mention in the Constitution. Talking about modern Australia, I ask: Where would the power for aviation control come from-unless it was from an international treaty-because there is none in the Constitution? Where would be the right to vote? There is none in the Constitution. These matters are fundamental and not one of the honourable members opposite has addressed his mind to them. Honourable members must be amazed that there is no power to control aviation, unless it comes through an international covenant. There would be all sorts of problems from the point of view of the McKinley case if it suddenly turned out that people in Australia were not entitled to vote. That is an interpretation of the Constitution. As the Constitution was designed for the horse and buggy days, is it not about time that at least it was brought up to date with the days of aviation with modern transport and communications? At least honourable members should address their minds to that. They should not be afraid of letting the Australian people address their minds to such matters. I am rebutting the arguments that have been made here today which are a little wide of the mark. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for North Sydney was at least able to put a very cogent argument as to why appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished. He did it very well. Such appeals should have been abolished a long time ago. People did not have to go to the Privy Council; they could have gone to the High Court. It is an anachronism that has existed for too long. I do not think the Privy Council itself wants to be worried with all these matters. Nor does the monarch want to be so bedevilled by all the matters that are likely to be put forward from all the States in Australia. Honourable members should bear in mind that the monarch, as Queen of Australia, will be anxious to take notice of what the people of Australia want. That is the important part. Opposition members should not think that this is something that might be detrimental to Australia. This is a worthwhile Bill. In conclusion, let me pay tribute to the Solicitor-General, who has done a lot of work in organising the passage of the legislation in the States, helping to get it through, arranging for the legislation to be introduced at this time and arranging with the United Kingdom for the appropriate complementary legislation to be passed in the House of Commons next year. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the ability to reply to some of those matters which, of course, have nothing to do with the Bill and everything to do with the fact that some Opposition members believe there is something wrong with this Bill. There is nothing wrong with this Bill. It adds to the statute of Australia, it adds to the Federation and it will, of course, guarantee that the people of Australia will continue to look at the problems they face in this country. I hope that that will mean a new Constitution before too long. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.57) —I will not detain the House at length- Mr Lionel Bowen —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The only reason for a speech on the third reading would be to suggest that the Bill not be read a third time. I think it is important that we do not waste the time of the House just because the honourable member for Denison has decided to speak now. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —According to Standing Orders, I have to give the honourable member for Denison the call. Mr HODGMAN —I take offence at the remarks of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen); he has no basis whatsoever for assuming what I am going to say. Any member of this House has a right to speak on the third reading and neither the Attorney-General nor anyone else can take that away. I will be brief, but if the Attorney-General wishes to provoke me into speaking at length, I will speak at length. The Standing Orders give the right to any member in this chamber to speak on a third reading and I intend to exercise that right briefly. What draws me to my feet in relation to this matter is the extremely offensive remark that the Attorney-General made in relation to imperial honours being awarded by the States. On behalf of many Australians I take offence at the Attorney-General's comment and I quote it verbatim. He said: In order to cater for those few States who may still wish to issue them, arrangements have been made for imperial honours to be awarded by the Queen upon the advice of the Premier of the State concerned. That was a patronising, disparaging and-dare I say it-republican comment which the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General should never have uttered. Those republicans in the Hawke socialist republican Government opposite who think that this Bill in some way will weaken the bonds of our Federation and the links with the Crown in right of the States, are in for a very big shock. We see the republicans coming out of the closet. Day by day I have to remind myself that this is Canberra and not Moscow. It is only a matter of time before the coat of arms is changed. If those in Moscow corner get their way, the kangaroo and the emu will be removed from the coat of arms and replaced with the hammer and sickle; if others get their way they will be replaced with a bandicoot and a ferret. Quite bluntly, this Bill gives me pangs of sadness but I accept and recognise its practical realities. The legislation is such that I believe that, as an Australian nationalist, I can live with it. Having said that, I add that what drew me to my feet was the extremely patronising offensive and derogatory sneering about those `few States which may still wish to issue' imperial honours-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Denison to the fact that the Chair has permitted him to speak, which is in accordance with the Standing Orders, but the scope of a third reading debate is certainly much narrower than that for a second reading. I ask the honourable member to address himself directly to the content of the Bill, the clauses of the Bill and to desist from the line he is taking. Mr HODGMAN —I will improve on the line I was taking, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I wanted to conclude by drawing your attention to clause 7-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to conclude. The line he is taking is not in accordance with the Standing Orders. Mr HODGMAN —I would have finished my remarks in less than two minutes. Unless the standing orders have been changed, Madam Deputy Speaker, you cannot, with respect, require a member not to speak on the third reading. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison has already been told by the Chair that his speaking is within the Standing Orders. I do not need to have the matter run over by him. I ask him to keep his comments strictly to the content of the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not stay to debate your erroneous ruling, but I refer you to clause 7 of both the Australia Bill 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985. I will read clause 7 specifically. It states: 7 (1) Her Majesty's representative in each State shall be the Governor. (2) Subject to sub-sections (3) and (4) below, all powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State are exercisable only by the Governor of a State. (3) Sub-section (2) above does not apply in relation to the power to appoint, and the power to terminate the appointment of, the Governor of a State. that is understandable- (4) While Her Majesty is personally present in a State, Her Majesty is not precluded from exercising any of Her powers and functions in respect of the State that are the subject of sub-section (2) above- and the most important of all- (5) The advice to Her Majesty in relation to the exercise of the powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State shall be tendered by the Premier of the State. Honourable members will recall, and I sure the Attorney-General and shadow Attorney-General will recall, that that was a matter of some considerable constitutional dispute as recently as 1974 when Tasmania sought to petition Her Majesty in relation to the territorial limits of the waters of the State of Tasmania. It was there that the conflict arose as to where the advice would come from. Did Her Majesty act on the advice of her Ministers in Whitehall? Did she act on the advice of her Australian Ministers, or did she act on the advice of her Tasmanian Premier and his Ministers? This point, which causes great levity in Moscow corner, clarifies once and for all that the Crown in right of the State is a reality. It means that the Governor can exercise the powers on behalf of Her Majesty, but those powers are on the advice of the Premier. Anybody who does not think that this is a substantive constitutional point does not understand the legislation at all. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —by leave-It is with great pleasure that I present to the House two important reports-`The Objectives, Achievements and Priorities in Environment, Conservation and Heritage' and `The State of the Environment in Australia 1985'. It is our intention that in the future an annual state of the environment report will be made to the Parliament. This initial report is therefore a landmark in environmentl monitoring and planning. Let me say at the outset that I believe the Hawke Government has the proudest record in protecting and preserving Australia's environment of any government in Australian history. It has been the practice of some of our critics to denigrate that effort because anything less than perfection is unacceptable. Comparisons have been made between the record of this Government and the Whitlam Government, but the Fraser Government is rarely mentioned. It is a common practice to look back with nostalgia to the past and imagine that all was perfect then. The Whitlam Government had a great record on the environment but history will show that so too has this Government. Let me remind the House of just what has been achieved in the short space of 2 1/2 years. The first legislative action of the Hawke Government, and it was with great pleasure that I introduced the Bill, was to introduce the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 which ultimately led to preventing construction of the Gordon below Franklin dam in the south-west Tasmanian wilderness area. This historic legislation, introduced to fulfil Australia's international obligation as a signatory to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, was hailed internationally as a landmark in preserving places and sites of unique natural beauty. Following the narrow High Court of Australia decision in our favour the Government negotiated a compensation package with the Tasmanian Government totalling almost $300m. The Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments have put in place joint management arrangements for the protection and management of the Tasmanian world heritage area. The arrangement consists of a ministerial council, standing committee of officials and a consultative committee. The Commonwealth has provided $2m this financial year and will provide a further $2m in 1986-87. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Fraser Government, to its credit, managed to obtain the co-operation of the Queensland Government to make the park a reality. However, by the time we came to office only 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region had been incorporated within the park. After approximately 18 months this Government had increased that figure to 98.5 per cent. Effectively the whole of the region is now within the park making it the greatest marine park in the world-great not only because of its size but because it contains the most complex coral reef ecosystem anywhere in the world. At the same time the Government introduced regulations to prohibit oil drilling in those parts of the region not included in the park. This ensures that oil drilling cannot occur anywhere within the Great Barrier Reef region. We are also working to introduce legislation to control off-shore developments in any zoned section of the marine park and have commenced major funding into research on the crown of thorns starfish. It has been one of the complaints of people who have been to the Barrier Reef, particularly those from overseas, that because of weather conditions they have often not been able to get out to the reef itself. The provision of off-shore developments on the reef will make it easier for people to visit it and spend time there. For those who cannot make it because of weather conditions or because of the cost, the Commonwealth and the State Government are developing the Great Barrier Reef wonderland complex on the mainland at Townsville as a bicentennial project. I pay tribute to the work of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who has been so assiduous in promoting this project. There can be few greater conservation achievements than the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Australia has five areas on the world heritage list. They are: Lord Howe Island, the Willandra Lakes Region, Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Kakadu National Park. The latter was established by the Fraser Government but in February 1984 the Hawke Government declared stage II which more than doubled the size of the park. The Government intends to enlarge the park even further. During the past 2 1/2 years there has been a considerable upgrading of the facilities in Kakadu to the point where it is now one of the finest parks in the world. More is still to be done but during the last three Budgets a total of $15m has been spent, with much more upgrading planned for the future. For many years after the great battle to save Fraser Island a much quieter but no less intense battle was fought to stop sand mining on Moreton Island. In February 1984 the Government was able to announce that there would be no mining on Moreton Island. It is not my intention to read out all the environment achievements of the Government. They are all in the report. However, I would like to mention briefly a few more to illustrate the depth and breadth of what has been done during a relatively short period in government. One of the truly great pieces of environment legislation introduced by the Whitlam Government was the Australian Heritage Commission Act which established the body to oversee the Register of the National Estate and to provide funding and guidance for its protection and preservation. Ten years on, we are reviewing this legislation through a process of community participation. The aim of the review is to examine the scope of the Commonwealth's role in the conservation of the National Estate. A few days ago, as part of this review, a major seminar was held in Canberra to enable the wide variety of interests concerned about the National Estate to discuss some of the problems that have arisen with the processes of nomination and listing in recent years. I opened that seminar but had to leave to fly to Adelaide to attend the historic ministerial meeting on the Murray-Darling basin. The initiatives which flow from that meeting of four Labor governments have provided a framework for the conservation and development of this major region. During our time in office we have doubled funding to the Australian Heritage Commission enabling it to increase its information and research activities. More remains to be done. I am aware that there is still a need for increased staff and facilities to catch up with much of the backlog of work that accumulated during the Fraser Government's period in office. Although the real level of expenditure through the National Estate grants program has been maintained by this Government it is still below the level achieved in the 1975-76 Budget, if one excludes the very considerable funding provided through the community employment program. The report mentions a figure of $12m provided for heritage projects throughout Australia in 1983-84 under the CEP. However, more recent figures provided to me would put that figure at over $15m. Another innovation introduced by this Government to protect areas of national heritage significance was the provision of income tax concessions to those who make donations of property of national heritage significance to the National Trust. Another Whitlam Government initiative was the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 that introduced into Australia the concept of environmental impact statements and public inquiries into matters of significant national importance. The latter led to the inquiries into Fraser Island and uranium mining. The Government has been reviewing this legislation to improve the effectiveness of the Act and to increase public participation in the assessment of projects being examined under its administrative procedures. I expect to be able to make a statement soon about the introduction of legislation to give effect to the Government's review. In the area of planning and management we have tabled and later endorsed the national conservation strategy. The plan for a strategy was initiated by the Fraser Government and brought to fruition under the excellent guidance of Sir Rupert Myers. To quote the report of the interim consultative committee, the endorsement implies agreement with the objectives and strategic principles of the national conservation strategy and a willingness, in principle, to implement the priority national actions, in co-operation with development and conservation interests, taking into account Australia's federal, constitutional, legislative and administrative framework, and the general economic climate. A test of the community's desire to protect and conserve our environment will be determined by our willingness to implement the national conservations strategy and to not just pay lip service to its goals and objectives. There can be few more important areas for action than in the area of environmental pollution and contamination. Although much of the responsibility for this problem lies with the States and Territory governments the Commonwealth is playing a leading role in cleaning up the mess. We have ratified the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter-commonly known as the London Dumping Convention-and have proclaimed the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 which regulates the dumping and incineration of wastes at sea. We have also announced the intention to introduce a national notification and assessment scheme for chemicals and completed the first stage of compilation of an Australian inventory of existing chemicals. Also an Environment Contaminants Division has been established within my Department. Last Tuesday, I was in Melbourne to open a three-day national conference-organised by my Department, together with the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works-entitled National Strategies for Managing Hazardous Waste. I pay particular tribute today to the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), who is in the chamber, and who was unfortunately unable to attend that conference, at which he was to chair a meeting. He is, of course, the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. He has done a wonderful job. I am sorry that he was not able to honour us with his presence at that meeting. He was kept in by the Whip. It has been my view-and I answered this point today in replying to a question by the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks)-that for too long the community has pretended, ostrich-like, that if nothing were done about the increasing accumulation of hazardous waste it would somehow go away. Hazardous waste is one of those intractable problems on which the whole community must work together to resolve. Burning waste at sea, or in the cities where the waste is mostly located, transportation overseas or to outback areas in Australia, or simply doing nothing and allowing it to stockpile, all have their good and bad points. There is no perfect solution. From a range of alternatives one must be chosen. There is no point in people criticising each alternative separately and saying how bad that may be. We must all play a part in finding the best of a not very attractive range of alternatives. One of the most important initiatives introduced by the Whitlam Government was the funding of voluntary conservation groups. The view taken by the then Minister for the Environment, Dr Moss Cass, was that groups who were monitoring the environment on a voluntary basis and acting as a watchdog for the whole community were incapable of competing with the vast resources available to the Government and the private sector. If they were to be able to do a valuable job effectively, the community through its government should provide them with some resources. It was argued that a democracy only works efficiently if competing interests have some level of equality in their access to resources. I think my very good friend Ralph Nader played a very important role in getting this message over to the community. It was with great pride that I was able to help to bring him here on three separate occasions. It was obvious that there was no way that full equality could ever be achieved between, say, a large multinational enterprise or a government and a voluntary conservation group, but some of the imbalance could be redressed. When the Whitlam Government went out of office it had appropriated $450,000 for the groups for 1975-76. The Fraser Government reduced that to $390,000 and by the time it left office 7 1/2 years later it had been further reduced to $350,000 annually. The result was to reduce dramatically the value in real terms. When in opposition the Labor Party made a commitment to increase the level of funding to that which prevailed in the 1975-76 Budget. This year the voluntary conservation groups will get $945,000, an increase in only three years of about 270 per cent, which confirms our commitment. The grants were announced last weekend. There has been a quite significant change in the make-up of the voluntary conservation groups during the past decade. Many new groups have emerged both at a national and regional level and the activities and work load of groups vary enormously. Other factors that need to be taken into account are the contribution of State governments and the distance factor. By the latter I refer to the type of problems faced by conservation groups in, say, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. To get to a conference held in the eastern States or to travel to the Kimberlys obviously is a severe strain on the resources of those bodies. I have taken this into account by giving those groups significant increases over the past three years. Mr Ronald Edwards —And they respect this. Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for Stirling. He has been so co-operative in this matter. Regrettably the conservative State governments now, and in the past, have provided virtually no funds at all for voluntary conservation groups. This is hardly surprising in view of their general antagonism to these bodies and their ideals. But this is not a partisan matter. All States should do more. Let me make it perfectly clear that we expect all State governments to meet their proper share of support for the voluntary conservation movement. However, a 270 per cent increase by the Commonwealth in three years is in my view not a bad effort. There have been many other achievements by the Hawke Government in the short space of 2 1/2 years, including establishing a National Kangaroo Monitoring Unit in the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and a Kangaroo Advisory Committee. The Committee represents a broad range of community groups including scientists, conservationists, farmers, governments and industry, and advises me on management, export, research and public information. We have also provided through the Commonwealth employment program about $30m in support of the national tree program, and we have rescinded the provision of taxation incentives for land clearing. Ours is a record of which any government can be proud and, as I said before, one that compares more than favourably with the record of any of its predecessors. However, it is not our intention to rest on our laurels, because much more needs to be done. Mr Connolly —Yes. Mr COHEN —I do not deny it. The job will never be completed. The one, in fact virtually the only, criticism of this Government's environment and conservation record is the perceived failure to stop the building of the road through the Greater Daintree Forest from Cape Tribulation to Bloomfield. In a number of speeches, the most recent being my address to the National Environment Law Symposium in Hobart on 8 November 1985, I detailed fully the reasons why we did not invoke the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. The main reason was very simple. On legal advice from the Attorney-General it would not have worked. A long drawn out court case with the Queensland Government would have saved not one tree in the rainforest and would have made it impossible for the two governments to work together towards protecting, not just the area where the road has been built, but the hundreds of thousands of hectares of tropical rainforest still yet untouched. I am aware that sections of the media and some environmentalists love the `stop the road' or `stop the dam' type of confrontation, but knowledgeable scientists have continued to point out that the rainforest through which that road runs, important as it is, is by no means the most important scientifically or environmentally. What is important is that a proper plan of management for the whole of the remaining wet tropical rainforests must be worked out with the Queensland Government and a plan implemented that will ensure Queensland's future timber needs, guarantee employment for those who presently work in the timber industry, and encourage people in the region to see the rainforests as a tourist attraction on a par with the Great Barrier Reef and requiring similar protection and conservation. May I say that I am encouraged by a discernible shift in opinion in recent weeks by articles written by John Larkin and Greg Borschman in the Age and by the excellent editorial in the Canberra Times on 12 November 1985. Those two papers have been my most severe critics so it has been heartwarming to find that both have now recognised that maybe, just maybe, there is something in the non-confrontationist approach. From day one of the Hawke Government I have held the view that the protection of Australia's forests will be the major environmental issue of the 1980s, but that it can be achieved only by co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth. With this in mind I convened a seminar in Cairns in February last year which led to a working group consisting of all the interested parties-government, adacemics, the timber industry, the unions and conservationists. The working group provided me with an excellent report which is shortly to be considered by Cabinet. Developing a national rainforest policy and implementing it in consultation with the States will therefore be a major priority for the Government as it continues to tackle the task of conserving our natural resources. The report `Objectives, Achievements and Priorities' sets out in some detail what we have done, where we are going and how we hope to get there. It places some stress on the need to incorporate environmental considerations in government decision making, the importance of environmental education for the community and the need to ensure active and informed public participation in the protection and use of our environment. The second report, `The State of the Environment in Australia 1985', has been prepared to provide a picture of the Australian environment as it presently exists, to assess some of the changes that have taken place since European settlement, and to identify trends, resource conflicts and address major emerging issues. It outlines briefly the distribution and current use of environmental resources, considers pressures from human activities and problems which arise from them, and lists major events affecting the condition of our natural resources. It lists, in the annex of the report, some of the major environmental events which have taken place in Australia in the last 20 years. I seek leave to have the annex incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr COHEN —The report establishes a bench-mark from which future environmental changes can be reported and indicates the environmental conditions that might be expected without further improvement in planning and management. It provides an information base to assist in the development of policies to deal with current and emerging environmental problems. Before summarising the main findings of the report I would like to note that the volume being tabled today will be supplemented by an illustrated version with many colour photographs depicting the uniqueness and fragility of the Australian environment and the effects and severity of pollution and resource mismanagement. The illustrated version and a source book containing detailed statistical data and discussion of management issues are expected to be available in February 1986. The report indicates the growth of public interest in the environment since the 1960s and the responses of governments. Given our constitutional basis, it draws attention to the importance of Commonwealth-State co-operation and the mechanisms which have been developed for this purpose. The report responds to the 1981 report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and to the calls from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations environment program for all countries to report annually on the state of their environment. It considers the main sectors of the environment-land, inland waters, air, forests and woodlands, flora and fauna, protected areas and the National Estate, and the coastal zone. Each sector contains information on one or two selected major issues. The information provided in the report is sobering. Land degradation is widespread and increasing. Many river systems, wetlands and underground water resources are severely degraded. Air pollution in most capital and major industrial cities periodically exceeds the goals recommended by the World Health Organisation and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Only about one-third of Australia's tree cover at the time of European settlement remains. Significant sections of coastal lands have been extensively modified by inadequately controlled development. Clearly the improvement in this situation is not something which can be done by governments alone. All sections of the community must be involved. The report concludes that despite major achievements during the last 15 years, much remains to be done to maintain and enhance environmental quality in Australia, while allowing development to continue to provide for the needs of society. Greater initiative, commitment and co-operation between the community and all levels of government to environmental matters are needed. It is also necessary for greater emphasis to be given to the development of anticipatory policies designed to prevent future problems, rather than application of merely curative policies. The Government endorses that view. By tabling today not only the report on the state of our environment but also the Government's statement of its objectives, achievement and priorities in environment and conservation, I place on record this Government's proud commitment and its intentions for the future environmental protection of Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I point out to the Minister that the annex he asked leave to incorporate in Hansard is outside Mr Speaker's guidelines for incorporation. They specifically state that incorporated material must be something that cannot be read into Hansard, such as tables. If the Minister would like me to show the annex to Mr Speaker during the suspension of the sitting for dinner I could do so but it is outside his guidelines. Mr Cohen —Are you saying that it is too long? