Thursday, 28 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —Honourable members will be aware that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings is currently inquiring into the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and their committees. As part of its inquiry, the Committee is considering the current presentation of the broadcasts, including the commentary from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's announcers in the sound control booths. The ABC commentators operate within rules concerning announcements from the control booths stipulated by the Committee, and steps have been taken recently to make the commentary more meaningful. As the sound relay of proceedings delivered into members' rooms is by means of the House monitoring system, members would not normally have the opportunity to listen to the ABC presentation of proceedings. Accordingly, it has been arranged that for today and tomorrow, days on the which the proceedings of the House of Representatives are broadcast, the ABC presentation will be relayed through the House sound monitoring sytem to enable members to experience the program being broadcast by the ABC. Mr Sinclair-Mr Speaker, on a point of procedure, you did intimate to me that it would be necessary prior to the rising of the House this year to have a resolution regarding excerpts of parliamentary broadcasts and their use in broadcasting outside this place. I wonder whether you could give to the House an indication of your intentions in that matter. In so doing, could you also address the question of whether there is an inclination towards broadcasting the parliamentary adjournment debate? Mr SPEAKER —I guess one has to be careful how precisely one states this. Mr Sinclair-I am prepared to treat it as being on notice. Mr SPEAKER —No, I am prepared to answer the question. I think it would be proper to do so. There was a meeting of the Joint Committee last night. As you know, we have received responses from most party leaders. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has responded but we as yet have not heard from the Leader of the House (Mr Young) or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). A recommen- dation has been made to the Leader of the House that a motion to continue the excerpting should be moved, provided there is agreement at that level. I do not know whether the Leader of the House can indicate whether that is proposed. Mr Young-We will not have any difficulty in facilitating that before the House gets up. Mr SPEAKER —I think that answers the question. The request has been made and that will occur. As to the adjournment debate, that is part of the consideration of the whole report which is expected to be presented early next year. As I see it, there seems to be general agreement that we should continue the broadcast until midnight. Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.05) —There are seven Bills before the House in this debate on the Customs Undertakings (Penalties) Amendment Bill 1985 and cognate Bills. While these Bills cover a wide range of customs and sales matters in terms of Government policy, probably the most important of the Bills is the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and its associated sales tax Bills. The principal Bill, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), contains two measures which put into effect decisions taken by the Government in two main areas. The first of those is a most important decision in that it facilitates the introduction of inwards duty free shopping. In other words, it provides for the exemption of excise, customs and sales tax on goods purchased at international airports in Australia following overseas trips. This legislation restricts the new initiative to the purchase of cigarettes, liquor and perfume. However, it is of course an important initiative taken by this Government. The second measure proposed in the legislation is another very important measure and it will benefit primary producers throughout Australia. I refer to the Government's decision to provide a full rebate of the excise on diesel fuel which is used by eligible primary producers. That is a decision which will have a cost to the Budget of $24m in 1985-86 and a full year cost of $35m. The beneficiaries of the decision are, of course, Australian primary producers. I want to say a few words about each of the two measures. We heard some interesting debate on these two measures last night. It is a matter of concern to me that the Opposition has decided to oppose the Government's decision to allow travellers returning from overseas to purchase duty free cigarettes, liquor and perfume at Australian international airports. The decision goes back to September 1984. The Government announced at that stage its intention to introduce limited duty free shopping at international airports in Australia. Those shops will be located somewhere between the point of disembarkation at the airport and the Australian Customs Service barrier. This proposal would enable people coming back from overseas, as I have said, to buy such goods duty free; that is, free of excise, customs and sales tax. As I have indicated, the Opposition opposes this measure. In the debate last night very few Opposition speakers came up with any cogent reasons as to why the Opposition was opposing this measure. There were some suggestions to the effect that the purchase of those things by Australians at Australian airports might lead to security or drug problems. The Government does not think those problems are likely to occur. The benefits to Australia resulting from the extension of this concession allowing people returning from overseas to purchase these things at Australian airports far outweigh any disadvantages. Some of the benefits of this decision were mentioned last night. One of the first benefits is that we expect an additional $5m in revenue to be produced at airports because more Australians will buy their spirits, cigarettes or perfume in Australia at those airports rather than buy them overseas and carry them back. In anybody's language, $5m is a significant amount of revenue. Also, the point was made that these items, in particular spirits, constitute a small but nevertheless significant component of freight on international carriers. Qantas Airways Ltd, in information put to the Government, estimated that over a year it would save more than $6m simply in fuel costs because of the nature of the change that we are making. In other words, it was saying that because many hundreds of thousands of passengers returning to Australia each year will not be carrying as much spirits, liquor, perfume or cigarettes, the total weight carried by those planes will be considerably less. This will amount to an astounding saving of about $6m by Qantas alone. That is a good thing. Those flights can be more cost efficient and of course not as much petroleum will be used to carry the same level of passengers. The other very important benefit of this legislation is that it will make travel arrangements and duty free purchase arrangements much more convenient for Australian passengers returning from overseas. That is an important consideration in any area of government activity. A third important area is obvious; that is, in this legislation we are saying that we would prefer Australians travelling overseas, or visitors coming to Australia, to purchase these goods in Australia instead of overseas. I have to say that I find it remarkable that the Opposition in effect is advocating that Australians who travel overseas should be patronising shops in Hong Kong, Singapore, London or Jamaica at the expense of retailers and duty free shops in Australia. We on this side of the House believe that any support that we can give to Australian industry and Australian retailers is good for business, is good for the economy, and means jobs. That is precisely what this legislation is putting into effect. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) last night made a very powerful and convincing argument for the introduction of this inwards duty free shopping. He pointed out some most interesting statistics. He said that last year there were some two million international arrivals in Australia. Of those, 1.2 million were Australians returning from short term visits overseas. Clearly, many of those Australians would prefer to wait until they got back to Tullamarine or Sydney-instead of lugging around a litre of Glenfiddich whisky or a carton of cigarettes or cigars-to buy those things from an Australian airport terminal thus providing jobs and giving a benefit to Australian retailers. Again, what we are trying to do with this legislation is to make arrangements more convenient for Australian tourists returning and to establish a market in Australia. I think that is a commendable objective. I repeat what the Opposition is saying in opposing this legislation: It is better for those 1.2 million Australians who travel overseas every year to buy goods in Hong Kong, or Singapore than to buy in Australia. It is really saying that it supports retailers overseas at the expense of retailers in Australia. We on the Government side simply reject that argument. We encourage, through this legislation, the maximum possible benefits to Australian producers and retailers who are located at international airports because that brings benefits to Australians and Australian employment levels. Just briefly, another important item here is the item dealing with our decision to rebate in full the diesel fuel excise for farming, fishing and forestry uses which are currently eligible for the part rebate. In fact, this legislation gives effect to that full rebate from 1 November. It means that primary producers throughout Australia-there are some 170,000 to 200,000-will now be rebated the full 10c a litre of diesel excise rather than 7.6c a litre which they were receiving only a few weeks ago. That means, as I have said, that it is a cost to the Government this year of $24m. That full rebate is a full year cost to the Government of $35m. It means to an average farmer who might use 15,000 litres of fuel per year that he will be saving about $350 effectively per year in tax which he will no longer be required to pay to this Government because he will be getting the full rebate from this Government. I have mentioned before in this House that fuel costs for farmers throughout Australia constitute about 10 per cent of their total costs. That figure, of course, is lower in the pastoral or livestock industries and is higher in the grain and fishing industries. However, this decision we have made means that a farmer using 15,000 litres of diesel a year will be saving some $350. It is part of this overall effort by the Government to reduce farm cost increases that do face our primary producers. We realise that they are having a very difficult time at present, particularly with the corrupt international trading practices of the European Economic Community which are costing Australian farmers more than a billion dollars a year in lost revenue and lost markets. It is important that the Government take every measure that is possible to reduce that rate of farm cost increases. It is interesting-I am sure you are aware of this, Mr Speaker-that under the previous Government, farm costs rose by an annual rate of more than 12 per cent. This Government has managed to reduce that to a rate of slightly in excess of 6 per cent per annum. We have halved the rate of farm cost increases. We have the fundamental right and, of course, we will be looking to take whatever measures we can in the future to reduce further the rate of farm cost increases to our farmers. One of the associated measures that we took in the Budget was to replace