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. Under Mr Speaker's guidelines, if material such as charts or tables cannot be read into Hansard it may be incorporated. Mr Cohen —This cannot be incorporated? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It cannot be incorporated under Mr Speaker's guidelines. Mr Cohen —Because it can be read? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It could be read into Hansard, yes. Mr Cohen —It was a matter of saving time. If I had read the annex it would have taken ages. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand the Minister's predicament. Other Ministers and members have found themselves in the same position. Previous Speakers have been fairly strict about the matter. Mr Cohen —The reason I wanted the annex incorporated in Hansard was to show the terrific changes that have occurred over the last 20 years and to pay tribute to our predecessors for some of their achievements. Mr Connolly —Very gracious. Mr Cohen —I thank the shadow Minister. I am known to be a very gracious person. Nothing can be done about it now, Madam Chair. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The guidelines have been in force for quite some time and I am unable to alter them. Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave- Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was extolling the virtues of the Government's program in the area of environmental management over the last three years. Listening to him rather reminded me of the medieval town-crier who went from street to street ringing his bell in the desperate hope that people would listen. But the difference between the Minister and the town-crier no doubt rests on the fact that if the town-crier did not tell the full truth he was likely to cop a pile of rubbish dropped on him by some irate hausfrau above. Mr Barry Jones —Possibly worse. Mr CONNOLLY —Or possibly worse, as the Minister so rightly points out. But, of course, we live in more pleasant times. The Minister, because he has the privilege of the House and because he is the Minister, has the ability to gild the lily as he thinks fit. I think it is worth pointing out that the Opposition supports, without reservation, the concept of an annual environmental report which is to be tabled in the House, provided that that report contains the expressed views of the respective State governments which, as the Minister rightly pointed out on a number of occasions, have at least a joint responsibility with the Commonwealth to ensure that the environment and the conservation of Australia's natural resources will be maintained at an adequate standard to be passed on to succeeding generations. However, this Government has a tendency, of which we are well aware, when it suits its so-called principles, to exert the primacy of Federal legislation, as it did in the Tasmanian dam situation, while at the same time it is able to demonstrate, as with the Queensland rainforest situation, a peculiar difference of opinion. In all fairness, the Opposition parties have been totally consistent on this point. We have always believed that land management is a State responsibility primarily and that the Commonwealth is there to support the national objectives by the provision of adequate support, financial assistance and so forth, but that the primary decision-making rests with the State. Therefore, it was not without expectation on my part that the Minister started with great praise of the fact that his Government, soon after its election, introduced the World Heritage (Properties Conservation) Act 1983, which ultimately led to preventing the construction of the Gordon below Franklin Dam in South West Tasmania. Before this country has the opportunity to forget those very difficult days of early 1983, I remind the House that we had a very divided nation on this issue. It was divided because people on both sides believed that they were right. In that atmosphere the Australian Labor Party, then in Federal opposition, sought the opportunity to make hay in a very difficult environmental situation politically. It did that with some success. There is no doubt in my mind that perhaps 2 or 3 per cent of the Australian electorate was influenced in a primary sense by the events which were taking place in Tasmania. But in politics, as in life generally, one cannot escape having to face realities and principles. The Opposition parties, whilst we lost that election, believe that much could have been achieved in that environment had it been possible to act earlier and to get some form of agreement between the Commonwealth and the State. But, as I have said, because of the fundamental divisions of opinion, particularly in Tasmania but throughout the Commonwealth, we really reached the situation of the issue becoming a major plank of the policies of the then Opposition which was successful in that regard. But much of the support that the then Opposition won on that particular case has quite clearly dissipated over the years. I was interested to note an address by the Minister-in Melbourne, I think it was-a week or so ago, in which he made a statement to the effect that the politics of the environmental movement should not be overstated, and that its members do not really have the political clout that some of them would like to have. Be that as it may, as I said, they have also been living on the history of 1983 and perhaps to an extent which is not totally justified. But the Minister was right in observing in relation to this annual report that there is no question that the level of interest in environmental issues around Australia in the population at large is greater today than it has probably ever been, certainly in my lifetime. This is a good thing, provided, again, that it is not taken to extremes and that people are not tending to put emotion ahead of reality, forgetting the principle that I mentioned earlier-that in life one has to not only to live with the principles but also try to live with the results of one's decisions. After all, the economy has to proceed, but it has to be developed in the context of the Australian conservation strategy to ensure that we have the ability to conserve our environment while, at the same time, being able to pass it on to others and to make a living for present and succeeding Australian generations. The second report which was tabled by the Minister is somewhat more significant politically, perhaps, than the first. It is rather interestingly titled `Objectives, Achievements and Priorities in Environment, Conservation and Heritage.' It is almost the sort of document that one would expect to see a government come out with about a month before an election. Here we are, late in November, and thank heavens we are not likely to be having one in December again-not this year, anyway; perhaps next year. But it is essentially a political document. I just wonder how many trees were cut down under the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment-I see that he suggests it was one; I think that it would be a lot more than that-to pay for this particular document, which, as I said, will no doubt find its way into schools and institutions around Australia. But it is nothing more than a paean of the alleged virtues of the Hawke Government in the environmental conservation area. The Minister, in his statement, tended to ignore a lot of the realities and-as is his right in these situations-to gild the lily somewhat. He tended to emphasise, for example, that it was the Whitlam Government which apparently set the foundations of modern environmental concern in Australia. I would have to say that I would contest that. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there were very great achievements in the Fraser years. There are too many people in this country who find it cheap political mileage to score off someone who is no longer able to defend himself, or his record in public and certainly not in this place. As far as the environmental record is concerned, I will certainly defend that of the Fraser Government, because it was a record second to none. I think that I should take this opportunity to emphasise it for what it was. It was the Fraser Government which brought in the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act to protect both our own wildlife as well as international wildlife. It also brought in the Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act. Neither of those Acts was proclaimed at that stage. That was left to the succeeding Hawke Government. Nevertheless, they were initiated and passed by this Parliament during that period. In world heritage context, all five world heritage listings were in fact those of the Fraser Government, including that of South West Tasmania-something which people tend to ignore. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, it is true, was initiated by the Whitlam Government in 1975, but the difficult negotiations were carried through during the period of the Fraser Government through his own personal involvement as well as that of his Ministers. Leading out of that, most of the zoning plan work was commenced-although, as the Minister quite rightly points out, it was carried through to ultimate fruition during his period of administration. But when one reads the Minister's statement, there is a tendency to assume that, somehow or other, in 1975 the Whitlam Government passed a whole raft of legislation of an environmental nature and then there was more or less a period of non-activity for nearly eight years before the Hawke Government came into place. I simply must put on record that that is not correct. In addition to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, to which I have just referred, the Fraser Government also supported the world conservation strategy. It is worth pointing out that it was from the world conservation strategy that the Australian conservation strategy was initiated. Again, all the basic fundamental work was done during that period, although the Australian conservation strategy conference, which was initiated by the current Government some two years ago, led to the document in its present form. Again, it is worth pointing out that it was the coalition parties two years ago that publicly announced our support for the Australian conservation strategy, a long time before the Labor Government did so. Our policy at the last Federal election was based primarily on that report. Those were the objectives to which all our policy initiatives were directed. I take great pride in that fact because that strategy marked the first time in Australia's modern history that we have been able to get a disparate group of people from all sectors of the community-mining, primary industry, agriculture and so forth-to agree with the environmental movement on the basic principles as to how Australia should be developed in the future and its resources protected for future generations. All who were involved in that conference, especially the chairman, Professor Myers, have, as the Minister rightly pointed out, every reason to be thoroughly satisfied with what they have done. I trust that the present Government and future governments will make sure that their environment and conservation strategies are in line with those objectives. In addition, the Fraser Government prevented sandmining on Fraser Island, and I understand the Liberal Party in Queensland also supports the proposition that there should not be sandmining on Moreton Island. The Fraser Government also introduced the Whale Protection Act 1980 which was a trail-blazing piece of legislation for Australia. My final point in terms of the Fraser record, which by no means is meant to be a demonstration of the totality of that effort, is that the Fraser Government also established the national tree program. I would like to say something about that because I think that the Government's current policy in terms of its refusal to provide tax incentives for the funding of forestry is a contradiction of what that Government claims to be all about. It is also worth pointing out that the Minister in his statement has tended to emphasise the glories of environmental policies conducted by State Labor governments. The Minister is a citizen of New South Wales, as I am; but, unlike him, I live in Sydney. It is a matter of great concern to me and to millions of other Australians, especially those living in Sydney, to see the pollution of New South Wales beaches. The Wran Government has been in place for some 10 years and its environmental policies obviously have been directed at priorities elsewhere, but it is quite clear that that Government has been totally lacking in any capacity to control what is a growing social problem around Sydney. There is virtually not a beach one can safely take one's children to at a weekend without the prospect of swimming with all sorts of unwelcome guests on the water as well. These elements are worth noting. Mr Cohen —That's where you get your tan from. Mr CONNOLLY —I do not think my tan is quite as good as the Minister's. As the Minister emphasised last week, he is particularly concerned about a national strategy for pollution control and so on. It is worth noting that the Western Australian Government is currently looking at a feasibility study for the construction of an incinerator-type facility in the Kalgoorlie region. I think that the central desert area of Australia would be ideal. I would prefer to see something in the area of Broken Hill, especially because that is closer to the central industrial areas of Australia than Western Australia. Nevertheless, these are issues to be considered because we cannot depend indefinitely on using the Vulcanus, which is the European ship that comes out here most infrequently, to burn off Australian chemical effluents and so forth. The real problem is that small chemical companies tend not to be able to afford such facilities and thus we have to look elsewhere. Mr Cohen —And it cannot burn off solids; Mr CONNOLLY —It cannot burn off solids; that is a good point. I see no reference in the Minister's statement or in `The State of the Environment in Australia 1985' report to the devastation of bushfires but I trust it is there somewhere. As the Minister is aware, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation conducted a far-reaching and, as I understand it, the first report ever tabled in this Parliament by a committee of the Parliament into what I believe to be a serious environmental and conservation problem. Again, there is no word of this matter in the Minister's statement. I am concerned because again it demonstrates the tendency for Australians to imagine that, somehow or other, bushfires happen in January, February and March and can be ignored for the remaining nine months of the year. We can do this at our peril. We have seen in recent years, especially from the massive human and property losses in the Ash Wednesday fires a few years ago, that this country is very prone to bush fires. The Government must take a closer interest in these matters, especially in the regions around the Australian Capital Territory. In terms of conservation programs generally, the Minister emphasised a need for closer community involvement. Of course, the Opposition totally supports that point. But, again, if we want to involve a community, and sections of the community which are vitally concerned with environmental protection while at the same time being able to make a living from the environment-such as farmers, for example-clearly, effective tree planting schemes, water conservation, soil conservation and so forth are matters of very great importance. In this area the Government's record again leaves much to be desired. We have heard in recent days statements about four governments reaching an historic agreement in terms of the Murray-Darling river system, which represents possibly Australia's major environmental problem and is certainly most relevant to the people of South Australia, who have the often odious pleasure-if it is that-of drinking the water from the river system. It has two major problems. There is turbidity on the one hand, which generates essentially in the upper reaches of the Darling River, and salinity, on the other hand, which tends to come from the Murray. It is not insignificant that this meeting, which has been heralded by the Minister as being so significant, held only last week, I think on 16 November, was obviously timed to meet the election requirements of the South Australian Government. Again, a significant point is this: All the governments represented at that conference were Labor governments. The point of which I think the Minister needs to take particular note is that tributaries of the Darling River happen to start in central Queensland and southern Queensland. Apparently, nobody invited the Queensland Government to come to that conference. Mr Cohen —It was invited. Mr CONNOLLY —I am delighted to hear that because, quite clearly, in the longer term there will be a need to involve five governments, not four, in the future management of that area. There is a tendency, as demonstrated by this Government, to try to blame the Queensland Government for all sorts of things, whether it be lack of co-operation in the construction of adequate facilities on the Barrier Reef or the problems of the rainforests in north Queensland and so forth. People often fail to understand the reality that Queensland also has its own problems and its own priorities and that these issues have to be discussed at great length on both sides to get an adequate answer. I am sure that the Queensland Government, if it were approached in the right way, would be prepared to consider the realities of the River Murray situation. I think it is also worth noting that the Government announced last week that in its generosity it is going to put forward another $1m in 1986-87. That announcement was made by Senator Evans. It should be put on record that that announcement was effectively already made, because the Australian Water Research Advisory Council had made that recommendation. Here we are effectively having a Minister, again for purely short term political reasons in terms of the South Australian election, re-announcing the most generous gesture of providing $1m for the upgrading and co-ordination program for water and water related research for the Murray- Darling basin. I hasten to add that the Government will not get very far with $1m when we consider that size of the problem. The final report on the national conservation strategy for Australia emphasised the problems of the river. It was stated, for example, that individual projects which should be considered include tree establishment programs along key sections of the river banks for soil erosion control, revegetation of selected ground water recharge sites, rehabilitation of salt affected areas, reduction of sewage flows into the rivers, restoration of vegetation along river banks, tree establishment irrigation areas, tree conservation establishment for wildlife habitat and enhancement of river red gum forests on river banks. Those recommendations are very similar indeed to those which were developed by the Opposition's joint committee, which I set up two years ago with the full co-operation of both the National and Liberal parties in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and, of course, this Parliament. We believed then, as we still do now, that the River Murray-Darling basin is the most important agricultural region in Australia. Although it occupies only one-seventh of the continent, it contains approximately one-quarter of the nation's cattle herd, one-half of the crop land and three-quarters of the irrigated areas. Its natural resources, directly and indirectly, support some two million people and contribute primary and secondary production estimated to be excess of $10,000m per year. It is in that context that the committee recommended the formation of the River Murray Council of Ministers, and I am pleased to see that the Government has accepted that recommendation, albeit coming from a joint Opposition committee. Clearly, until we can get political agreement on these issues we will not be able to reach a situation where the experts will feel that they have either the financial or the political support that they obviously need. The River Murray Council of Ministers, comprises representatives from all signatories to the River Murray Agreement. As I have said, I hope that I will see the day when Queensland will also be such a signatory. We also recommended that the River Murray Commission draft a management plan with the co-operation of State and local authorities; that the implementation of an agreed management plan be co-ordinated by the River Murray Commission over 25 years in five-year stages; that the River Murray Commission be consulted on all programs which affect the region; and that there be a co-ordinated soil conservation program over 25 years to be developed to meet identified reclamation, waterlogging and salinity problems found in the dry and irrigated areas of the basin. We recommended direct government financial assistance to individual farmers to encourage improved management efficiency while considering the need to construct additional water storages, the diverting of saline water from the valley and the upgrading of the Menindee Lakes storage system. We recommended the protection of the ecological welfare of the River Murray by ensuring adequate water is provided to maintain the unique red gum forests, native fisheries, ibis and other bird rookeries. We recommended the integration of a major tree planting and regeneration program into any desalination and soil conservation programs and the encouragement of local governments and farmers to plant appropriate species. We recommended the construction of off-river municipal sewage disposal and treatment plants to minimise the damaging effects of nutrient flow into the river. Finally, we recommended that the River Murray Commission should conduct an extensive public awarness campaign at the national level with the assistance of State authorities, community groups, schools and organisations such as the River Murray League. All these issues are important because over a million people depend on that river. It is of enormous ecological importance to southern Australia in particular, and the Government, despite all the talk and all the Press releases over the last three years, has not demonstrated either the ability to get its act together in this area or the willingness to put adequate funding into that program. I wish to relate to another issue raised by the Minister in his statement, that is, the question of Kakadu. Again, the Kakadu National Park was initiated by the Fraser Government but, in November 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced a $36m accelerated expenditure over the next six years. That program was brought in at a time when it was necessary to have a political smokescreen because of the intense divisions which were clearly evident publicly within the Australian Labor Party on the question of uranium mining. But I think it is significant that, since 1983, there has been virtual silence on what is happening in Kakadu. The Minister told us today: `Do not worry. Everything is all right. Money is being spent'. I was in the park last June and I have to say that the road situation leaves much to be desired. I was appalled at the level of maintenance and the level of protection being given in certain areas of the park. People who apparently have had commercial access to certain waterways and so forth have, I am led to believe, on the basis of advice given to me by the person taking me around, put nothing back into the park. There is no financial requirement for them to make a commitment to the park, yet the Australian taxpayer is expected to carry virtually the entire load. The clear evidence is therefore this: We need to build up a major tourist access to Kakadu, which is of tremendous importance in terms of world environmental interest as well as economic interest to the Northern Territory. The simple fact of the matter is that at this stage there is only one motel in the entire national park where people can stay. Clearly, therefore, a lot more needs to be done in that area. I get a little tired of hearing the Minister and other people in the Government continually waxing eloquent about the beauties of Kakadu when the simple reality is that the $36m promised in November 1983 has not been forthcoming. I doubt that it will be because it was initiated at the time as nothing more than a smokescreen for this Government. I refer also to another issue which is still very much in the pot-the Daintree forest. In August 1984 there was a considerable amount of concern within the environment movement in relation to north Queensland and the construction of roads through the forest and so forth. I put forward to the Government in a Press release on 5 August 1984 a number of proposals based on the principle that the Federal Government, in discussions with the Queensland Government, should develop firstly a long term regional plan for the Daintree area, secondly, improve management of the Daintree National Park, and thirdly, rationalise park boundaries. These proposals would not only protect the remaining rainforest but also would assist in the development of a tourist industry based on the Daintree National Park, which is on the doorstep of the Great Barrier Reef and within easy access of the Cairns international airport and the coastal island resorts further south. Since then the sugar cane industry has gone into serious economic decline and clearly the issue is even more important today than it was then. North Queensland obviously needs all the support it can get from the Commonwealth Government to enable the development of a sophisticated tourist industry based on the conservation of as much as possible of its very rare forest areas. The Minister has tended over the years-certainly since August of last year-to try to side- step this issue. As I said at the beginning of my address, he was quite happy to use Commonwealth powers in relation to Tasmania because there was an election in the offing but he is not prepared even to countenance such a situation now. Nor should he. However, it is inconsistent with the Government's policy-not ours-that he is not prepared to countenance such a situation because he is scared of the Queensland Government. Clearly he was not scared of the Tasmanian Government. When one is in opposition there are occasions when one tends to have much more power of the spoken word than perhaps one is prepared to demonstrate in one's mental approach to these issues. There is a lot yet to be done in terms of the environment. The Minister has emphasised that point and I certainly second his views. While we want to see a continuation of programs which are effective, I am concerned about the public disagreements which we have had in this House and elsewhere in regard to the Tasmanian woodchip industry. As an example we have the comments made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the one hand and my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment on the other and the fact that there have been differences of opinion and divisions within the Caucus committee structure. On this issue at least the Government and the Opposition are as one: The development of those forests must be carried out in a manner consistent with long term environmental protection while ensuring the retention of the significant number of jobs in the timber industry. I think that to one extent or another about one third of the entire economy of Tasmania is related to that industry. These are obviously very important issues. I would hope that if in future years there is a need to renegotiate border changes in terms of the South West National Park and the World Heritage area in particular, these matters can be discussed in a satisfactory manner in the context of the machinery which has been established with the agreement of both the Tasmanian and the Commonwealth governments. Finally, I want to refer to the national tree program. Much has been said about this program, and I have to say in all honesty that I think that a great gap has been left between words and actions. The fact of the matter is that Australia remains to this day a country which is very sparsely covered with growth. We have tended over succeeding generations to cut down without any real control over the future problems we create in terms of soil erosion, water pollution and conservation matters generally. The activities of the Government in relation to the national tree program are not adequate. The decision which this Government took, for example, to make farmers claim tax deductibility on conservation matters over five years instead of over one year, which was the case before, is quite clearly an act which will destroy even greater areas of Australia because many farmers, especially as a result of drought, are at the margin in financial terms. They are now being put in a position in which they will have neither the financial resources nor the physical resources to carry out an appropriate tree program as they should. It was for that reason that the coalition parties at the last election emphasised the need to have a rural tree regeneration program on a national basis and emphasised that it should be integrated with the national soil and water conservation programs. We offered to assist private land holders to maintain native tree cover, especially in areas which had been excessively cleared or which suffered from soil erosion. We believe that there is a need to develop with the States a rural extension program to inform rural communities on the advantages of increasing tree and regeneration cover. The Minister also emphasised that $30m was being applied to this area. He knows, as I know, that that is not true. What he is talking about is that, in terms of an unemployment program, that much money is being provided as wages and various supports. How many trees will be grown and where they will be grown are questions which I am particularly interested in. I think we have some time to wait before we will see an adequate result to that program. The Opposition believes that there is a definite need for an environment corps to be established, so that young people who suffer the very real problems of long term unemployment can be given the opportunity of training and being involved in a major outdoor activity which will be of great significance to this generation and future generations of Australians. It is by linking the available human resources with the need to develop a wider appreciation of humanity's role in the total development and protection of nature that we will be able to achieve a lasting environment for future generations of Australians. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! I understand it is the wish of the House to debate order of the day No. 3, the Petroleum Revenue Bill, concurrently with order of the day No. 4, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.32) —The Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985 and cognate Bill will enable the Government to forgo the crude oil levy excise where a State has agreed to apply a resource rental royalty to crude oil production and where that State has made appropriate revenue sharing arrangements with the Commonwealth. These Bills are aimed to protect the revenue raising ability of the Commonwealth where States exercise discretionary powers which affect royalty collections. The Petroleum Revenue Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) also will enable the Commonwealth to meet its end of the new tax and revenue sharing bargain. To these ends the Opposition will not oppose the Bills. However, the Opposition is concerned about the spread of the new taxation measures and that the tax take will increase over time-the inevitable consequence of this Labor Government's desire to tax more and more. The coalition has opposed the resource rent tax as an additional or secondary tax impost. However, while the resources rent royalty is similar to the RRT and while it is a new tax, it is not an additional tax, as it will replace the current excise tariff. A profits based tax is preferable at any time to a production based, ad valorem tax. In the case of Barrow Island the tax should provide the investment incentive for marginal production for a project which may otherwise become uneconomic. It must be remembered that this legislation is only half the story. Because the Commonwealth does not have the constitutional power to impose such taxes on shore, this legislation will provide the framework for State legislation to be enacted. Under the Petroleum Revenue Bill and the appropriate State legislation the State stands to benefit immensely by taking a larger slice of the tax in revenue, but the lower overall tax rate may also encourage further secondary development of reserves which benefit all parties. The Commonwealth will take a reduction in revenue in the short term as a result of the lower average tax rate and the compensation payment of $20.3m it will pay to the Western Australian Government in lieu of the royalty revenue which it would have received if it had put its own royalties in place. In the case of Barrow Island, the Western Australian Government will do very well out of the new arrangements. It will pick up a bigger slice of the revenue from crude oil production this year. It will receive a payment of $20.3m in compensation and for prolonging the life of its older fields. It is no wonder the deal looks attractive to Premier Burke, who faces an election next March. One can only view with cynicism perhaps the introduction of the Bills now and those elections next year. Western Australia might do very nicely, but how will this legislation affect the producers in other States in Australia, in view of the fact that the RRR will only assist continued production from existing wells under current oil recovery techniques for secondary and tertiary production? Also, as production costs increase, because of the inflation rate in this country and the state of our depressed currency, government revenue will decline. Will the Government then seek to develop another tax to bolster its declining fortunes from oil production? The situation in this country at present is that demand outstrips supply by some 24 per cent. The situation will worsen as our known fields are depleted. I believe that the Government should be looking at incentives to exploration and development of new fields as our major old fields, such as the Bass Strait, become depleted. The Australian Petroleum Exploration Association supports this legislation on the basis that it will assist production but, like the Opposition, it is worried that the Commonwealth Government is establishing new tax imposts on oil exploration and development, particularly off shore. Recently, this House dealt with the cash bonus bidding system and the proposed Commonwealth resource rental tax. All of this has occurred at a time when the Government should be reducing the tax burden to encourage initiative, development and production. In the long term, will this legislation help our dwindling oil production? Going on figures issued by the Resources and Energy ministry, our energy exports are expected to rise by 150 per cent in the next decade, but the major contributor to that increase will be uranium production, which is expected to treble in the next 10 years to approximately 10,000 tonnes in 1994. Coal is predicted to overtake crude oil as Australia's principal energy source, accounting for 43 per cent of total energy demand by the same year of 1994. The question must be asked: What is this Government doing for the uranium and coal industries? The Hawke Government's policies on uranium are crippling what could be a billion dollar earning for this country. The potential for uranium is immense. Ranger mine production alone is sufficient to provide power for all of Australia's needs. Recently, we saw another cave-in by the Government to the unions with the Government decision not to withdraw coal export controls. This Government is so keen to deregulate the sugar industry, but is reluctant to make any deregulation decisions that might enable the reduction of the cost structure of the coal industry and enable coal producers to compete effectively in world markets. It appears that the Government does not fully appreciate the contribution that the mining industries make to Australia's balance of payments. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the value of exports over mining in 1984-that is, the total of our exports and the percentage of mining in that total. While I understand it may be difficult to reproduce the table, I would like graph 1 to be incorporated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I have just seen the piece of paper which the honourable member has before him. It seems unlikely that the graph will be able to be incorporated. If leave is granted for the incorporation of the remainder of the table in accordance with Mr Speaker's ruling, it may be incorporated. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 1 VALUE OF EXPORTS 1984 $m Alumina... 1,287 Aluminium (ingot)... 519 Coal (black)... 3,908 Copper... 225 Gold... 418 Ilmenite cons.... 41 Irone ore and pellets... 1,562 Iron, ingot, and alloys... 81 LPG... 432 Lead... 348 Nickel... 385 Oil crude... 514 Rutile cons.... 57 Salt, bulk... 77 Tin... 87 Tungsten cons.... 19 Uranium and Thorium... 312 Zinc... 472 Zircon cons.... 55 Other minerals... 450 Mining... 11,249 Total Merchandise... 26,094 Mining as a Percentage of Total... 43.1 (Figures from the Australian Mining Industry Council) Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. The table which I have incorporated sets out the value of Australia's exports of mineral and primary mineral products, which include oil. The total value of exports in 1984 was almost $11.3 billion, representing 43.1 per cent of Australia's total merchandise exports of $26.1 billion. Some 20 years ago, the value of mineral exports, as indicated by the graph to which I have referred, calculated on an equivalent basis, amounted to 10 per cent of total exports. Thus mining growth, which went from 10 per cent of total exports in 1964 to 43 per cent in 1984, has made a vast contribution to Australia's living standards. I think that should be appreciated by all those people who are not really interested in the mining industry. Looking ahead to the next 10 years, it is apparent that mineral exports will need to continue to accelerate if economic growth is to be sustained in the face of mounting foreign indebtedness. At a time when Australia's foreign debts have reached record levels and interest rates are soaring, government policy should be directed at increasing exports, rather than preventing them. The uranium policy of this Government is benefiting Canada at the expense of Australia. I have already said that uranium production is expected to treble by 1994 but, in addition, Australia could be a major world supplier of uranium, earning in excess of $1 billion a year. However, this Government is shackling the industry by restricting the number of companies that are allowed to develop their uranium deposits. We now have the absurd situation in the Northern Territory where Nabarlek and Ranger can develop but Koongarra and Pancontinental Mining Ltd at Jabiluka cannot. While these restrictions are imposed on Northern Territory companies, South Australian uranium deposits at Roxby Downs are declared good and are approved. That just shows the Government's inconsistency in its policy on uranium. It is as inconcistent as its policy on petroleum products. Millions of dollars have been spent by Koongarra and Pancontinental to bring both these mines to the point at which development could proceed immediately, but at the moment development has been halted by these restrictions. Besides the potential contribution that these projects could make to the Australian economy, it is unfair to those companies which spent millions of dollars with every expectation that they could mine their deposits. I understand that the Commonwealth pays some $4m per year in restitution for the prevention of that mining. What purpose has been served by banning the supply of uranium for end use in France, for instance? It will cost Australian taxpayers more than $100m by the end of 1986 and probably further millions thereafter. About 50 per cent of the electricity plants in France are already nuclear powered, but nuclear testing still continues in the Pacific. Plenty of other countries are willing to supply our markets and this futile ban has achieved nothing, done immense damage and further tarnished Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier. Our reputation as a supplier will shortly be put to the test by the proposed just in time arrangement in Japan. Can the Government give the guarantee of reliability that will be required for this new Japanese arrangement? While Australia fiddles, Canadian uranium developments are going ahead and gaining world markets, markets which should have been sown up by Australia within the last couple of years. I turn to the coal industry with its huge potential to aid our ailing industry and provide an energy resource product to the world. Mr Barry Jones —What about turning to the Bill? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I am talking about the energy resources of the world and I am pointing out the inconsistency of the Government's attitude on petroleum which matches its inconsistency on uranium and coal. All these provide the basis of our energy resources and what is available overseas. We have vast deposits of good quality coal but prices must be competitive on the world market. It is the duty of this Government to pare additional costs to a minimum. We must stimulate, not stifle our export industries. Once again, the Government has bowed to union pressure on not withdrawing coal export controls. When will the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions realise that inflexible and high cost regulation will result only in long term structural unemployment and lower revenue, both to the coal industry and the country? I know of one coal mining company, for instance, whose customers in Europe waited nine months for contract approval while the Federal authority reviewed the situation. Mr Barry Jones —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member, but this is not a Bill about coal. This is a debate on two revenue Bills which relate quite specifically to the petroleum industry. While the honourable member may no doubt make casual passing reference to them in my submission he cannot concentrate his speech essentially on matters which may be analagous in some ways but which are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I have been looking at the Bills which are being debated and I have been trying to make the connection that the honourable member for Dawson obviously seeks to make. I will allow the honourable member for Dawson to continue in the hope that he will make his point and make the connection with the Bills before the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I will not argue the point I made a few moments ago in that we are talking about energy resources of Australia of which petroleum is one. I was pointing out the inconsistency in the taxing methods of this Government. An incident having occurred- Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is a bit like this Government. The only difference is that this Government is like a chook with its head cut off, not with its head on. I have spoken about the effect on coal and the comparative situation that applies throughout the world as far as advantage has been taken in connection with trade. I also talked about whether the Government could, in the just in time arrangement, be able to give Australians the guarantee of reliability to produce for that market. In the last 20 years we have seen Australia drop from eighth ranking as a world trader to twenty-third. I will give as an example our trade relations with Japan. In 1978 when the Minister for Science and I were in Japan, we were told that Australia's trade with Japan on energy resource commodities was on a ratio of 3 : 1. I understand that in the coming year, 1986, there could be an equalisation. So export of our energy is of vital concern to Australia. On a per capita basis Australia is one of the most resource-rich nations in the world; yet our standard of living has slipped from second to sixteenth in the world. Why? Because of bad management of those resources. Even at sixteenth this standard is being propped up by borrowing against the future. That is not a very nice legacy for our children. In actual fact, we are mortgaging Australia's security and our children's future to prop up a government of deceit. The positive encouragement of our export industries is the only way Australia can look to reduce its massive deficit on the current account, which is expected to exceed $10 billion this year for the second consecutive year. I reiterate that the coalition is committed to encouraging our mining industries. The legislation before us today highlights, with its financial sweeteners, the length to which this Government will go in pursuit of its revenue-raising objectives for short term advantages. My concern with this legislation is that, as oil production falls, the Government will be tempted to increase the tax rate to maintain revenue levels. This would, of course, be self-defeating, acting as a further disincentive to oil exploration and development which are so badly needed. The coalition will not oppose these Bills; it will examine the application of the tax in the overall review of tax arrangements when re-elected to government. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(8.47) —The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) ranged very widely in his comments and did not spend much time on the Petroleum Revenue Bill and Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). In fact, he was concerned to talk to us about a wide range of mineral industries and the impact on the foreign account deficit. We totally agree with strongly supporting Australia's mining industry. We are aware of the crucial role which the mining industry plays in our exports. Although we are aware of that fact, this does not mean that we should place all our eggs in the one basket as was the policy of the Fraser Government which for many years-honourable members will recall the election of 1980-claimed in an irresponsible fashion that there would be a huge resources boom in this country and in fact produced figures which showed about $30 billion of new investments which never materialised. On the basis of those claimed investments in the mining area, including petroleum, we had a situation where false expectations were created and indeed a situation was created where people, rather than focusing on aspects of the economy as well as mining, all turned to the mining sector as the great saviour of this country. Of course, the mining sector has an important role to play, but we should not suppose that only the mining and energy sector will pull us out of the present crisis that has been created on the external account. I believe that the way in which we can overcome this problem is to develop Australian technology in a number of areas. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) is working at this. But there is one area in which the coalition is culpable. It not only zeroed in on the mining sector, but also did very little to assist in mineral processing and in industries associated with mining. Mr Beale —You banned uranium processing. Dr THEOPHANOUS —We have our principles. We are not unprincipled, as are honourable members opposite, in relation to the uranium issue. Let us turn to what happened in relation to those mining resources. It is true that many of our problems stem from the total mismanagement of the so-called resources boom of that period. It is because of that mismanagement that we have many of the problems that we face at present. We are now told by honourable members opposite that they are great supporters of the mining industry in this country and that we should not concern ourselves because we are opposed to mining. In what way is the Labor Government opposed to mining? Mr Beale —Aboriginal land rights; capital gains tax. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Let us look at the facts. The honourable member interjects about Aboriginal land rights. That is the level of understanding of honourable members opposite of the issues concerning mining in this country. I recall that for many years members of the Opposition opposed the introduction of the resources rent tax. They now say that the tax that we are debating, which is analagous to the resources rent tax, will be supported. Why will it be supported? Because it is profit related rather than production related. I put this question to honourable members opposite who have interjected: Why were they opposed to the resources rent tax, which is profit related, for so many years when they now say that they support these changes because they are not production related, but profit related? What kind of consistency is that? The fact is that in this area, as is the case in many other areas, when it comes to careful, planned development it is the Australian Labor Party and the Labor Government that put the policies into place, as opposed to the nonsense we have heard from the Opposition, which, as I said, missed a golden opportunity because of its total mismanagement of mining development in this country. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you look at the proposals that we are debating, you will see that they are very important proposals precisely because they are no longer based on volume of production, but on the level of profitability. They will encourage new investment. Mr Beale —Why don't you deal with the Bass Strait? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will deal with Bass Strait in a moment. Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Deakin seems to get excited about these matters without giving much thought to or studying the real issues involved. I tell the honourable member that I have studied these issues for five years. He has come into this House with some theoretical notions which he thinks he can apply to the Australian economy. We have already heard them. They are absolute nonsense. Let us turn to the real issues concerning mining. The fact is that this particular tax, which is a form of resources rent tax, is very important because it will stimulate production without excessively taxing the industry. We have just heard noises from honourable members on the other side to the effect that we have taxed the industry excessively. How have we done that? The introduction of this new tax to replace the excise will have a very major effect. It will stimulate investment and it will stimulate production, precisely because if a company does not make sufficient levels of profit it will not have to pay tax. It is no longer based on the production notion. That is a very substantial change and, as the Minister for Science stated in his second reading speech: The Bill represents a major step forward in reform of resources taxation in Australia. All we have heard is some grumbling noises from the other side of the House without any recognition of the importance of this approach. If honourable members opposite are really seriously interested in the promotion of mining and resource development in this country they will support not only these measures but also the kind of planned development approach which we have put into place. The shadow Minister attacked the cash bidding principle. This is a very interesting approach. The so-called champions of private enterprise are attacking the cash bidding principle. Why is that? The cash bidding principle enables-- Mr Beale —It is a Government rip-off in areas where it has no expertise. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member says that the Government will get some money; therefore honourable members opposite object to it. The company that makes the best bid will get the licence. Therefore, is not cash bidding based on the private enterprise principle? Or are Opposition members saying that there should be no competition in this area? I will tell honourable members why the Opposition does not want competition in this area: It is because the Opposition wants to give accessibility to these resources to its specific friends rather than leave it open to the market. The Opposition should never have opposed the cash bidding principle. I return to the issue with which I began; that is, the form of taxation that is introduced in this legislation. I again reinforce the point that this form of taxation will mean that many companies will benefit and a big spur will be applied to crude oil production in this country. We will guarantee the energy resources of this country for the future in a much better way than anything done by honourable members opposite. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.57) —I am very honoured to speak in this debate. It deals with a subject on which I am very keen. The flow-on of the measures will affect everybody-the people in the gallery and everybody in Australia who is listening tonight. Petrol, like the water we drink and the air we breathe, is very important. It is very important to the motorist and to the economy of Australia. There is a flow-on effect. If we want the explorers of Australia to explore to obtain new oil wells and new crude oil we will have to-- Mr Beale —He is leaving the chamber. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is not leaving the chamber. Mr Hodgman —Is that Lenin or Trotsky? Mr GOODLUCK —I think he is Lenin tonight. It is terribly important that we make absolutely certain that we give our explorers the incentive to find new oil wells to provide new oil. Petroleum is the life-blood of the economy, whether it be in the form of liquefied petroleum gas, petrol-standard or super-oil, diesel, et cetera. Mr Hodgman —He is still yapping. Keep quiet, Trotsky. Mr GOODLUCK —Mr Deputy Speaker, I find it very difficult to concentrate with the consistent noise coming from the microphones on the other side of the floor. I am not used to being interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I was not aware that the honourable member found it difficult to concentrate. If he needs the protection of the Chair he shall have it. Mr GOODLUCK —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tonight lots of people are listening to my speech-in the gallery and all over Tasmania. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, knows that I do not have just a superficial interest in this matter. All my life I have been involved in the petroleum industry. Whilst most people think I am just a very humble service station proprietor-which I am-I have observed other things very closely. There are other facets of the industry that I know quite well. I am sensible enough to know-a lot of people may not know this-that if we do not produce new oil, if we do not produce new oil wells and if we do not provide 100 per cent oil self-sufficiency in Australia, there could come a time that we will regret it. At the moment we are roughly 70 per cent self-sufficient in Australia. We need to be 100 per cent self-sufficient so that we are not dependent on world markets, world changes, world fluctuations, et cetera. We need to be self-sufficient so that we can provide continuously a flow of petrol to the consumers of Australia. It is useless to compare the price of petrol in Australia with the price in other countries. We are a very large continent; therefore the motor vehicle is most important. We are not like England, Ireland or those other countries with which comparisions of petrol prices are sometimes made. We are a very large continent. We have a standard of living which is very dependent on the motor vehicle getting us from point A to point B. Therefore, I always think of Australia as being completely different. I disregard the comparisons that are made. It is terribly important that we become 100 per cent self-sufficient in the long term. When we went to import parity pricing-the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) who is sitting in front of me knows this quite well- I said that the reason we matched the world price was so that we could become self-sufficient and look for alternatives such as liquefied petroleum gas and diesel motor vehicles. We needed to become self-sufficient and to give the oil producers an opportunity to find that extra 30 per cent that would make us independant and not dependant on Arab countries and other countries from which we have to import that oil. Therefore, I find talk about the explorers very important. We need to introduce measures. The Minister for Science, who is sitting at the table, is a very intelligent Minister. We talk a lot about the petroleum industry, quietly in the Parliamentary Library and in other places, and he keeps asking me: `Bruce, why don't you concentrate a bit more? Why don't you get off the funny things and get onto the serious things?'. I can be extremely serious. I know dash well that the only way the affluence of this country can continue is by our being self-sufficient. The only way I know is to look for the alternatives-that is, look for the LGP driven motor vehicles and the diesel motor vehicles-and forget about all the superficial options of gear boxes, differentials and upholstery. We need to have a motor vehicle with which, if we had a petrol shortage, we could turn to LPG. Then we would have a continuous stream of fuel for motor vehicles and we would be able to go from point A to point B. We would have an economy which would be geared all the time and would not be dependent. I have my criticisms of the oil industry, as honourable members know. We had our first major industry inquiry in 1975, when I think Mr Justice Collins said that this industry cried out for reform, needed reform, that every consumer in Australia needed a fair go and that if every consumer in Australian was going to be dependent on a petrol driven vehicle, he needed to have a fair opportunity to get a fair price. Mr Barry Jones —It was Collins, not Coleman. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I thought I said `Collins'. I am sorry, it is my high school education, but I thought I said `Collins'. Mr Beale —There is nothing wrong with your education. Mr GOODLUCK —Thanks very much. I did not mean that. It was only a smart remark, and I am good at those. We need to be self-sufficient. We need to reform the oil industry to the benefit of all the consumers in Australia. Sometimes people walk up to me in this House and say: `Bruce, why do I have to pay 10c a litre more in Canberra than I pay in Sydney?'. I reply: `Why in Hobart at the moment do we have to pay 60c a litre when, in fact, you can get it for 47c and 48c?'. I am afraid that the arguments of the oil companies have gone by the wayside. They say that there is a glut and that we have to sell off petrol at a cheap price. They say that this is the larger market. But, regrettably, when we went to import parity pricing Mr Fraser said to the motorists of Australia: `Support us, we're going to introduce import parity pricing. Give us a go, pay the extra price-- Mr Beale —Whitlam went to parity pricing. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, Whitlam started it and we continued along that stream. We said: `Support us, give us the opportunity to explore and you will all have a fair go'. Many motorists in Australia today are starting to ask questions about the price of petrol in Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart. I know that if we have a free market the oil companies have to make a profit. I know that when they justify a price it applies across the board. If the oil companies lose in the outback of Australia they make it up in the densely populated areas of Sydney and Melbourne. But the consumers of Australia, the motorists who use the petrol most often-sometimes it is the motorists in the outback-depend on it. Therefore, they need a fair go at it. It cries out for reform. We talk about reforms in relation to other things. We form committees on this matter and on that matter. Would it not be a good idea to form a committee to look at the pricing of petrol in Australia? We should have a constructive joint parliamentary committee, in which politics go out of the back door, to look constructively at the matter and say: `For God's sake, why should a person in Hobart pay 60c a litre and a person in Melbourne pay 47c a litre?' That has an effect on the economy of the individuals involved, and it has a flow-through effect. We need to do something about that. We need to look at the people employed in the industry. Some poor devils are sometimes thrown to the wolves by the oil companies, which, on the next street corner, sell petrol cheaper than what they can buy it for. Very little is said about that. I support the explorers. We should all support them. Sometimes people misconstrue what I say and they say: `Goodluck, you have got a hate on oil companies'. I have not. I know that they employ many people in Australia, that they contribute to the national wealth and that we depend on them. All that I am asking is that they play it nice and fair for all consumers-and then they will get the people's support. We have talked about this matter, we have called for commissions of inquiry, and we have called for this and that; but is it not about time that we constructively set about trying to make matters fair for every Australian consumer? Forget about what I have said about the explorers in the past. I want them to be successful. I want everyone to make a dollar if he is prepared to work for it. But I want Australian consumers and every motorist to have a fair go. Some of those motorists are people who can ill afford to pay the high price for petrol. Regrettably, some of them, after their investment in their home, invest in a motor vehicle, which is the second most important investment in their life. It is the means of making the family structure a little more-- Mr Beale —Interest rates are killing home buyers. Mr GOODLUCK —Well, interest rates have just got to come down. It is ludicrous to talk about interest rates not having an effect on the economy; they are having a real effect on it. We should look for a reduction in the price of petrol. It is useless for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at election time to say that there will be a reduction in the price of petrol. People remember that. The people want the Prime Minister to honour that pledge. I know that, because of the devaluation of the dollar and with the importation of that extra 30 per cent, problems have been created. But we need to do something, because many motorists are crying for a little assistance. People travelling to and from work are looking for that little bit extra. For many motorists and families, their only enjoyment is their motor vehicle. Many have bought their vehicle on hire purchase, and one has only to look at the rates involved in that to know that they cannot really afford a vehicle. But they buy one because it it their form of entertainment and their means of taking themselves away of a weekend. So we need to make certain that they can do something about it. Rises in the price of petrol have a flow-through effect, so we need to do something about that. It is useless talking about these Bills now. We are supporting them. We make our caustic remarks because it is politically expedient always to say things about the government of the day. But I know damned well that the present Government is probably acting in good faith. But on this matter I plead with the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science. I have said this on many occasions, and he knows that I am genuine and am trying to do only what I think is best for the industry and the people employed in the industry, the oil companies, the employers and the consumers. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have been trying to say in my simple way: We need to have a good look at this industry and to make it better for everybody involved in it. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.09) —I support the views of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). There should be a good look at the petrol industry. There is something wrong with it. I have said on many occasions that it has the Australian public over a barrel-the oil barrel. It is taking millions of dollars from the motorist and it is not putting back anything into the community in proportion to what it takes out. Whereas previously many people were employed at petrol stations, they now employ hardly anyone. If one goes to a petrol station now in Melbourne and one wants to inflate the tyres on one's vehicle, one has to pay 20c to get some air. That is the sort of policy of the large oil cartel set up in Australia and how it is affecting the motorist. I believe that they are not doing the right thing by us. They are carving up the Australian market to suit themselves. They are cutting down the number of refineries to suit their own marketing policy. I think we will find in a few years' time that the Shell Company of Australia, for example, will look after Victoria, BP Australia Ltd will look after Queensland, and so on. That will be the set-up. Then the companies will dictate the prices to us. I quote from an article in the Sun of Tuesday, 24 September. The Executive Director of the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Mr Bob Davison, made a number of statements. He described the discounting and petrol pricing as `a cynical rip-off', and continued: . . . the reason for the original pattern of petrol pricing is oversupply. I believe that statement is correct. There is so much oil around both in Australia and overseas that we really do not know what to do with it. Oil companies are finding more oil all the time. I think the figures they give us in relation to a shortage are not correct. I believe that many of the figures, graphs and charts are being beaten up to justify the price charged by the petrol companies. The article continued: `The fact is the retail market place is all but totally controlled by major oil companies, all but totally'. Mr Davison says there are four ways oil companies get rid of their product. On the one hand they supply it to high volume `jobbers', such as Solo- that is, in Melbourne- They also sell it to owner-operators of service stations. These people, because they are not tied to an oil company supplier, are therefore wooed to a certain extent and given some substantial price benefits. But the greater number of outlets by far are represented by people to whom the oil companies are landlords, people who rent the premises from an oil company. Those people have no choice about price, they pay exactly what the oil company invoices them. Their position in the market place is very much determined by how much they can afford to run to the competition, given that the maximum margin available to them is under four cents. The remaining form of distribution is through company-owned sites, usually well-located, high-volume, many-laned sites known in the industry as `gas pumpers'. These are usually run by commission agents who often get less than one cent a litre for the petrol they sell. The oil companies are dictating to owners of these sites the price at which they can sell their petrol, the price at which they have to buy, when they can buy it and how much they can buy. In a way they have total control of the market, and it is not right that they should do so. I also believe that at present some of the larger companies are forcing smaller service stations out of business because of the pricing policy that is dictated to them. Mr Davison also contends that petrol pricing is destabilising the industry, especially at the retail level. He believes it creates risks of losses. The article continued: It is simply a matter of the big oil companies using the retail market place to guarantee or protect their market share. We claim that is cynical in that the oil companies claim they're presiding over healthy discounts initiated by retailers. That is simply false. I believe that Mr Davison is correct. We are all being led up the garden path, or perhaps I should say down the road, by the petrol companies. I trust that some of the measures the Government has put into place to save petrol and to convert our cars to gas will be implemented quite soon. Recently, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) issued a Press release and its aim was to get motorists to try to save 80 million litres of petrol. The release stated: The Australian passenger vehicle industry has agreed to try to achieve a significant further reduction in the average fuel consumption of new passenger cars over the next three years. That is an admirable aim and I trust it can be achieved. I am certain that, with the new motor designs that Australia's engineers come up with for Australian made cars especially, we can achieve this. The Press release stated further: A national average fuel consumption target of 8.5 litres/100 km has been set for 1987-a substantial reduction from the 9.56 litres achieved in 1984. Achievement of the 1987 figure would mean that Australian motorists used 82 million litres less in that year . . . I am quite certain that the petrol companies will not like this. I am quite certain that they will do all in their power to frustrate Australian motorists' efforts to save that amount of fuel. The Press release continued: The voluntary program to achieve improved passenger vehicle efficiency began in 1979 with an agreement between the Government and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries which represents all vehicle manufacturers, assemblers and importers. The program originally aimed at reducing the national average fuel consumption from 11.8 litres/100 km in 1978 to a target figure of 9 litres/150 km in 1983. The actual level realised in 1983 was 9.5 litres/100 km. There has been a change in car design. Recently there has been a resurgence of cars with larger engines. I drive a car with a fairly large engine. I must say that if my family were smaller I would probably shift to a smaller car, but I trust that with new technology, smaller engines may be available to power these larger cars which can carry more people. Australians are used to driving a fairly large car. I think this is one of the reasons why General Motors-Holden's Ltd's level of car sales has dropped off and Ford's sales have picked up. It is just that Ford manufactures a larger car. We need larger cars in Australia to travel in comfort because of the miles and miles between our towns. That is probably the reason, but larger cars such as Fords also mean increased petrol consumption throughout Australia. I trust that new designs coming out will cut down the use of large amounts of gasoline. BP has closed its refinery at Western Port. I have spoken on this matter on many occasions. I must report that many of the people who worked for BP at Hastings have found new jobs. A couple of them are still employed there. At the moment the tanks are being used for bunkerage for ships that take huge tonnages of oil out of Australia from Western Port. One wonders about everything that these petrol companies put up about the shortage of fuel when we in Australia are exporting tonnes of fuel. All right; it is good for our balance of payments but I think people in Australia should also get some of the benefits that accrue from our having our own supply of petrol. As I have said on many occasions, I do not believe that the large petrol cartels do the correct job for the Australian public. They are taking many millions of dollars out of this country. I do not believe that they are putting enough back into the country. I believe that they are cutting the people of Australia short on the service that they should be giving to this country. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(9.19) —It is my pleasure to speak to the Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. In doing so I wish to reply to the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth). I point out to him that I believe that the oil companies are not ripping off the people of Australia. I believe that it is the Government, and government taxation more than anything, that are ripping into oil companies, into our ability to look for and produce more crude oil and, of course, into the motorists. No government has done that more than this Australian Labor Party Government has in the last three or four years. This Government has increased the price of fuel by 10c a litre in the last two years, and fuel prices are about to rise again, while the value of the dollar is plummeting. The value of the dollar has dropped by 5c in the last two to three weeks. Under the existing parity arrangements that will put up the price of fuel by another 2c or 3c a litre come 1 January. Only one body in Australia is ripping off the motorists and that is the Labor Government. It is not our policy to go along with the sorts of policies that this Government goes along with. Mr Chynoweth —That is wrong. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is not wrong. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised, when he came to office, that he would drop the price of fuel. He promised people that the price of petrol would drop 2c to 3c a litre. But since then we have seen the price of fuel go through the roof. There is no doubt that this Labor Government has done nothing for the fuel users and the fuel explorers of this country. Surely they are the people who ought to be looked after. If ever we are to get a reduction in fuel prices it will not be by taxing the fuel companies but by helping them to look for new oil fields. I have a number of oil fields in my electorate. The Jackson find, the biggest producing on-shore field in Australia, is in the back end of Maranoa. The Jackson field is the only field paying this resource rent tax, both to the Commonwealth Government and to the Queensland State Government. It is the policy of the National Party of Australia to get out of this area, to move slowly away from the taxing at the well-head and from the impositions that the Government has put on oil companies and oil users. Sixty per cent of the price of every litre that we put in our cars goes to some government agency or other. It is one of the most regulated industries that we have in this nation. It is being stifled by government regulation. If we only let this industry get on with the job it would find a lot more crude oil and, consequently, our prices-- Mr Chynoweth —How much cheaper would it be? Mr IAN CAMERON —It would become cheaper through competition, obviously. If we moved out of the resource rent tax area a lot of people think that the petrol price would drop accordingly. It would not because the oil companies would pick up the difference but there would be a lot more competition. Mr Cowan —New South Wales has the highest rate of government charges. Mr IAN CAMERON —New South Wales is one of the highest oil taxing States in Australia. The taxes imposed by the New South Wales Labor Government are terrible. There is no pump tax in Queensland. Queensland has some of the cheapest fuel in Australia because the Queensland National Party Government does not impose taxes at that level, yet the Wran Government does. Unfortunately, we are apparently supporting the legislation which is being debated tonight but I do not support the resource rent royalty tax. I do not believe that these companies should be paying any tax at this level. They ought to be allowed to make their profits. Mr Chynoweth —Look at the profits the cartels are making. Mr IAN CAMERON —What is wrong with them making a profit? How do we get on in this country? Honourable members opposite have the countryside absolutely stifled. The economy has gone down the drain. Our trade balance is the worst it has ever been since we settled this nation, the dollar is the lowest it has ever been, yet honourable members opposite still want to tax these companies to death. They are not prepared to let a bloke get up and do a job. People cannot go out and work today without being taxed to death. For God's sake! People cannot go out and find a resource without being taxed to death. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you look a little anxious, but this is a very serious matter. This Government should just let the oil exploration companies get out and find this product. Australia is the biggest net exporter of energy in the world per head of population. We have enormous energy resources. Yet what do we do? Mr Chynoweth —You give them away. Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, that is true. We are exporting oil. We are now a net exporter of crude oil. The royalty is being passed back to the States. There is no increase in revenue but it is being moved across to the State area. I know that this is very nice for Western Australia. Most of this legislation applies to oil production on Barrow Island. This Government is allowing the Western Australian State Labor Government to pick up a royalty at this level. Mr Tim Fischer —Which State has no fuel tax levy? Mr IAN CAMERON —Yes, that is right. I would like to point out to the House that, with an election coming on in Western Australia, this Labor Government will retrospectively give the Western Australian Government $20m. The Commonwealth Government will pay the Western Australian Government $20m this financial year in recognition of the revenue that Government would have received had this modified Barrow Island royalty arrangement been deferred pending the development of the resources rent tax proposals. Mr Wright —Are you against that? Mr IAN CAMERON —I am not against it. What I am saying is that here we have a retrospective payment to Western Australia. This Government cannot afford to pay anybody any retrospective taxes. It is bankrupt. Mr Wright —It applies to all States. Mr IAN CAMERON —All right, but what States are applying for it? The only State applying for it is the Labor-governed State of Western Australia. We are about four months off a State election in Western Australia and what does this Commonwealth Labor Government in Canberra do? It brings in a Bill that will retrospectively pay $20m to the Labor State of Western Australia. Is it not big-hearted with taxpayers' money! It cannot afford to pay any dollars to anybody. The honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) knows that. It is stone motherless broke. It is $6 billion behind the eight-ball. It cannot afford to be giving money away to anyone, let alone to a State government to try to win a State election. The whole thing is a have. This Government's actions are disgusting. I am sure that members on this side of the House agree with me. I point out also that royalties are payable on all petroleum products-crude oil, liquefied petroleum gas, condensate, natural gas and of course ethane gas. I have mentioned the Cooper-Eromanga basin in western Queensland at the back end of Maranoa. Quite a deal of oil is being found in the Cooper Basin in Maranoa-a huge area about the size of Victoria. In 1984-85 the Federal Government obtained $15m in revenue from that area; this year it will be $21m. Queensland is receiving $18.8m in royalty payments. What is the Federal Government doing for the area? Absolutely nothing. I expect it to put some of that tax revenue back into the area. At present it is doing absolutely nothing. The Burke and Wills Highway is a high priority. The honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) is giving his full support to that project. That highway will run from Broken Hill up through western New South Wales and the Cooper area, past those gas and oil fields and up to Mt Isa. It will give us a new inland highway. We expect the Federal Government to redirect some of those funds that it is pulling out of the area back into some new roads. Mr Chynoweth —Queensland would benefit. Mr IAN CAMERON —Queensland is doing it. It has bituminised the roads right out to the Jackson oil field. It is 600 to 700 miles from Jackson into Brisbane and the road is bitumen all the way. The Federal Government is not spending a cent in that area. Seeing that it is taking so much out, it is time it did. The National Party's fuel policy supports the move to spot prices for crude for import parity pricing purposes. We also believe that there should be a reduction in the amount of well-head tax and that we should slowly pull right out of that area. There is no need for the Government to be taxing this resource at the well-head. There is plenty of opportunity to pick up tax on shares et cetera without taking it at the base. It is a regressive tax. The Government is presently picking up $4.4 billion in taxation. The figure has gone up by $1 billion since this Government came to office. I believe that is too much. These extra fuel costs are a tremendous burden for the farmers and for the people of Australia. We believe that excise indexation should be abolished and we support the reintroduction of the fuel freight subsidy. This lot of idiots came into government only three years ago but they have completely annihilated the fuel industry and the users of fuel such as those people trying to produce something. This Labor Government has done away with the fuel freight subsidy at a cost of $110m. Mr Chynoweth —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am offended at being called an idiot. I ask that that be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member for Maranoa collectively referred to a group of people, which I understand to be the people on the Government side. That should not be considered offensive used in that collective way, though it may be offensive if applied particularly to an individual member. While it may be to some extent unparliamentary it was certainly not meant as an offensive remark and it was not unparliamentary to the extent that the honourable member should be made to withdraw it. Mr IAN CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for those remarks. In the heat of the moment I get excited about fuel because it is very important to those of us who live in inland Australia and have to pay a disproportionate tax on fuel. I point out, before finishing my speech, that thousands of farmers tonight are working their guts out driving headers across the nation to bring in the wheat crop. I hope that a lot of those people in the electorate of Maranoa will be listening to the debate in the House tonight-although the harvest in Queensland is just about finished. In the last three years since the Labor Party came to office nothing has affected the farming community more than fuel prices. Primary producers in Australia are paying out $542m in taxation on fuel. That represents $3,300 for each farm household, compared to the cost to the average Australian household of $1,300. Even that last figure is high enough. However, the farmers of Australia are paying three times more taxation on fuel than any other body. I ask whether, even to Labor Party members opposite, that is a fair thing. Is that a fair thing to people in the rural electorates of Australia? I ask especially honourable members opposite who represent rural electorates whether that is a fair thing. Those honourable members opposite will all be out at the next election; none of them will survive. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, many people are working to bring in the harvest. Of course, that harvest is of tremendous benefit to the balance of payments-something which of course this Labor Government has really sent down the drain. However, farmers are trying to make a dollar and are trying to make ends meet. Farm fuel taxes are one of the things which have concerned us more than anything since this Government came to office. Although these Bills tonight do not mean any increase in taxation-just a transfer of revenue from the Commonwealth to the State-I believe that we do not need those sorts of taxes. I do not believe that those sorts of taxes should be imposed on the fuel industry. They are the sorts of taxes which should be done away with altogether. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(9.32) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Petroleum Revenue Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), which in effect is a consequential amendment to the main Bill before the House. Having listened to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), I have to say that while his speech was in some ways entertaining it was a little light on facts. Indeed, it is quite apparent that the honourable member has neither bothered to read the legislation before the House nor read the explanatory memorandum which puts that legislation in language which ordinary people can understand. I think it is important to state at the outset that what this legislation is all about is, over the longer term, encouraging the production of additional petroleum resources in Australia. Mr Ian Cameron —How can any tax encourage production? Mr BRUMBY —I will explain for the honourable member's benefit that in Australia at the moment, under existing arrangements, petroleum production is taxed via excise by the Commonwealth Government and by State government royalties. In effect, what the existing tax regime tends to do is to tax production. Obviously, there are many marginal resource development projects around Australia, particularly in the oil area, that cannot afford to proceed because their costs are high and their production levels are low. Under the existing tax regime those exploration ventures are permanently put in the waste paper bin because the current tax system is too high but, more importantly, it is too inflexible and taxes that production. What this new taxation arrangement and this legislation is all about is to change the emphasis on taxation away from production to a taxation on profits. That means that there will be a difference in the time span over which the profits, or the taxes, are raised. Many marginal exploration areas in Australia will be able to proceed because the total taxation levied will be less than that levied under the current arrangements. The fact is that there are a number of very important advantages in this resource taxation package. I have mentioned the first advantage; that is, the existing taxation regime applies taxes on production and, as such, discourages marginal projects from getting under way and brings about the premature termination of production from many wells. I would have thought-I have to emphasise this for the benefit of members of the National Party, who are always harping about the need for additional exports in this country-that the export of energy was a significant export from this country and that the alternative tax schedule which this legislation introduces would encourage more production and, over time, facilitate greater exports of energy. The second reason that we support this tax package is that under the new arrangements the full value of capital and operating costs will be able to be written off in the year in which they are incurred. That is something that cannot be done under the existing tax regime. I suppose the conclusion of that is that major new investments in this country are therefore encouraged. Consequently, they will assist in maintaining production which would otherwise decline. Mr Ian Cameron —Name the wells that are coming into production. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Maranoa has asked for an example. One of the classic examples is Jabiru which will get under way next year and which I can say quite categorically-- Mr Ian Cameron —They found that three years ago. It is producing oil. Mr BRUMBY —That is incorrect. Jabiru could not set up under the current tax regime because it will have marginal production. Under the current production-based taxation arrangements of Commonwealth excise and State royalties it simply would not be profitable. Under the new resource royalty agreements the wells will be able to get into production, and that will be good for Australia and good for exports. I will make another point for the benefit of the honourable member for Maranoa, who tonight gave, as I have said, one of the most ignorant speeches I have heard. He talked about Australian oil exploration. I have already said that this legislation will improve and encourage exploration in Australia. I note that despite the honourable member's comments the Opposition does not oppose the Bills. Let me say this: Estimated expenditure on petroleum exploration in 1984, the year just passed, was $900m. That is close to a record and it is up from $826m in 1983. Mr Ian Cameron —Put it in real terms. Mr BRUMBY —The figure was $826m in 1983. If one adds 7 per cent to that one does not get more than $900m. It is an increase in real terms. What about the number of wells that are drilled? A record 374 wells were drilled in 1984, 268 of which were exploration wells. The fact is that exploration is going well. This legislation will facilitate that exploration in the future and will encourage the actual conversion into production. This is very important for Australians because in the absence of any new oil discovery, our level of self-sufficiency in petroleum fuels and production is forecast to decline from the current level of 79 per cent to 42 per cent in 1993. The fact is that there are reasonable prospects for new crude oil discoveries in Australia, although there are variances in the estimates of how much will be produced. For example, the Bureau of Mineral Resources has estimated that `between 650 and 1,300 million barrels of crude oil can reasonably be expected to be discovered over the next 10 years and that the production possible from these fields could provide somewhere between 35 and 105 million barrels of crude oil a year by 1993-94'. If we get that production and the fields are actually producing oil, Australia's self-sufficiency level will be somewhere between 56 per cent and 86 per cent in that year. I can only repeat, for the benefit of the honourable member opposite who made such an ignorant speech previously, that what is needed in this country is an encouragement to actually put marginal wells into production. That is what the two Bills before the House are all about. I want to make a couple of other points about what has been said by Opposition members. The honourable member for Maranoa, in his normal way, bleated about the price of petrol. I point out for his benefit and the benefit of other members of the Opposition that the price of petrol did not increase 10c or 20c a litre under the previous Government; it fact, it tripled. Between 1976 and 1980, under the Fraser Liberal Government, of which the honourable member for Maranoa was a member, the price of petrol tripled. I might add also that it was the Opposition parties which introduced import parity pricing. It galls me to hear Opposition members stand up in this House so self-righteously and say that if they ever get back into government they will abolish import parity pricing. That is a load of rubbish, a load of rot. Apart from the fact that in revenue terms it would be impossible for any government to do that, the simple fact is that import parity pricing is the right policy for Australia. Without import parity pricing there would be no discouragement to excessive consumption levels of a vital economic energy resource in Australia. More importantly, if we do not price our petroleum products at the export price, our whole pricing system will be out of kilter and, obviously, there will be incentives for much greater export of the product from Australia. If our price were much lower than elsewhere in the world, consumption in Australia would rise, there would be no encouragement for exploration and by 1993 we would be totally dependent on exports, by which stage we would, of course, be paying the export price. Contrary to what the honourable member for Maranoa says-and I have to keep repeating this for his benefit-even after the devaluation of the Australian dollar, Australia has the third cheapest petrol of any of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It is simply nonsense for Opposition members to keep coming into this House-having themselves when in government introduced import parity pricing, having themselves overseen an increase of 300 per cent in the price of petrol-and making the nonsense sorts of statements that if they ever get back into government, which might be by 1995, they will abolish IPP. That is absolute rubbish. I wish to make a couple of other points about petrol prices. Over the last decade, between 1975 and 1985, the import parity price increased on a 10:1 ratio. It increased from $4.33 a barrel to $42.25 a barrel. Despite that increase, the price of petrol in Australian cities-this is the only statistical information available-has increased only by a 4:1 ratio, from 14.3c a litre in October 1975 to 54.9 a litre in September 1985. I repeat that point: The IPP increased tenfold, but the price of petrol at the pump increased only fourfold. Therefore, it is nonsense to refer continually to that aspect, as the honourable member for Maranoa did in his ignorant contribution. I conclude by saying that this legislation is about encouraging greater exploration, greater production and greater self-sufficiency in Australian petroleum and in terms of new oil discoveries. It does not add any more tax to petrol or oil or anything like that. All it does is change the nature of that tax. It will levy tax at a higher rate from the more highly profitable fields, while for those fields which are marginal-and there are many of them in Australia-it will apply tax at a lower rate on the basis of profits. That means that many marginal oil fields in Australia will be encouraged to produce, which is good for Australians, good for our exports, good for our dollar and good for Australian jobs. Apparently those are matters of no concern to Opposition members. I support this legislation. I believe it is valuable and it is good for our exports, our exploration, our production and our employment. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.44) —I readily join with my colleagues the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) in supporting the Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. The Petroleum Revenue Bill should receive the full support of this House and I am quite surprised that members of the National Party of Australia have spoken so negatively. Certainly, the Bill will receive the support of the States. I believe it will be welcomed by the States because it will allow State governments to introduce a resource rent royalty on petroleum developments within their jurisdiction. Despite what the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) says, this is what the States want. It is not just a matter for Western Australia, it is a matter that every State will applaud. The legislation will enable the States to enter into a revenue sharing agreement with the Commonwealth. It will also allow the Commonwealth-that is, the Federal Government-to waive the crude oil excise liability. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) explained in his second reading speech that this is a State initiative. It is not something that the Commonwealth has foisted upon the States, it is a State initiative. It has been developed in consultation with the Commonwealth. As the honourable member for Bendigo said, it will encourage major new investments in mature oil fields. The honourable member for Maranoa mentioned Barrow Island in Western Australia. The point is that if these investments are going to be sufficiently productive and profitable, under this new revenue rent royalty we are going to get a revenue for the Commonwealth. As the honourable member for Bendigo said, it is not a matter of production, it is a matter of profitability. It is only when profits are to be made that there will be a tax or a revenue for the Commonwealth. Under the existing ad valorem State royalty and the Commonwealth crude oil excise, there can be little incentive for further investments. This has been shown. This means that production could be terminated prematurely and thus a drying up of revenue for the public purse. It also means that we would not have an ongoing development of our oil resources. This measure is a typical example of Labor governments, both at Federal and State levels, being willing to adjust their taxing and revenue-raising arrangements to meet the needs of the petroleum industry and for the financial benefit of the Australian public. While the Barrow Island experience no doubt brought on the change, the application of this Bill will not be limited to that oil field and, in fact, will allow the Commonwealth to waive excise in any situation-I stress the words `in any situation'-where a relevant resource rent royalty is introduced and a revenue-sharing agreement has been concluded. So it benefits every State, not just Western Australia prior to a State election. The positive actions of the Federal Government in this instance need to be broadcast widely, not only because it is good legislation-that is only part of the reason-but also because it will help counter the vicious and certainly untrue campaign that is being waged by some elements in the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and the Motor Traders Association in Queensland against the Hawke Labor Government on the question of Federal Government taxes on the petroleum industry. False statistics are being poured out to the media, pamphlets and stickers are being produced and service station proprietors are being conned into spreading the untruths. There is a campaign centring on the claim that total Federal Government taxes on petrol amount to some 35.33c a litre. I saw an article in this week's Bulletin, paid for, no doubt, by the Shell oil company, which put forward a graph which shows that 63.2 per cent of the total cost of fuel in New South Wales goes in taxes. The Federal Government is being blamed for the high price of fuel especially in country areas. In my country area it is as high as 69.9c a litre. The National Party of Australia, like the honourable member for Maranoa, is unfortunately spreading the untruths. It needs to be placed on the record and repeated over and over again that in 1978 the Fraser Liberal- National Party Government applied import parity pricing for crude oil. It was not the Labor Government that did it; it was the National and Liberal parties that did it. But, in contrast, the Whitlam Labor Government introduced the policy of controlling the wholesale price of petrol and setting maximums. It is worth noting that the maximum wholesale price of petrol when Mr Fraser came to power was only 11.69c a litre. But under the Fraser Government, under the Liberals and Nationals, the wholesale price skyrocketed from 11.69c a litre to 39.54c a litre, an increase of 27.85c a litre. Under the Hawke Government, the wholesale price has increased only to 48.11c, a rise of 8.57c a litre. The fact is that the Hawke Labor Government has tried to protect Australian motorists through the setting of maximum wholesale prices by the Prices Surveillance Authority. Under the Hawke Labor Government there have been five reductions in the wholesale price of fuel. The reductions have rarely been passed on, particularly in country areas of Queensland and many other parts of Australia. The Australian Institute of Petroleum claims that the Federal tax is 35.33c a litre. This is backed up by Shell's claim, in an advertisement which no doubt cost the company many thousands of dollars, that the total tax is 35.33c. It is blatantly untrue. I have obtained data from the Department of Resources and Energy which shows that the excise on crude oil is approximately 14c a litre and the excise on petrol is 10.007c a litre, which means that the total Federal tax on petrol is approximately 24c a litre, not the 35.33c which the National Party, the Petroleum Institute, the motor traders and Shell have spread; instead, it is 24c a litre and the same tax applies everywhere in Australia. I believe that the oil companies need to come good with their statistics to back up what they are saying. In Queensland in recent times fuel has been sold for as low as 42.5c-that is the retail price. I suggest to the House that if the tax were 35.33c it would be impossible to sell it at that price because that leaves approximately 7c a litre to pay for the initial cost of the crude oil, the 5c to 7c for refining, and the 1c to 5c for transport, and still give a profit to both the oil companies and the service station proprietors. The fact is that a total untruth is being propagated by the Petroleum Institute, Shell and the National Party. This campaign needs to be stopped in its tracks. I challenge the National Party, Shell and the Petroleum Institute to come good with their facts and not just put up some sort of a model or graph that cannot be backed up. They cannot show that the real tax is 35.33c. In Queensland only the other week an oil company admitted that it could sell pertrol to one of its company owned outlets for a wholesale price of 32c. I ask any intelligent member of the National Party-I know that there are very few of them-to explain this to me: If the tax is 35.33c a litre, how can they wholesale it at 32c a litre? It is simply impossible. Mr Chynoweth —They would be making a loss. Mr WRIGHT —They would not be willing to make those losses. They are not prepared to make those losses. The fact is that the tax is not as high as they say and they are all phoney. They are phoney because they have been ripping off Queenslanders, certainly central Queenslanders. The Hawke Labor Government has demonstrated its bona fides in regard to promoting the Australian petroleum industry and protecting Australian motorists. It is time that the blatant untruths and the misrepresentation by the elements of the Petroleum Institute, the retail industry and the petroleum industry were shown up for what they are. The facts are that the total tax on fuel in Australia averages about 24c a litre. I say `averages' because it cannot be set down at a particular percentum because it varies depending on the oil source. The point is that the honourable member for Maranoa has been propagating these types of untruths for a long time. It needs to be said that the truth is with the Government. The facts are very clear and I will present them. In fact, I am prepared to table the documents given to me by the Department which show very clearly that the crude oil excise is 14c a litre and the Commonwealth excise on petrol is 10.007c a litre. One does not need a university degree to work out that that adds up to only 24c a litre. That tax of 24c a litre applies right across Australia. Yet the National Party in Maranoa, western Queensland and central Queensland-in all parts of Australia-is saying that the tax is about 35.33c. I believe that the Petroleum Institute is to blame for this. I believe that it is a blatant liar. I know that that may seem to be unparliamentary, but I am not referring to any member of the House; I am referring to the Institute, because it is a blatant liar. It has told untruths and its reason is quite obvious: It is trying to cover up the rip-off that it is perpetrating in Queensland. It is ripping off the motorists of Queensland and also the motorists of New South Wales and Victoria. It is making enormous profits but it is trying to cover up that profitability by saying that the Federal Government gets its tax. If this Bulletin advertisement were a consumer advertisement the advertiser concerned would be had up for misrepresentation. I believe the Trade Practices Commission ought to have a hard look at what Shell has stated in the last Bulletin magazine because it is blatant misrepresentation. Shell ought to be taken before the Trade Practices Commission and made to establish how it got those figures and how it can falsely present an advertisement that states that tax on fuel is 63.2 per cent and that the tax on fuel amounts to 35.33c a litre. The advertisement is blatantly untrue and I challenge Shell to substantiate its claims. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(9.56) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) for their contributions. Let me take up a few of the points that were raised in the debate. Firstly, the honourable member for Dawson was somewhat tangential in the way in which he dealt with the subject matter of the Petroleum Revenue Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). He talked about the tax take involved in this legislation. It needs to be said that producers are protected by the threshold rate set by the State which guarantees a minimum rate of return to the producer. The tax rate is 40 per cent of the profit earned after the threshold has been reached and that is fixed for on-shore and off-shore projects and is not open to change by the States or Commonwealth. As to the timing of the introduction of rent taxes, the Commonwealth's policy is of long standing. It was announced on 27 June 1984 for off-shore areas and was always intended as a model for on-shore developments. It is not a political measure that has been dreamt up in order to help what I thought was already a political certainty-the re-election of the Burke Government. It is something that has always been part of the Australian Labor Party's policy federally and part of the policy of this Government. The honourable member referred to the tax burden. Rent taxes are considered to be more efficient than excises and royalties as they are profits based rather than production based. The operation of the threshold rate will encourage marginal developments which would otherwise not have proceeded. It is not an additional impost as the rent royalty will replace the Commonwealth excise and the State royalty. The honourable member referred to financial sweeteners. Revenue sharing is based on an objective formula; that is, a formula aimed at achieving a revenue neutral result. Additional payments were mere compensation for Western Australia because of delays involved in establishing a rent royalty on Barrow Island production. The Bills have general application to all States without discrimination. They apply to existing and new projects. The resource rental tax will apply to off-shore projects developed after 27 June 1984. The resource rent royalty made possible by these Bills can apply to existing established projects and projects yet to be developed on a similar basis. Mr Ian Cameron —I bet you won't give Queensland $20m. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member interjected that the resources rental tax is a rip-off. The off-shore resource rental tax is the same in all important respects as the resource rent royalty. It is strange that the Opposition supports the resource rent royalty but opposes the resource rental tax. This is totally inconsistent but entirely to be expected from this extraordinary Opposition. The honourable member for Franklin spoke about the need for Australia to secure self-sufficiency in oil. I point out to him that even if we could produce 100 per cent of our petroleum needs it would be extraordinarily unwise if we simply said: `That is the end of it. We don't need to import any more. We will just rely on what we can produce'. That would, of course, deprive us of having what we need as a strategic surplus. So even if we were to increase our capacity to 100 per cent, it would be extremely foolish for this Government or, in the unlikely event that there were ever a change, any future government to say simply that once we have reached 100 per cent of our requirements from domestic sources, that is the end of it, we can cut ourselves off from the world oil trade. That would be extremely short-sighted from our point of view. The honourable member for Maranoa remarked that Jackson is paying resource rent tax. Barrow Island in Western Australia is the only on-shore field which is liable for resource rent royalty at the moment. Jabiru is the only off-shore field which is likely to pay resource rent tax in the immediate future. Jackson pays new oil excise to the Commonwealth and royalty to Queensland. The new oil excise is a concession compared with the old oil excise. I repeat what I seem to have said in this House on interminable occasions in debates on the many Bills relating to the oil industry and petroleum which we have had in the last few months: I wish Opposition members would occasionally have a sudden burst of candour and point out to their electors the factor that was observed by the honourable member for Bendigo; and that is that although there was that tenfold increase in the import parity price between October 1975 and September 1985 when the import parity price went from $A4.33 a barrel to $A42.25, an increase of almost 10:1, the petrol price at the pump for the city consumer-I concede that it is the city consumer-increased by a slightly less than a 4:1 margin. I know that it is very difficult to persuade people, but the reality is that in April this year Australia had the lowest petrol price of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country-our price was lower than the price in the United States of America or Canada. I concede that that did not last for very long, but I think I am correct in saying that at the moment we remain with the third lowest petrol price in the OECD. Honourable members should not run away with the delusion-worse still, they should not try to tell their constituents-that they are paying among the highest fuel prices in the world. That simply is not the case. Of course, people in their personal experience are not used to leaping off to compare a petrol pump price at Ballarat with a price in Bahrain, which is on the low side, or Stockholm, which is somewhere at the top. The point is that honourable members have to recognise-I say this for Queenslanders too-that there is a very real connection between international parity price of oil and the capacity of Queensland to export coal. Honourable members should not delude themselves that if-- Mr Ian Cameron —We don't. We have oil. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member knows quite well that if there were a dramatic international collapse in that price, which superficially would seem very attractive, it would have very adverse consequences for many people who are dependent on the coal industry in Queensland and New South Wales. I refrain from commenting on the excellent speeches from honourable members on the Labor side because they simply reinforced what is a very powerful Government case. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(10.05) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, line 30, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent'' (wherever occurring). (2) Clause 3, page 3, line 2, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (3) Clause 3, page 3, line 3, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (4) Clause 5, page 3, line 21, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (5) Clause 5, page 3, line 24, at the end of paragraph (a) add ``and''. (6) Clause 5, page 3, lines 25 and 26, omit paragraph (b). (7) Clause 5, page 3, line 29, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (8) Clause 6, page 3, line 35, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (9) Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at the end of paragraph (1) (a) add ``and''. (10) Clause 6, page 3, lines 39 and 40, omit paragraph (1) (b). (11) Clause 6, page 3, line 43, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (12) Clause 6, page 4, line 19, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (13) Page 5, Schedule 1, heading, insert `'ROYALTY'' after ``RENT''. (14) Page 5, Schedule 1, clause 1, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (15) Pages 5 and 6, Schedule 1, paragraph 1 (e), omit the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(e) for provisional royalty payments during each financial year to which the agreement applies, other than a financial year that ended before the agreement was entered into;''. (16) Page 6, Schedule 1, sub-paragraph 1 (f) (i), omit ``during which the agreement is in force'', insert ``to which the agreement applies''. (17) Page 6, Schedule 1, sub-paragraph 1 (f) (iii), omit ``sub-paragraph (e) (i) or (iii), as the case requires,'', insert ``paragraph (e)''. (18) Page 6, Schedule 1, sub-paragraph 1 (f) (iv), omit ``sub-paragraph (e) (i) or (iii), as the case requires,'', insert ``paragraph (e)''. (19) Page 6, Schedule 1, paragraph 1 (h), omit ``proceeds of the sale shall be taken to be'', insert ``producer shall be taken to have sold the petroleum for an amount equal to''. (20) Page 7, Schedule 1, omit paragraph 1 (m). (21) Page 7, Schedule 1, sub-paragraph 1 (n) (ii), omit ``24'', insert ``36''. (22) Page 7, Schedule 1, clause 2, insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (23) Page 7, Schedule 1, after clause 2 insert the following new clause: ``2A. A resource rent royalty agreement may provide for a penalty by way of additional royalty under the agreement.''