the tariff on harvesters with a bounty. That, again, will effectively knock 15 per cent off the price of those harvesters and it will save our primary producers about $14m a year in costs. They were the two most important things that the National Farmers Federation put to this Government as things that were concerning primary producers. We introduced them and announced them in the last Budget. This legislation which, I am delighted to know, will be passed in this House today provides for the full rebating at 10c a litre of diesel to farmers. In conclusion, I just repeat that the primary function of this legislation is to provide for and facilitate the introduction of inward duty free shopping. I fully support that. Frankly, it is simply not right that in the past, in effect, we encouraged people to buy duty free goods overseas. We have proposed under this legislation to allow the purchase of a limited range of goods duty free by Australians returning to international airports in Australia. I must say for my own part that I would like to see the Government look at the whole question of duty free shopping. I particularly would like the Government to look at the feasibility of whether there should be any duty free shopping at all overseas or in Australia. It is a concession which is extended to people simply because they have been overseas. The ticket to purchase goods duty free is an international air ticket. It does cost the Australian economy when people buy goods overseas. I understand that if those duty free concessions were removed, in effect there would be a revenue gain to the Government of around $150m per annum. I would like to see the Government examine that proposition. In the meantime, we have done the next best thing, which is to extend the concession so that people can buy in Australia that limited range of goods. It is good for Australians, it is good for the airlines because they will save on freight and because of the resultant reduced security problems, and it is also good for employment in Australia. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.20) —I begin my speech by picking up some of the points that were made by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) in relation to the diesel fuel excise rebate which the Government is reintroducing at a level of 100 per cent in the package of legislation that is before us. Of course, I welcome the Government's decision to do this. Indeed, I was most disappointed when, back in, I think, 1983, the Government, soon after being elected to office, decided to abandon the full rebate. Over a period that rebate fell to some 76 per cent of the total cost of the excise to primary producers. The honourable member for Bendigo likewise applauded this decision, although he did not point out that this is a reversal of government policy which was brought about by pressure from the Opposition and, indeed, the National Farmers Federation. The honourable member for Bendigo also failed to point out in his discussion of this issue that, although farm costs have fallen to some extent over the last two or three years, farm incomes have fallen to a very much greater degree. Any primary producer or any businessman has to be aware, and obviously is aware, of the fact that his livelihood depends on his income being greater than his costs and his future livelihood is dependent on that income growing at a greater rate than his costs. If income is growing at a lower rate than costs, clearly the primary producer is heading towards bankruptcy, and that is what has happened over the last two years during the administration of the Labor Government. In the time available to me I want to touch on a couple of issues in respect of the seven Bills that are before the House this morning, even though the Bills raise a large number of other issues as well. I am worried that particular parts of the package of legislation have been ill considered and drafted and put together in a hasty way. Indeed, it seems to me only reasonable to ask some questions about the motivation behind these pieces of legislation. The first piece of legislation to which I refer is the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, which imposes a new duty on imports of metal working machine tools. Only last week we had a debate in this place on the extension of the bounty on the production of metal working machine tools. It will be recalled that the Opposition supported the extension of that bounty. One of the reasons why we on this side of the House supported that bounty was that we have a preference for bounties over tariffs, largely because bounties minimise the effect of assistance on the costs of local producers and, indeed, on downstream users. Also, in view of a submission by the Department of Defence, we thought there was a good defence case for continuing the bounty for the industry so that at least some nucleus of the industry could continue to exist. There is no doubt, for example, that the submarine contract, which is being hotly debated now in the context of the South Australian election, is one part of the defence industry that could benefit from this bounty. What the Government has done in the legislation now before the House is very surprising because, although it showed last week that it was in favour of the introduction of a bounty, this week it is proposing to impose an enormous increase in the tariff and the duty on imports of parts and accessories for the metal working machine tool industry. Indeed, the duty is to be increased from 2 per cent to 25 per cent under this legislation. Let me point out that this is something that has been opposed by the Australian Machine Tool Association, which has said again and again to the Government, which apparently has not been listening, that these accessories cannot be produced in Australia partly because most of the overseas countries involved will not