. (24) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``eligible exceptional expenditure'', omit the definition, insert the following definition: `` `eligible exceptional expenditure', in relation to market petroleum produced from a production unit which is disposed of in a financial year, means- (a) expenditure incurred in that financial year in respect of the exploration for, or the determination of the existence, location, extent, quality or occurrence of, petroleum the source of which forms, or would form, part of that production unit (including expenditure in respect of geological and geophysical surveys and exploration, development and appraisal drilling); or (b) where that financial year is the first financial year to which the relevant resource rent royalty agreement that relates to that production unit applies-expenditure incurred in the immediate preceding financial year- (i) in respect of exploration, development and appraisal drilling programmes relating to the exploration for, or the determination of the existence, location, extent, quality or occurrence of, petroleum the source of which forms, or would form, part of that production unit; or (ii) in relation to the equipment of production wells drilled in accordance with those programmes;''. (25) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (1), paragraph (c) of the definition of ``eligible normal expenditure'', omit ``by way of taxes'', insert ``relating to depreciation charges and taxes on income''. (26) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (1), after the definition of ``eligible normal expenditure'', insert the following definition: `` `financial year', in relation to a resource rent royalty agreement, means- (a) in the case of an agreement that relates to a production unit that includes at least one source of petroleum from which petroleum for commercial use was produced before 25 June 1985-a period agreed upon by the State Minister and the relevant producer; or (b) in any other case-a period of 12 months commencing on 1 July;''. (27) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``gross receipts'', omit paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: ``(b) the value of the market petroleum which was not, and is not to be, sold, other than- (i) market petroleum flared or vented with the approval of the State Minister; (ii) market petroleum used by the relevant producer for the purposes of active operations of the production unit; and (iii) market petroleum which is otherwise lost, not being market petroleum to which the provision required by paragraph 1 (g) applies;''. (28) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``net receipts'', omit ``was petroleum'', insert ``is''. (29) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``State Minister'', omit the definition, insert the following definition: `` `State Minister', in relation to a resource rent royalty agreement, means the Minister of the Crown of the State who is responsible, or principally responsible, for the administration of matters relating to petroleum in the State;''. (30) Page 8, Schedule 1, sub-clause 3 (2), insert ``royalty'' after ``rent''. (31) Page 9, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (a), insert ``royalty'' after ``rent'' (first occurring). (32) Page 9, Schedule 2, sub-paragraph 1 (b) (i), omit ``production source'', insert ``source of petroleum''. (33) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (e), omit ``pays, or gives'', insert ``becomes liable to pay, or to give''. (34) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (e), omit ``of the Schedule'', insert ``in Schedule 1''. (35) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (e), omit ``the payment or giving'', substitute ``being given notice in writing by the State that the State has become so liable, being notice accompanied by verification in writing of the amount of the liability of the State''. (36) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (f), insert ``subject to paragraph (fa),'' before ``that the Commonwealth''. (37) Page 10, Schedule 2, after paragraph 1 (f), insert the following paragraph: ``(fa) where, in a financial year, administrative expenses are incurred by the State in the assessment and collection of royalty under the rent agreement, the Commonwealth shall pay to the State a proportion of those expenses, being a proportion equal to the proportion required by paragraph (b) in respect of the sharing agreement;''. (38) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (h), omit the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(h) that, where the rent agreement or a lease relating to the production unit to which the rent agreement applies confers a discretion on a Minister of the Crown of the State or another person, other than an arbitrator, being a discretion that could affect the amount of royalty, then, subject to any judgment, order or decree of a court, that Minister or other person shall not exercise that discretion except in accordance with procedures approved by the Minister;''. (39) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (j), omit ``makes'', insert ``becomes liable to make''. (40) Page 10, Schedule 2, paragraph 1 (j), omit ``notified by the State of that payment'', insert ``given notice in writing by the State that the State has become so liable, being notice accompanied by verification in writing of the amount of the liability of the State''. (41) Page 10, Schedule 2, omit paragraph 1 (m), insert the following paragraph: ``(m) that, subject to the provision required by paragraph (k), the agreement shall continue in force unless and until the rent agreement ceases to be in force.''. I apologise for the fact that there are no fewer than 41 amendments. I am prepared to go through them in pitiless detail if that is what the Committee requires. However, the amendments to the Petroleum Revenue Bill introduced here on 16 October are essentially drafting changes. They remove some inconsistencies; they tighten up and clarify the definitions; they reflect more precisely the Commonwealth's requirement for it to waive its right to levy excise on crude oil and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas. There has been no change in the intent of the legislation. A number of the changes are quite technical. For example, amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 24 and 31, which are more or less typical of the whole, alter the term `resource rent agreement' to read `resource rent royalty agreement'. That does not mean that we have backed away from our republican commitment by inserting the word `royalty' everywhere! But as a State government is prohibited constitutionally from introducing an excise, these amendments make it clear that an agreement entered into by a State and producer, in accordance with Schedule 1, is a royalty agreement. As I say, the other amendments are essentially technical, drafting and definition things, which do not in any sense change the overall intention of the Bill as set out in the second reading speech. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.07) —The Opposition notes that no fewer than 41 amendments have been moved to the Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985-which points to a rather inexact procedure associated with this very important legislation. As has been pointed out, this legislation relates in part to Western Australia. A comment was made by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) that everything is certain in politics and that the re-election of Premier Burke's Labor Government is certain. I disagree for a moment to say that there is no certainty about that, because Max Trenorden is set to win the seat of Avon off the Australian Labor Party, Dr Hilda Turnbull is set to win the seat of Collie off the Labor Party for the National Party of Australia, and, indeed, the reunited National Party is sweeping ahead under Hendy Cowan and, combined with the comprehensive effort of the Liberal Party at the State level, I think that the Western Australian election will be a much closer race than pundits such as the Minister at the table have indicated at an earlier stage-but I know that it would be out of order for me to go further down that particular path. The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I think perhaps it would be; we are discussing amendments now. Mr TIM FISCHER —The amendments are described as being largely technical. But there are 41 such amendments, and some of these denoted technical amendments go on for several paragraphs. Indeed, they are larger than some one-page Bills that come before this Parliament. I understand that some courtesy was extended to allow for careful study of these 41 amendments. The Opposition will take the opportunity in the Senate to look further at the impact of these amendments and to see that they merely conform with the removal of some inconsistencies, with the need to tighten up and clarify definitions, and with the need to better reflect the Commonwealth's requirement for it to waive its right to levy excise on crude oil and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas. None of this should be taken to in any way reduce the feeling of this House, and of honourable members on the left hand side of the Chair in particular, who recognise fully the devastating impact of high fuel prices across rural Australia at present. The combination of the record interest rate levels and increasing fuel price charges, with another 3c a litre expected next month as a consequence of exchange rate circumstances, leads me to say that this is a bitter pill for rural Australia, which is already in a financial crisis-and not just the primary producers but the small business operators in the Balranalds, in the Barongas and in the Bunburys. I appreciate that this is a Committee stage debate on the Petroleum Revenue Bill 1985, but it is my duty to highlight to the Committee and to the House of Representatives as a whole the fact that the impact of fuel prices is absolutely devastating across the other economy of Australia. I refer not to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistical economy, or to the coastal capital city economy we hear so much about from the Treasurer (Mr Keating), but to the rural economy that is suffering a fate far worse than the other economies. Indeed, many people are on the brink of financial disaster and are being placed into receivership or being forced to close the doors on their small business operations, whether in primary production or whatever. The National Party approach to fuel is clear cut. It has moved forward from the position of import parity pricing to an advanced position reflecting the changes. That has also been adopted in part by the Liberal Party. Therefore, in regard to fuel pricing, the coalition has adjusted to the times. These matters will be dealt with in more detail when the legislation is examined in the other place. At that time a more definitive response will be forthcoming in respect of the 41 amendments which have been moved by the Minister on this occasion to the Petroleum Revenue Bill. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I have received advice from the Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Webster to be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation in place of Mr Connolly. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety, I present the report of the Committee on bicycle helmet safety, together with extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs DARLING —I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs DARLING —The report I have just tabled on bicycle helmet safety is the first report of the Transport Safety Committee, although the inquiry was commenced in the last Parliament by the Standing Committee on Road Safety. The Committee has been concerned throughout this inquiry by the high incidence of head injuries in bicycle injuries, and particularly the very high incidence in fatalities from bicycle accidents, the latter being around 80 per cent. South Australian evidence indicates that in 50 to 65 per cent of cyclist fatalities head injuries are the sole cause of death. Statistics which appalled the Committee during this inquiry were those showing the over-representation of children in bicycle casualties. Studies show that 70 per cent of all bicycle casualties involved children aged from seven to 17 years, although this age group constitutes only 18.4 per cent of the general population. One frequent misconception is that bicycle accidents involving injury or fatality occur only on roads in accidents with motor vehicles. This is not correct as many serious cycling accidents are single vehicle accidents and 25 per cent of cyclist fatalities occur off road. Cycling injuries are very poorly reported and their full extent can be estimated only from the current data reported. This underreporting hinders road safety authorities in identifying the true causes of bicycle accidents and the importance of proper safety counter-measures. It must be emphasised that helmets are a secondary safety measure for cyclists and cannot replace primary safety measures such as rider competence, knowledge and observance of road rules, and bicycle brakes, lights and reflectors. However, even the best cyclists have accidents and head injuries can be personally devastating or fatal as well as expensive to the community. Quality helmets are a very effective secondary safety measure and an effective helmet can mean the difference between life and death. With the advent of high quality hard-shell bicycle helmets many of these injuries are avoidable or the severity of the injury can be substantially reduced. Despite the high level of protection offered by quality helmets, they cannot protect riders against all injuries or fatalities as on occasions the impact is too severe. The Committee defines quality helmets as those which have met the minimum requirements set down by the Australian Standard AS2063. The helmet must have a hard outer shell with a firm inner liner. The liner must be able to crush on impact. To be effective as a safety helmet bicycle helmets must be able to: spread impact forces to reduce the risk of skull fracture or penetration from highly localised loads; absorb as much energy as possible to reduce the deceleration forces on the brain; and cover the head and protect it from abrasion. It is important to understand that cyclist head injuries mainly result from fracturing of the skull as a result of impact and also from damage to the brain when a moving head comes to an abrupt stop. Inadequate shells and liners offer little or no protection for the head. To be certified to the standard, helmets are impact tested to determine their energy attenuation properties. They are also tested on a number of other aspects. Two studies have provided some measure of the benefits of helmet wearing in real crash situations. The Study by Dorsch and others published in 1984 showed that cyclists in Adelaide wearing helmets in a crash suffered fewer and less severe head injuries. Those with a quality hard shell helmet were 19 times less likely to die as a result of head injuries in a crash than those not wearing a helmet. Those wearing hair-net type helmets, favoured by some racing cyclists, were estimated to be eight times less likely to die. A study by McDermott and Klug of cyclist and motor-cyclist casualties in Melbourne showed that cyclists sustained more frequent and severe head injuries than motor-cyclists. Motor-cyclists would be expected to be involved in more severe accidents, and other injuries received by both groups support this. However motor-cyclists universally wear high quality protective helmets while few cyclists did so at the time of the study. The cyclist fatality rate was almost twice that of motor-cyclists and the death rate with head injury as the sole cause was more than twice that of motor-cyclists. Recent bicycle casualty statistics from Victoria have shown a clear improvement which is believed to be due to increased helmet wearing in that State. Some deficiencies in the standard have been identified in the past 18 months and the Standards Association of Australia has moved to correct them. A separate bicycle helmet standard is being prepared and should be completed in approximately 18 months. The Committee has recommended that this standard, when completed, be made a mandatory product safety standard under the Trade Practices Act. As the revised standard may have some significantly different requirements to the current one the Committee felt that the standard revision should be finalised before compliance with the standard is made mandatory. However, the Committee is most concerned with the number of grossly inadequate safety helmets being sold. The shells of these helmets have inadequate impact resistance and the helmets do not have adequate liners capable of attenuating, or absorbing, the high energy levels that the head can be subjected to in an accident. These two features are essential to a safety helmet. Consequently the Committee has recommended that helmets which do not meet the impact energy attenuation requirements of the current Standard AS2063 be declared unsafe products and prohibited from sale. Similarly, bona fide toy helmets should be permanently marked to indicate clearly that they are toys only and should not be used for safety purposes. It is most important that parents are aware of the danger of buying these toys and relying on them to protect the heads of youngsters who are cycling. The permanent marking required to indicate this is similar to the marking required on children's floating toys used in swimming. The Committee believes that universal helmet wearing will result in cost savings to the community although the full extent is uncertain. The Committee saw several cost-benefit calculations for universal helmet use. The Committee believes that an accurate and thorough assessment of the cost and benefits of making bicycle helmet use mandatory is necessary before taking such a step. The Committee has recommended that the Federal Office of Road Safety have a full cost-benefit analysis carried out. Regardless of the results of such an analysis the comparatively low cost of a helmet compared with the cost of those injuries which can be avoided make it a very good insurance policy. Recent bicycle helmet promotion campaigns, particularly those in Victoria, have shown that helmet wearing rates can be increased dramatically. The Committee believes that effective programs to promote bicycle helmet use should be developed at the national level to be quickly available for use by all States and Territories. These programs should utilise where possible effective material already developed. The Committee believes that universal wearing of bicycle helmets should be a national goal, particularly for the highest risk group-children and adolescents. As with seat belts and motorcycle helmets, the Committee believes that universal wearing can be most readily achieved through mandatory wearing legislation. This is not to say that education and promotion campaigns are less important. As with all mandatory safety measures, a high degree of self-enforcement is necessary. If cyclists understand the protection available through helmets-- Mr Nehl —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. With the greatest respect and acknowledging the importance of the subject matter, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the honourable member for Lilley was given permission to make a short or brief statement. It seems that the length of the statement is more consistent with the actual report. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Lilley was given leave. Mrs DARLING —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was given 10 minutes. I thank the honourable member for Cowper for taking two of those minutes on an important issue such as that of helmet safety! If cyclists understand the protection available through helmets they are more likely to insist on wearing them. Some high exposure groups, such as adult commuter cyclists, are already achieving high usage rates in south-eastern capital cities. However the highest risk group, 7 to 17-year-olds, are still one of the lowest user groups, with adolescents being the most resistant to helmet use. The acceptance by primary school children of safety measures and their compliance with parental directions has shown that usage rates amongst this group can be raised readily. The adolescent group has been less willing to adopt helmet wearing and peer group pressure has been one of the major factors. Although it will take some time it is hoped that some of the primary school children being persuaded to wear helmets will maintain their helmet use as they get older. It is also important for the adolescent group to have suitable role models offered to encourage helmet wearing. The Federal Office of Road Safety, recently conducted a campaign using Molly Meldrum from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Countdown program to promote the wearing of quality helmets. The Committee commends this move. This campaign was backed up by advertisements on radio by a number of well-known popular music groups. Two programs which originated in Victorian schools are worthy of wider adoption around Australia. The first is the bulk purchase scheme whereby community members can get together to order large numbers of helmets, obtaining them at especially low prices. This particularly assists low income families and those with several children. A number of Victorian schools have adopted a policy that children must wear a helmet for the journey to and from school. While schools largely lack the power to make this a compulsory rule it has been very successful where introduced and has received strong parental support. These two programs have been effective in getting helmets on to the heads of the group most at risk. The Committee has recommended that 12 months after a mandatory standard has been introduced for bicycle helmets, which itself should take approximately 18 months, the benefits of universal helmet wearing should be reviewed and unless there are persuasive arguments to the contrary the wearing of helmets by cyclists on roads and other public places should be made compulsory. A number of the prerequisites for universal use are currently being fulfilled. There is a growing acceptance of the necessity of helmet use. Usage rates in many areas have risen substantially in recent years and are continuing to rise. A number of schools are introducing the compulsory wearing of helmets for students when they are cycling to and from school and various schemes have made approved helmets available at a modest price. The Committee is concerned about the enormity of those head injuries and fatalities that are avoidable with the wearing of a good helmet. Difficulties likely to be encountered in implementing compulsory helmet use such as enforcement with children and civil rights questions need to be addressed directly. Overcoming these obstacles is well worth the effort in terms of the benefits. I am pleased at the excellent bipartisan effort that has gone into the Committee's efforts in looking at the area of bicycle helmet safety. As a community, it is our responsibility to provide to those most at risk, the 7 to 17-year-olds, the level of protection so readily available. Therefore, the Committee has identified three objectives to improve cyclist safety through helmet wearing as: First, make sure that all helmets on the market are of an adequate standard; secondly, educate the community as to the benefits of helmet use; and thirdly, in 2 1/2 years time, after the above two measures have been undertaken, ensure universal helmet wearing through legislation. On behalf of the Committee I would like to thank officers of the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, for their excellent support and co-operation. I personally would like to thank members on both sides of the House, including the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), for the effort they have put in and for the serious manner in which they have considered these issues which are of the utmost importance in this House as they are in the community. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —by leave-I support the comments of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). Whilst I have never liked serving under a woman, having been married to one and having five daughters, I must say that the honourable member for Lilley has done an extremely good job. Outside the parochialism of politics and away from the anger of being opposite one another, all members of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety work to reduce the road toll in Australia. I would like to name all the members of the Committee because I say quite sincerely that they have changed my way of thinking. I congratulate the Secretary, Mr Kelly, and all the members of his secretariat. I cannot name them because I am not very good on names. I congratulate the honourable member for Lilley; the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) from my side; my great friend the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman), who is a nice man who is constructive and gives good advice to everybody; the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis)-it was suggested today that he is not a very artistic person though he is a very constructive one-the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), a very good member who came to every meeting, and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who I think has a good future ahead of him and if he follows some of my leadership he will go a long way. I had my doubts about the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), but by gosh-- Honourable members interjecting-- Mr GOODLUCK —Honourable members can laugh but if we have a bipartisan committee working for the reduction of the road toll in Australia that committee has to work together, and if bouquets are to be given out we have to say that the honourable member for Lilley has done a dashed good job. She continually made absolutely certain that everybody attended the meetings. She has done a dashed good job in every respect. Therefore, I applaud her. We all work in a bipartisan way for one purpose-to reduce the road toll in Australia. I have been involved in the motor industry all my life. I have seen people have a love affair with their motor vehicles. I have seen people doctor up their motor vehicles to make them, sometimes, lethal weapons on the road. Ten people in Australia die every day on the roads. Regrettably, the problem is exacerbated by the large number of cars on the road. Young, unsuspecting pedestrians and young, unsuspecting push-bike riders are subject to a lot of problems on the road. The purpose of our Committee was to look at some of the toys available which it was stated would protect the heads of the young push-bike riders. We knew that they were only toys. We aimed at taking them off the market. We aimed at bringing everything up to a standard so that we could be sure that if young people had an accident at least they would have a chance. We listened to everybody who gave evidence and scrutinised that evidence in a non-political way, in a bipartisan way, to make certain that the helmets were right. We talked to the manufacturers of helmets. We made certain that if helmets were imported from Taiwan or other countries around the world the helmets were of a particular standard. We talked to the standards people. We made certain that the standards people met that requirement. By doing so we hoped to make it safe for the young push-bike riders on the roads, so that if they wore helmets and were involved in a collision on the road at least they had a chance. That is what this Committee is about. Sometimes I think that some of the committees of this Parliament are only self-appraising and that honourable members join those committees only to progress up the ladder. That is not so with this Committee. We work together. We do not aspire to some other job. The Committee is perhaps not as fashionable as some other committees. We work together in a bipartisan way to help, in this case the young cyclists, the young people of Australia, to ensure that they are safe on our roads. At 50 years of age I am at the end of my political career. Mrs Kelly —Hear, hear! Mr GOODLUCK —I heard the honourable member for Canberra say `hear, hear'. She would regret it if I left this Parliament because at least I talk about women's affairs. Anyway, I will get off that subject. The main thing is that all of us on the Committee work with the one aim of reducing the number of road deaths in Australia. We have future terms of reference to allow us to continue to make Australia a safer place. Let us face it, the most regrettable thing that can happen in this world today, in particular in Australia, is for a family to lose a loved one. When a family loses a young child it has a traumatic effect. That is what we are about. That is why we attend Committee meetings all over Australia. We do not attend the meetings for the love of travel or the grandeur of doing so. We try to make recommendations to the States in a constructive way to make it safer for young people and safer for people in general on the roads of Australia. That is why we continue. Some people say that that work is repetitive. We do not think so. We enjoy it. I congratulate the honourable member for Lilley. I hope I give her the enthusiasm to go on. I congratulate every honourable member on the Committee. While I am in the Parliament I will continue to be a member of the Committee. I love it. At least on that Committee I can try to do something constructive for the people of Australia, not only the young people and the old people; I can try to make it a safe place for all Australians. That is what I am all about. I ask the honourable member for Lilley to carry on with the good job. She has my loyal support. She has the loyal support of all the members on the Committee. At least we will be able to go to the dinner tomorrow night and enjoy it because we know we are all working together for that one aim-to make Australia a safer place for all Australians. Mr GORMAN(Greenway) —by leave-I support the report of the Standing Committee on Transport Safety on bicycle safety. As most honourable members would know, the slogan name for this Committee is Transafe. I believe the name Transafe was put forward by the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) and rounded off by other members of the Committee. It is a most appropriate name because this year the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has handed more or less all sections of road and transport safety to the Committee to investigate. The chairperson is the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). The Committee has a joint party membership and it must be said that all members of the Committee are very dedicated and committed to improving safety for all road users. I would like that recorded in Hansard. Mr Slipper —Including the National Party. Mr GORMAN —Including the National Party. It is an all-party committee. This report has been tabled at a most convenient period. As is usual, in a few weeks time most of us will see the children who live next door or across the street or some young relative riding very proudly on his or her new bicycle which will have been given as a Christmas present. We must take this opportunity to try to induce the parents to consider including an approved safety helmet as part of the gift. I know that many parents in my electorate of Greenway have already purchased safety helmets to protect their most valued asset-the children of this country. Time constraints are such that I will not be able to go through many of the recommendations of this very comprehensive submission, but I will mention just a couple. Recommendations 58 (a) and (b) at page 18 of the report state: (a) The Minister for Transport, through the Federal Office of Road Safety, take steps to publicise widely helmet bulk-purchasing programs and to co-ordinate a national program by encouraging schools, manufacturers and retailers to work closely together to ensure all Australian schools have the opportunity to participate, and (b) The Minister for Education facilitate the co-operation of school-based bulk purchase schemes for bicycle helmets in the Australian Capital Territory along the lines of the Victorian scheme-- that is a very successful scheme. Recommendation 65 at page 19 states: The Ministers for Education and Transport seek the co-operation of their State and Territory counterparts to encourage all schools to introduce the compulsory wearing of helmets by children cycling to and from school. The number of serious and fatal accidents even this minor action will avoid would in itself save a great many heartbreaks. As I said earlier, I do not have the time to go through all the recommendations that I would like to mention, but they are contained in the very comprehensive report. I would be very scotty with myself if I did not have recorded in Hansard my thanks to the Minister and his staff, the Federal Office of Road Safety, the Committee secretariat, headed by Mr Kelly, the many persons who came forward and gave evidence at the various public hearings, the staff of Hansard and in particular the chairperson and other Committee members. Mr Slipper —Chairman. Mr GORMAN —The chairperson or Chairman; it does not matter. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me these few minutes to make this statement in support of the report. I convey my best wishes to Simon and his wife on their future now that he has left the secretariat. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 238th report of the Committee entitled `Public Hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory'. In view of the lateness of the hour I will not seek leave to make a short statement, but simply thank the Committee secretariat for its assistance in the preparation of the report. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.39) —I quote: Australia has no productivity. Our costs are too high. We have too many bludgers. The country is bankrupt and no one will admit it. If Australia were a private company, it would be in liquidation. Those are the telling words of David Throsby, a partner of Charles David Pty Ltd, which the Australian of 20 November described as `the remarkable New South Wales based meat processor . . . which has changed the gloomy outlook hanging over the Australian meat industry in one swoop this week'. The problem facing this enterprising abattoir operator is to overcome the outdated work practices which have been institutionalised and protected by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. These practices have resulted in the Wagga City Council abattoirs losing $15m. The Mudginberri meat workers showed the rest of Australia just what could be done when an outdated tally system is replaced. Productivity increased, profits were made and the meat workers took home more pay. The Throsby brothers aim to annex the New Zealand export sheep market which would provide a much needed boost to the Australian farmer, our balance of payments difficulties and employment opportunities in the meat industry. They are hampered by the nineteenth century attitude of the AMIEU and the Throsbys' claim that union policy is preventing 150 meat workers from earning up to $500 a week. Mac Gardener's haulage company at Cooma provides another example of union intervention; this time the Transport Workers Union is threatening the viability of a small business which had arrived at a flexible working relationship between the men and the owner. Prior to the TWU action, Mac was able to maintain high levels of productivity and the men were happy and well paid. While the business is still operating, kept alive during the dispute by section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, its long term existence and therefore the workers' jobs are at risk because the award system lacks the incentive component which the previous arrangement provided for Mac and his men. We have around 125,000 15 to 19-year-olds with little or no chance of gaining a permanent job. In my own electorate another hard working Australian, a fencing contractor, sought to give one of these 19-year-olds a chance in life. He wanted to employ this keen, young, unemployed lad under the agricultural and pastoral workers award, but because he was seeking employment assistance for the boy through one of the Government's much promoted great employment initiatives, he was told that the Builders Labourers Federation award applied. The difference was $130 a week because the BLF does not have a junior award and, although the job involved building timber fences, these were not on farms. Needless to say, that lad did not get the opportunity he was looking for and which was available to him, due to our inflexible wage fixing system. Meanwhile, the Government boasts that it will spend $600,000 of taxpayers' money to provide 72 of Canberra's `most disadvantaged unemployed people' with 26 weeks' work. That Commonwealth community employment program grant works out at $8,793 per job for half a year. I would have thought that it would be far better for the Government to start deregulating the labour market, just as it has the financial market, and to stand up to union selfishness so that people like the Throsbys, Mac Gardener and my fencing contractor could provide real jobs for those out of work in Australia. It will not be big governments, big unions or big business that will solve the economic ills of our resource rich country. It will be the Mac Gardeners, the fencing contractors and the abattoir operators to whom I have referred. As Tony Cox, Vice-Chairman of the Small Business Combined Association is quoted as saying: Small business is the backbone of Australia, but it is severely overtaxed and overregulated. It provides 50 per cent of our jobs, it pays 55 per cent of private sector profits and taxes and produces 46 per cent of Australia's gross national product. There are more than 700,000 of them and the average employment is only eight people. They as a group are highly motivated workers who are not unionized, and get a great deal of job satisfaction. They want to be left alone to get on with the job. To them a working week is seven days, not 38 hours. Because of all kinds of government imposed regulations and award conditions and various State taxes, every $1 paid to workers costs the company around $1.43 and, after tax, the employee gets only 75c. It is quite obvious that if this country is to become competitive in the world market and employ some of the 564,500 unemployed, then this Government and the union movement will have to change their attitudes-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.44) —My attention has been caught by an article in today's Daily Mirror entitled `Plan to lift van ban is a winner'. It is an article on caravan parks by a good friend of mine, the great journalist, Ray Turner, and it outlines proposals that have been around in New South Wales for some years to regulate somehow the growth of permanent residency in caravan parks. There are in New South Wales, as country members will attest, about 100,000 people living permanently in caravans, tents or similar structures in caravan parks. Throughout Australia the number is estimated at 500,000, which is an enormous percentage of our population. If honourable members do not believe that, they just have to look at surveys of children who live in flats, houses or caravans. In today's Daily Mirror there is an article which states that before Christmas legislation will be introduced to allow permanent residency in caravan parks. That means it will be introduced this week. I raise this matter tonight because for some years-I think it was from approximately 1977 to 1979-I was chairman of a joint select committee of the New South Wales Parliament which looked into this problem of permanent residency in caravan parks. We recommended that permanents be allowed to remain, but no more permanents be allowed. If people wanted to live in a caravan park, as some people do by choice or because it is near where they work, they should be in a mobile home park. We recommended that the New South Wales Government establish a pilot scheme, some sort of mobile home park to see just what such a park would be like. It is permanent residential accommodation. That was what we recommended, but nothing happened. The industry took fright and raised enormous amounts of money to fight what it called the Maher report. There were protest meetings that I had to face all over the State, and nothing happened. The article in today's Daily Mirror states that something will happen. Some of the things that are going to happen are very good. People in caravan parks have to pay a commercial rate for electricity which is very harsh, particularly on pensioners as they get no concessions. That will change and I commend the State Minister. The New South Wales Government is dealing with permanent housing, permanent habitable accommodation. Every structure built for permanent housing and permanent accommodation in New South Wales is governed by Ordinance 70. So the State Government is manoeuvring with the Public Health Act. The Minister, Kevin Stewart, who is a great friend of mine, assured me at a public meeting in Sydney on this issue that there would be no tampering with the Public Health Act; it is enshrined in the legislation in New South Wales and similar legislation in every State. This is the legislation that wiped out tuberculosis and many contagious diseases. Ordinance 70 is enshrined in the Public Health Act and provides minimum accommodation in bedrooms. The second bedroom in caravans, where children sleep, is too small. That is why they do not comply with the housing laws. That is why they are not classified as houses. The Minister does say that there are a lot of problems and the caravans have to be upgraded. We must recognise what New South Wales is about to do. It is about to legislate for another form of permanent human habitation. I am sure it will proceed slowly. I have found that some of the ski lodges built in the national park not so very far from here do not comply with Ordinance 70. These lodges get away with it because they are deemed to be like a caravan-a recreational vehicle. What I say to New South Wales and any of the other States is this: I believe there is a future for mobile homes in our nation, but not a very big future. In the United States of America a quarter of the new housing was mobile homes until recently. That will never happen in Australia. We do not have the economies of scale. I think many people want to retire to mobile homes. They do not care that mobile homes depreciate quickly; they do not care that no home loans are available for them. They are not houses. But I do feel that if they are treated as residential accommodation and not put at the back of sale yards, at the back of rubbish tips or under the high tension wires they will be a great success. Whichever State starts mobile home parks and launches them I feel will get a great boost from tourism because of the potential of this form of housing. I wish New South Wales well, particularly Kevin Stewart who is allegedly going to retire shortly. I hope that whatever he does in this field is done well and with a lot of thought and will certainly be something for which he can be remembered. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.49) —Tonight I draw to the attention of the House a matter of great historical significance to Australians. I refer specifically to the Royal Australian Navy's air museum at HMAS Albatross at Nowra. Since 1974 the Navy has had an air museum at HMAS Albatross which has been open to the public for 363 days of the year. Since that time it has proved to be a major tourist attraction in the district. In more recent years it has attracted about 30,000 visitors, and on special air display days it can attract anything up to 50,000 visitors in conjunction with other activities at HMAS Albatross. In 1978, as a result of a fire in one of the hangars at HMAS Albatross, the air museum lost the roof over its head. Since that time it has been left out in the open, subject to the vagaries of the weather, and consequently various aircraft have suffered a degree of deterioration. These aircraft are unique, rare aircraft and would be worth many millions of dollars if one were to place a monetary value on them. They are aircraft such as the Sea Fury, the Vampire, the Fairy Firefly, the Bell Scout Helicopter, the Grumman Tracker and the Dakota DC3. Those are just a few of the unique, rare aircraft that are housed at the air museum. The air museum is in need of a roof over its head, as I mentioned a few moments ago, Some years ago the Federal Government created a program called the steel industries assistance program. This program was designed to try to broaden the base of the economy in areas around steel cities. Of course, the Illawarra is a famous steel area which in previous years was greatly dependent on the steel industry. When the industry went through a recession it was decided that funds should be put into the district to try to take away its dependency on the steel industry for its income. As a consequence, activities such as tourist activities, for which the Wollongong-Illawarra region is very suitable, have been promoted. The air museum at Albatross lends itself very clearly to that very lucrative tourist industry, an industry which employs many people and which can generate a great deal of income in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven districts. Unfortunately, the funds that have been made available have been hotly contested and the committee that has been established to draw up recommendations for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has been advising the Minister. Its latest advice has been to give first priority to funding for a hangar for the air museum at Albatross. Unfortunately, not all people are prepared to take into account the great benefits that this would provide to the unique aircraft in the museum. A member of parliament who represents an electorate slightly to the north of my electorate in the Illawarra region has been lobbying quite strongly to have these funds which have been given first priority by the committee taken away from the air museum and used to create a sporting facility. I suggest to the House that an air museum which has such a huge tourist potential-a similar air museum in the United Kingdom attracts 250,000 visitors a year-has a great potential to create income for the district. I do not see how any sporting facility in a small and parochial area would have the same benefits for the whole region. I suggest that this House and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would well serve the people of Australia by helping to preserve such a unique, rare and valuable part of Australia's air history rather than trying to promote the parochial interests of a few. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.53) —I want to speak tonight about the vicious attack on penalty rates which has been made by the Liberal and National Party Opposition both inside and outside this House. It is my intention to deal briefly with the facts rather than indulge in the emotional and irrational arguments used by members of the Opposition and employers in their attempts to reduce the wages of employees, particularly the wages of those workers whose base rates are already relatively low. The attacks on penalty rates have come in two main forms. Firstly, there is the argument that the weekend no longer represents the traditional two-day leisure period for Australian workers; and secondly, there is the argument that the high cost of penalty rates on employers results in fewer employees being offered work opportunities. I would like first to deal with the argument that the weekend is no longer an important leisure time for Australians. A visit to shopping centres in any large city in Australia on a Saturday morning will provide ample evidence of the crowded shops full of customers who are unable to shop during the week because of their working hours. On Saturday afternoons and Sunday sporting events throughout Australia are full of spectators and beaches, parks and other leisure places are crowded with families enjoying numerous and varied leisure activities. Sunday is also a time of religious observance. Contrary to the argument that the weekend is no longer an important aspect of Australian life, the evidence indicates that the weekend break is more popular than ever. The facts are that the Monday to Friday working week is institutionalised in our society and work activities, school hours and the provision of services such as banking, post offices and public transport are geared to the normal working week. Saturdays and Sundays are a time when families get together and those employees who work on the weekend are entitled to penalty rates to compensate for the disruption to their social and family life. The argument involving the cost and employment effects of penalty rates requires a more detailed rejection. Again employers have failed to examine the facts. Firstly, those industries which employ more people outside working hours, such as the tourist, hospitality, and retail industries, have not shown a lower rate of employment growth than other industries. Secondly, there is no correlation between penalty rate increases and unemployment. Thirdly, there has not been a significant increase in penalty rates as a percentage of wage increases, with the total penalty payment cost of $700m representing only 1.4 per cent of the total wage and salary bill. If anything, the facts show that there is a positive relationship between penalty rates and employment. Penalty rates are encompassed within the total wage levels of Australian workers and a reduction in those rates, unless compensated by increases in the basic wage, would reduce the disposable income of employees. Such a reduction in overall wages would result in a drop in consumer demand leading to the inevitable consequence of an increase in unemployment. The opposition of employers to the continuation of penalty rates represents another of those constant attempts by employers to reduce the wages of their employees. I quote a comment of the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in a standard hours case which sets out the position of employers very clearly: It has been the historic role of employers to oppose the worker's claims for increased leisure. They have, as is well known, opposed in Parliament and elsewhere, every step in this direction and this case is no exception. The arguments have not much changed in 100 years. Employers have feared such changes as a threat to profits, added obstacle to production; a limitation upon industrial expansion; and a threat to internal and international trade relations. Let me now turn to the specific attacks by employers on workers in the tourist and hospitality industries because they continue through their unions to uphold their right to penalty rates for overtime, shift work, public holiday work and Saturday and Sunday work. In the hospitality industry penalty rates are paid mainly for weekend work and to suggest that these workers should not receive penalty rates is really proposing that people in one section of the population should not be given any consideration for their loss of weekends. The Liquor Trades Union is especially concerned that up to 80 per cent of workers in the hospitality industry are casual employees. These people are employed on an hourly basis which can be as little as two hours in hotels if customers are few. Their working week is totally at the mercy of unpredictable market forces and they are not entitled to sick leave or redundancy provisions. In other words they can be sacked without notice. Despite the lack of job security, casual hotel employees receive only a 25 per cent loading. It is not the high cost of wages which is causing the financial problems of the hospitality industry but rather the inflationary costs of land, building, stock and fittings, and the high interest rates on the mortgages and loan funds involved. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.59) —Last week I was unable to complete a tribute to the late Eileen Furley. Mrs Furley did more than anyone else to make the Liberal Party of Australia relevant to migrants in the 1950s and 1960s. She received her Order of the British Empire for her work with the Good Neighbour Council. She also worked with the Captive Nations Council and was patron of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. During the war she served with Dr Coombs on the rationing commission and together with Miss Ruby Rich organised exhibitions for the Council for Women in War Work, some of the material of which is now on display at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Mrs Furley was an excellent leader, a fine speaker, thorough, able and determined and her manner brought the best out in those whom she led. She had a great sense of humour. She had grace, dignity, fine character, an unassuming charm and warmth and great charity with very few harsh words about people. She differed on issues but bore no grudges. In short, she was a person of quality who enriched the lives of all who were privileged to know her well. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of subsidy on the production, or in respect of the importation, of certain grain harvesters and related equipment, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 November 1985: Public Service Act-Determinations-1985-Nos 84, 90, 92. Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86E, dated 13 November 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1261) Mr Blunt asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: When will he respond to a telegram from the Charter Boat Owners and Operators Association of Western Australia and to representations from Mr G. L. Hill, MLA, Government Whip in the Western Australian Parliament, in regard to the announced construction of the joint federal-state funded charter boat to be constructed for Western Australia as a bicentennial project. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I responded on 28 May 1985 to a telegram from Mr B. McKay, President of Charter Boats Owners and Operators Association of Western Australia. (2) Although the telegram referred to representations from Mr G. L. Hill, there is no record of the representations having been received. (3) Departmental officials have recently spoken with Mr Hill and he advised that he is satisfied with the response provided to Mr McKay's telegram and is not seeking any further advice on the matter. (Question No. 1376) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Did the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC) disregard the basis upon which it received a sum of $190,000 from the Aboriginal Arts Board which had been allocated to Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd. (2) Did he give any directions, either in writing or in person, formally or informally, to the ADC in regard to the ADC's receipt of this money from the Aboriginal Arts Board; if so, why. (3) Did a meeting take place between himself, Mr T. Pascoe, Mr C. Perkins and Mr C. Dixon, during or about October 1983, at which a proposal was formulated and subsequently put to the Aboriginal Arts Board regarding (a) the future of Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd and (b) the future marketing of Aboriginal arts and crafts. (4) Did he, in writing or in person, give instructions to the ADC to take over Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd. (5) Was funding to Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd withheld or any other action taken which influenced the withdrawal of its application for an appeal to the High Court and any other court actions; if not, is he able to say that circumstances influenced Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd to withdraw the application. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The honourable member has asked a question in five parts which refer to some, if not all, the aspects raised in his Question No. 189, placed on notice on 20 March and answered by me on 31 May 1985. In that answer I referred the honourable member to the judgment of Hutley JA, Glass JA and Priestly JA in the NSW Court of Appeal (CA321 of 12 October 1984). I forwarded a copy of that judgment to the honourable member at that time. (Question No. 1455) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Name of advertising campaign/research studies Conducted by Government Agencies Name of advertising agency/market research firm The amount paid Split between agency fees and actual campaign costs Cost $ $ $ UHF advertising campaigns in Brisbane, Adelaide, Wollongong and Newcastle Yes, Australian Government Advertising Service IHJ Advertising Pty Ltd 34,458 34,458 2,328 (paid to agency) 32,130 (costs) A status report on the demo- graphic composition of the hearing impaired market and television closed captioning* No The Consultancy Pty Ltd, Potts Point, NSW 7,750 7,750 n.a. * Not yet completed. (Question No. 1490) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in 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 Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce: PRIME-Central computing. Wang-Personal computers and word processing. Morrow, Kookaburra-Personal computers. Jacquard-Word processing. DEC-Central computing, BDS, C. Itoh, TAB, DEC, Hewlett Packard, PRIME, FACOM, Wang, Diablo, Epson, Printek, Zeta-terminals, printers and peripheral equipment. Australian Customs Service: Sperry, ICL-Central Computing. AWA, PRIME, Telenet-Computing Network. Wang-personal computers and word processing. Jacquard-word processing. General Automation-Network Minicomputers. Raytheon, Telex-Federal Police System Peripherals. Industries Assistance Commission: National Advanced Systems (NAS)-Central Data Processing hardware. NBI, Remington-Word Processing and Office Automation. AWA, BDS, C. Itoh, DEC, Diablo, Epson, General Electric, Hewlett Packard, IBM, NCR, North- star, Office Automation, Printronix, Raytheon, Sirius, Telex, Wang-Terminals, Printers and Peripheral Equipment. Note: Information provided in (2) (a) below refers to application systems. (2) Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce: (a) Data base and Analysis Systems-The Department's major systems are currently being developed on the PRIME computers for various data base applications by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board and the Technology Division of the Department. Systems are also being developed on the PRIME computers to support the analytical and research needs of the Bureau of Industry Economics by provision of access to statistical/econometrics/analytical packages and to support the Offsets program. Systems on DEC are currently being phased out and transferred to PRIME. (b) June 1985. (c) $326,000. (d) 7 to 10 years. (e) As the hardware systems are new, there are no plans for replacement at this stage. Additional expenditure is planned to enhance the system over the next few years. Replacement/enhancement of existing word processing facilities is anticipated to be commenced this financial year. Australian Customs Service: Passenger Processing System (PASS) (a) Handles the processing of 4 million inwards and outwards passengers for Customs and Immigration at all major international airports. (b) October 1984. (c) $610,000*. (d) 5 to 10 years. (e) None at this stage. New Customs Commercial online database systems: (a) Being developed to process 1.6 million customs and excise entries returning $10 billion per annum. (b) Currently being installed. (c) $150,000*. (d) 5 to 10 years. (e) None at this stage. Old Customs Commercial System: (a) Provides basic automated support for processing customs entries. (b) From 1972. (c) $800,000*. (d) End 1986 after full implementation of new customs commercial system. (e) Currently being redeveloped. Diesel fuel rebate system: (a) Processes 320,000 claims refunding $180 million per annum (b) 1982 (c) $124,000* (d) 2 to 5 years (e) Currently under review. Foreign Affairs' passport issue control system: (a) Issue and control of all Australian passports (b) 1978 (c) $210,000* (d) Likely until June 1986 (e) Foreign Affairs developing in-house replacement system. * Does not include mainframe or network infrastructure costs which are common to all systems. Australian Electoral Commission Election System: (a) Tally federal election results (b) 1977 (c) This system was developed on behalf of the Electoral Commission, to take advantage of existing ACS hardware, terminal equipment and network, to provide nationwide access. The main cost of the system is the temporary relocation of terminal equipment in the national tally room, on election night (d) Pending-see (e) (e) Electoral Commission understood to be acquiring/ developing a replacement system Industries Assistance Commission: (a) The major system is an integrated information processing facility designed to provide: (i) Textual storage and manipulation for the preparation of Commission papers and reports. (ii) Storage and processing of numerical trade and economic data and facilities for statistical analysis and modelling to support the Commission's research and analysis. (iii) Storage and processing of administrative and operational data. (b) Installation began in June 1985 and is currently proceeding though it is substantially complete. (c) $1,356,000 over the financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86 (d) 7 to 10 years (e) Since the system is new there are no plans for replacement. Additional expenditure is planned to enhance the system over the next few years. (3) Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce: The Department's major system is not shared with any other user apart from those portfolio agencies mentioned in 2 (a) above. Australian Customs Service: The Customs Commercial system is accessed by over 500 independent customs agents. This aids free flow of customs entry data. The Australian Federal Police Intelligence system is accessed by the ACS to allow common access to vital drug and other intelligence information. The Election System is accessed by the Australian Electoral Commission and media organisations to aid in the counting and analysis of polling results. The Passenger Processing System (PASS) is also used by the Departments of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Foreign Affairs and Attorney-General's and the Australian Federal Police for immigration and law enforcement purposes. The Foreign Affairs Passport Issue Control system was developed for the mutual advantage of the Department of Foreign Affairs and PASS users. It simplifies the passport issue function and allows easier clearance of passengers through international airports. Industries Assistance Commission: The Commission's major system is not shared with any other user. (Question No. 1595) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The total expenditure for compensation and legal expenses outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 totalled $873,542.00 for 1984-85. This included $38,221.01 expended on legal expenses. The balance of expenditure ($835,320.99) covered regular on going compensation payments and payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospitals etc. who had provided treatment and services to the claimants. (2) To provide the information sought on a case by case basis would require a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources from normal Department operations requiring, as it would, an examination of 783 individual claims. (3) Legal Expenses Amount($) Recipient Service 2,378.00 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees for Mr Williams representing the Commonwealth and disbursement of fees to Abbott Tout Creer and Wilkinson. 27,368.35 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees to Mr Dunford and Mr Walmsley representing the Commonwealth and disbursement of fees to Pamela Coward and Associates. 2,295.75 Australian Government Solicitor Disbursement of fees to MacPhillamy Cummins and Gibson. 160.00 Australian Government Solicitor Memorandum of fees to Dr Sinclair for consultation and report. 6,018.91 Australian Government Solicitor Disbursement of fees to Holding Redlich and Co. (Question No. 1604) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: Why has $50,000 been appropriated for compensation and legal expenses for his Department in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86 when, in 1984-85, no moneys were expended for these services. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Compensation payments in 1985-86 are being treated separately and included in the `Other Services' sub-division under the heading `Compensation and Legal Expenses', whereas in 1984-85 they were contained in the Incidentals sub-item of the consolidated administrative and operational expenses sub-divisions in Appropriation Bill No. 1. Expenditure for compensation and in the Incidentals sub-item in 1984-85 was $209,240. (Question No. 1613) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: (1) What obligations are placed on unions registered with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and State industrial courts by reason of their registration. (2) Is he able to say (a) what the value of assets held by each of these unions was at 30 June 1985, (b) what income was received by each of these unions in membership fees in 1985 and (c) what percentage of (i) the Australian workforce and (ii) the workforce of each of our major trading competitors was unionised in each year since 1976. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Federally registered organisations of both employers and employees are required to meet a number of statutory obligations. These obligations are set out in Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Parts VIII, VIIIA and VIIIAA) and Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations (Parts V, VA, VAA and VI). The obligations imposed upon organizations registered within State systems are set out in the industrial relations and/or trade union legislation of the State concerned. (2) (a) and (b) Federally registered organizations are not required to end their accounting periods on 30 June but may operate their financial year over such other periods of twelve months as their rules provide. Consequently, the times of the year at which auditors' reports and accounting statements are filed with the Industrial Registrar also vary. I am therefore unable to provide information as to their assets and income received in membership fees as at 30 June 1985. (c) (i) and (ii) The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes on an annual basis information on trade union density in Australia. Information on other countries is not as readily available. Nor is it possible in all cases to determine the basis upon which their figures have been determined (eg, whether unemployed persons are included). The best available information is as follows: TRADE UNION DENSITY (per cent) Year Australia(1) Japan(2) USA(3) UK(4) NZ(5) Federal Republic of Germany 1976... 55 34 20 51 43 38 1977... 55 33 20 53 * 38 1978... 56 33 20 54 * * 1979... 56 32 * 54 * * 1980... 56 31 23 52 * 43 1981... 56 31 * 51 48 * 1982... 57 31 * 49 * * 1983... 55 30 20 * * * 1984... 55 29 19 * * * Sources: (1) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Trade Union Statistics, Catalogue No. 6323.0 (2) Japan Labor Bulletin, April 1985. (3) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics, December 1980. Monthly Labor Review, February 1985. (4) HMSO, Control Statistics Office, Annual Abstract of Statistics, No. 121, 1985 Edition. (5) NZ Dept of Statistics, New Zealand Official Yearbook 1984. (6) Bain &Price, Profiles of Union Growth (Blackwell, 1980) FRG Press &Information Office, Unions &Employers 1981. (Question No. 1680) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) What was the operating loss or subsidy for the ACTION bus service in each of the last 5 years. (2) How many (a) buses and (b) employees did ACTION have on (i) July 1980 and (ii) July 1985. (3) What action is being taken to improve the economic efficiency of ACTION. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- Subsidy appropriated* $ 1980-81... 11,761,000 1981-82... 12,521,200 1982-83... 14,081,000 1983-84... 14,360,000 1984-85... 14,195,000 * Not adjusted for changes in accounting arrangements. (2)- (a) Buses (b) Employees (i) July 1980... 352 733 (ii) July 1985... 397 807 (3) The economic efficiency of ACTION has continued to improve with higher loadings; route, timetable and roster re-arrangements in response to changed demands; increased fares and improved marketing. Some indicators of ACTION'S improved performances are: 1980-81 1984-85 (provisional) Passenger trips... 19,800,000 24,000,000 No. of passenger trips per bus... 56,250 60,300 No. of employees per bus... 2.07 2.03 No. of kms per bus... 39,350 40,000 % Fares revenue to total costs... 23% 25% Total Income to total costs... 40% 48% No. of passenger trips per capita... 87.5 96.0 No. of passenger trips per km... 1.43 1.51 Subsidy per passenger trip... 59 cents 59 cents Further, the 1984 report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into ACT Finances, while not specifically commenting on financial and operational performance indicators, did compare actual ACT 1981-82 expenditures and revenues on `metropolitan transit', with corresponding figures for the `standard States'-NSW and Victoria. The Commission found that when the ACT `residual deficit' is adjusted by the special allowances applicable to the ACT (the national capital factors), the ACT deficit per capita is less than that of NSW and Victoria. In other words, the Grants Commission found that ACTION operated a comparable level of service to that of NSW and Victoria, at less cost. (Question No. 1821) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Who wrote his address to the nation on the Government's youth policy. (2) What was the (a) involvement of any advertising agency, (b) involvement of Swinburne College students, (c) name of the director of his televised address, (d) cost of production and (e) amount paid to each individual or company in connection with producing the televised address. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I received production and other technical assistance in making my address to the nation from a number of individuals, companies and institutions as indicated below: (a) Production of the address was co-ordinated by the advertising agency Chandler, Hambleton and Mier. (b) Six Swinburne College students assisted with the production. Their co-operation was sought because of their considerable expertise and because of the appropriateness of engaging their assistance in a project of this nature. (c) The director of the production was Mr Phillip Warhurst. (d) The cost of the production was $55,174.85. (e) (i) Chandler, Hambleton and Mier-$18,176.29. (ii) Great Southern Films-$33,963.00. (iii) Advertype-$1096.20 (iv) Mike Reed Post Productions-$1939.36. (Question No. 1844) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: (1) Were draft proposals for the development of national medium frequency broadcasting services for south east New South Wales and north east Victoria announced in February 1981; if so, did the proposals state that the extended coverage area of 2CO would not overlap the coverage areas of 2CR Cumnock and 2CY Canberra. (2) Does the document outlining the proposals state that (a) the intervening region included a considerable population and warranted adequate coverage by the national broadcasting service and (b) in the vicinity of Cootamundra the population is distributed fairly evenly while the population of the Snowy Mountains region is largely concentrated in isolated townships. (3) Did the proposals include (a) the establishment, as part of stage 1 of the development of a new medium coverage station near Cootamundra to serve the area (b) that the call sign be 2CU and (c) that consideration could also be given in stage 2 development to providing coverage of other Snowy Mountain towns, especially Batlow, Tumbarumba, Thredbo and Jindabyne. (4) Has his attention been drawn to a media statement by Mr Richard Phillips, Senior Information Officer for the ABC in Sydney, that a new ABC radio station will be located in Wagga Wagga and that (a) it will be on the FM band, (b) a new studio will be built in the next 2 or 3 years and (c) it will be about 4 years before programs begin. (5) It is intended that this FM station should replace the proposed medium frequency station 2CU; if so, (a) when was the proposal changed, (b) who authorised the change, (c) what are the reasons for changing the location of the station from Cootamundra to Wagga Wagga and (d) what steps are proposed to improve the reception in the Cootamundra area of existing medium frequency stations. (6) If not, (a) when will the proposed new station commence operating, (b) will the call sign be 2CU and (c) will it be located in Cootamundra. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (2) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (3) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (4) The media statement by Mr Richard Phillips of the ABC refers to the establishment of the Second Regional Radio Network (SRRN) which is additional to the service proposed in the February 1981 proposal. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (5) It is not intended that this Second Regional Radio Network FM station replace the 1981 proposal for a Cootamundra service. It should be noted, however, that consideration is also being given to the use of FM for the Cootamundra station. (6) (a) The earliest date that the service could be available would be 1987/88. The transmitter would initially operate on reduced power pending the clearance of particular television transmissions in the area which occupy portions of the FM broadcast spectrum. (b) At this stage a call-sign for the new service has yet to be allocated, however, it is unlikely that it will be 2CU. (c) The station would be located at Mt Ulandra which is very close to Bethunga, the site nominated in the original 1981 proposal for the Cootamundra Station. (Question No. 1876) Mr Langmore asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: What are the (a) typical and (b) highest, hourly or daily rates paid to consultants from (i) engineering, (ii) management, (iii) town planning, (iv) computing, (v) architecture, (vi) surveying and (vii) any other professional area from which consultants are employed by the Australian Public Service. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Fees paid to consultants with professional qualifications, apart from those academics engaged as guest lecturers or certain medical, dental or allied health practitioners are not centrally determined in the Australian Public Service. Each Department and authority is required to decide itself in all other situations, following a process of open competition, what fee it needs to pay to obtain the professional consultancy services it requires. There are no general guidelines in other areas of expertise, although regard is had to fees paid by other parts of the public sector. Departments and authorities are not required to report individual decisions to the Public Service Board or any other central co-ordinating authority. The rates paid to academics engaged as consultants are as set out below: ACADEMICS ENGAGED AS CONSULTANTS (Board rates apply throughout the Public Service) Maximum rather than standard rates. Universities Colleges of Advanced Education Daily Rate $ Tutor Tutor 88 Senior Tutor Senior Tutor Lecturer III 104 Principal Tutor Principal Tutor Lecturer II 120 Lecturer Lecturer I Senior Lecturer II 138 151 Senior Lecturer Senior Lecturer I 164 Associate Professor/Reader Principal Lecturer 186 Professor Head of School 220 PERSONS ENGAGED AS GUEST LECTURERS (Board rates apply throughout the Public Service) Per hour $ Basic fee... 30 one session... 60 half day... 105 full day... 120 An Inter-Departmental Committee on Fees and Allowances, chaired by the Department of Health, sets fees and allowances payable to private medical, dental and other allied health practitioners who render services on behalf of the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1986) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy has given conditional approval for the release of water from the Ranger Uranium Mines's restricted release zone; if so, what are the conditions attached to the approval; if not, when is a decision likely to be made. (2) What is the Government's position on the release of water from the restricted release zone. (3) Is the Minister able to say whether the relevant Aboriginal groups have been consulted on the issue. (4) Is it a fact that the Northern Land Council and the Northern Territory National Parks and Wildlife Service oppose the release of water from this zone. (5) What (a) mechanisms exist at the mine to prevent an uncontrolled spill of contaminated water and (b) action has he taken to ensure that such a spillage does not occur. (6) What steps are being taken to ensure that a build-up of excess water at Ranger does not occur again and will he direct the Ranger authorities to build additional containments for water; if not, why not. (7) What alternatives to water release are being considered by the supervising scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region. (8) Is the Minister able to say whether (a) there are many plans for a water treatment plant to be used to decontaminated water from the restricted release zone and (b) mining operations have ceased at any time due to excess water; if so, (i) when and (ii) for what period. (9) What long-term plans have been made for the final disposal of radioactive wastes originating from the mine. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No approval has been given by the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy for the release of water from the restricted release zone at the Ranger Mine, nor am I aware of any intention on the part of the Minister to make such a decision in advance of agreement on what constitutes best practicable technolgy for the management of waste within the mine's restricted release zone. (2) The Government's position is that there will be no release of contaminated water from the restricted release zone at Ranger unless it is agreed that water release under appropriate conditions constitutes the best practicable technology for the management of water within that zone. (3) Yes. (4) Yes, pending the completion of further work towards the establishment and acceptance of best practicable technology. (5) The Ranger mine operated under strict environmental requirements reflecting the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. These requirements are primarily implemented by the Northern Territory supervisory authorities who have responsibility for overseeing the day to day operation of the mine. (6) to (8) Water management at Ranger in its broadest sense is under consideration by the supervising authorities and the mining company, and feasible options are being examined to establish the best possible technology. I understand that mining operations have been impeded from time to time due to the build-up of water in the mine pit, but this has not significantly impeded the operations of the mill at Ranger. (9) The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry envisaged that after the cessation of mining at Ranger the mill tailings will be returned to the mine pit and covered with an impermeable layer of rock, unless after 10 years of operation it is agreed that an alternative method of tailings disposal will result in the environment being no less well protected than by returning the tailings to the pit. The current Plan of Rehabilitation for the mine, which is updated annually, provides for the eventful return of tailings to the pit. (Question No. 2034) Dr Klugman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: What are the estimated costs to the (a) Australian (b) Victorian and (c) United Kingdom Governments of the visit by members of the Royal Family to Victoria beginning in October 1985. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Prince Charles and Princess Diana were invited by the Commonwealth Government at the request of the Victorian Government to visit Australia principally to take part in the Victorian Sesquicentenary Celebrations. We were of course delighted to see the Royal Couple in Australia again. By any standards the visit was very successful and gave great pleasure to many community groups. Under the appropriations of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1985/86 (Division 500/03/04) $700,000 was provided for the visit to Australia in October and November 1985 of The Prince and Princess of Wales. Charges for the visit have not yet been brought to account. Salaries and travel costs of departmental staff involved with the visit, as part of their normal duties, have not been separately costed and have not been included. Similarly, costs incurred by other departments in carrying out their normal functions in relation to the visit are borne by those departments and not separately costed to the visit. Charges related to the use of RAAF 34 Squadron aircraft will be brought to account under the separate appropriation for use of special purpose aircraft. They are estimated to be about $21,000. (b) and (c) The Commonwealth Government does not have access to costs estimated by the Victorian or UK Governments. (Question No. 2114) Dr Theophanous asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) When will the Government bring down its response to the National Language Policy Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. (2) In the interim, what action is the Minister undertaking to ensure that second language programs are introduced into Australian schools in the near future. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As I have indicated in the Senate, I am co-ordinating, through my Department, the Government's response to the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, `A National Language Policy'. A committee, consisting of senior officers from my portfolio, was established to develop this response. This committee sought the views of other relevant government departments and agencies and State education authorities, concerning the Report and its recommendations. The Committee has completed its task and I expect to be able to announce the Government's response in this session of Parliament. (2) The teaching of community languages (other than English) in primary and secondary schools is the responsibility of the education authorities (government or non-government) located in the States/Territories. The Commonwealth Government has however since 1979 provided financial assistance of a `seeding nature' under the Multicultural Education Program to assist education authorities to respond to the multicultural nature of Australian society. Funds made available under this Program will total $4.771m (including $0.382m for projects of national significance) in 1986. Funds will be distributed on an equal basis between general multicultural education activities and community language programs. (Question No. 2247) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) When will the Bureau of Meteorology terminate the on site briefing services at: (a) Tamworth; (b) Hobart; (c) Essendon; (d) Port Hedland; (e) Alice Springs; (f) Mount Isa; (g) Rockhampton; (h) Cairns; (i) Launceston; and (j) Canberra airports. (2) How many employees will be affected at each of these airports when the terminations occur and what has his Department arranged for their ongoing employment. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The proposal to close the Weather Service Offices is being considered as a result of a request by the Department of Aviation to reduce the costs of aviation meteorological services. In endeavouring to respond to the request for cost reductions, careful consideration is being given to the cost effectiveness of various services and the possible impact on safety and economy of aviation operations. The impact on Bureau staff and the timescale in which changes can be introduced, are also important factors. Consultation is taking place with the Department of Aviation, the aviation industry and staff associations on these matters and there will be further consultation before any decision is taken to proceed with closure of Weather Service Offices. A tentative program of possible closures has been developed through iterative discussions with the Department of Aviation and the Bureau of Meteorology. (a) Tamworth-April 1986 (b) Hobart-January 1989 (c) Essendon-not specified (d) Port Hedland-July 1986 (e) Alice Springs-October 1987 (f) Mount Isa-July 1986 (g) Rockhampton-April 1989 (h) Cairns-April 1988 (i) Launceston-April 1986 (j) Canberra-July 1987. (2) The following employees would be affected: (a) Tamworth-2 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (b) Hobart-3 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (c) Essendon-nil (service from Melbourne Airport) (d) Port Hedland-3 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (e) Alice Springs-3 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (f) Mount Isa-2 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (g) Rockhampton-2 Technical Officers (Meteorology) and 3 Observers (h) Cairns-3 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (i) Launceston-3 Technical Officers (Meteorology) (j) Canberra-3 Technical Officers (Meteorology). The tentative program has been designed to minimise the impact on employees by programming the closures at a rate which would enable staff to be redeployed within the Bureau without retrenchment. Maximum possible notice would be given of closures, and staff are already aware of the tentative program. All staff affected would be transferred to equivalent positions in other Bureau offices. As far as possible this would be done on a voluntary basis or to an agreed program of transfers. Normal Public Service conditions apply. (Question No. 2284) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Did he write to the Leader of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly on 20 August 1985 on behalf of the Government, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, endorsing the twin city relationship proposed between Canberra and the city of Versailles, France. (2) What were the significant changed circumstances intervening which prompted him to send a message to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly on 18 September 1985 asking that it not proceed with plans to establish this twin city relationship. (3) Did this later message suggest that the reason for that decision was prompted by the Rainbow Warrior incident and the continuing French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. (4) Is he able to say whether (a) the Rainbow Warrior vessel was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985 and the French Government involvement was established by 17 July 1985 well before his letter of 20 August and (b) there was any expectation on the Government's part on or before 20 August that French nuclear testing would be discontinued. (5) If not, what other undisclosed reason exists for him to withdraw approval, given by him on 20 August 1985. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The changed circumstances were as follows: 22 August 1985, one of those charged in New Zealand in relation to the Greenpeace incident was identified by New Zealand police as a French army officer; 25 August 1985, the Tricot report established that the French secret service had been authorised to collect information about Greenpeace and that the `Turenge couple' held by New Zealand police were, in fact, DGSE agents. 28 August 1985, the then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Evans announced the Government's great concern over the French Government's handling of the matter. 10 September 1985, the ACT House of Assembly debated my earlier message agreeing to the proposed twinning arrangement; and 15 September 1985, following a visit to Mururoa, the French President announced that nuclear testing would continue as long as France considered it necessary. Accordingly in my message of 18 September 1985, I informed the Assembly that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the proposed twin city arrangement. (3) No, the reason was expanded upon in my media release made on the same date. (4) (a) The Rainbow Warrior was bombed on 10 July 1985 but charges were not laid against the French agents until August. The French Government did not admit involvement in the bombing until 22 September 1985. (b) The Government has never believed that it will be easy to bring about an end to nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll but Australia is nevertheless committed to that objective and has vigorously pursued it. (5) None, see (2) above. (Question No. 2549) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's Office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Copies of petitions received from the House of Representatives are passed to my Department for information. (Question No. 2555) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's Office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Petitions which have a bearing on my portfolio responsibilities are referred to my Department in respect of the issues raised. The concerns of petitioners are sympathetically considered in relation to the matters raised.