license manufacturers in Australia. It seems to me a little unusual, when we cannot produce these accessories and parts in Australia, that the Government should impose an enormous increase in the costs of industry by increasing the tariff from 2 per cent to 25 per cent. Obviously, the increased tariff will impose further costs on, and affect the competitiveness of, Australian industry. Indeed, it will disadvantage companies which are trying to introduce new technologies. In other words, this particular measure is in direct contradiction to what the Government did last week; it is ill-considered. I am surprised that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) should support this sort of legislation because it is irrational, contradictory and damaging to that sector of Australian manufacturing industry, and by no means helpful. The other aspect of these Bills, which has been debated at some length in the House in the last couple of days, is the question of inward duty free shopping. As I have pointed out, a large number of Labor members have supported this proposal, while Opposition members have expressed some reservations about the efficacy and wisdom of this measure. Once again, as with the measure on metal working machine tools, the Government appears not to have considered the whole range of implications of introducing inward duty free shopping as fully as it clearly should have done. The whole subject of inward duty free shopping has a rather curious history, and it is important that that history is understood and considered by the House before any passage of legislation takes place. Back in 1979 Qantas Airways Ltd started to advocate the introduction of inward duty free shopping, possibly because that airline thought it might be a direct beneficiary from this measure. I cannot blame Qantas for promoting its own self-interest-any good company would do that. In response to Qantas's representations, the then Fraser Government established an inter- departmental committee. That committee reported in February 1982. It will interest the House, and indeed it might even interest the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), to know that the Fraser Government's interdepartmental committee rejected the proposal to introduce inward duty free shopping. Not long after, just a year later, the Mahony Review of Customs Administration and Procedures in New South Wales reported. That inquiry into the workings of the New South Wales Customs Service once more offered no support for the concept of inward duty free shopping, having been subject to strong representations that inward duty free shopping should be resisted. By the Labor Party's policy speech in 1983 the Party was committed to the introduction of such shopping-goodness knows why-and as a result of that commitment, on its election the Labor Government established yet another interdepartmental committee. Something rather strange happened on that committee. Although the committee was first established under the chairmanship of the Department of Industry and Commerce, in the course of the hearings of the committee that Department was dismissed from the chair and replaced by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I think that was strange, particularly when one bears in mind-and I am glad that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is here, because he will be able to explain this to us later-that Senator Button and his Department were opposed to inward duty free shopping. That was the general tenor of the committee's considerations until the dismissal of Industry and Commerce from the chair. Even the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism was opposed. But the Minister supported the proposal. There is something a little curious about the way the interdepartmental committee has been handled. But there is something a little more curious, because when that committee finally finished its considerations, not only was the committee, I understand, opposed to the introduction of inward duty free shopping, but it was not requested to report to the Government. The Government said that it would rather not receive a report. We all know why it did not want to receive a report from that committee-the Minister supported the measure and no one else did. I would like to hear from the Minister later in the day why he supported the measure when his colleagues and his own Department opposed it. The Industries Assistance Commission sub- sequent to this interdepartmental committee has also considered the question of inward duty free shopping. Nobody is saying that that Commission by definition is always right, but it confirmed the advice of the Mahony Committee, of the Fraser Government's interdepartmental committee, and of the Labor Government's interdepartmental committee. That is not very surprising. One of the points made by the Industries Assistance Commission and by a number of other people is the resistance to inward duty free shopping in a large number of countries. The very small range of countries that have inward duty free shopping-there are only seven or eight-are countries such as Iceland, Egypt and Iraq. Countries such as the United States of America, Great Britain and France have not introduced this measure and, as I will explain later, there are very good reasons why those countries have made that decision. They are not commercial reasons, they are not flippant reasons; they are very serious reasons and I am very sorry that the Government has rejected all the advice that has been given to it and has abandoned these serious reasons and serious considerations and has gone ahead with this measure. Let us look at some of the arguments against inward duty free shopping. I do not want to labour the commercial arguments, as I have said, because there is a more serious argument. The Treasury estimates that the cost of this measure to government revenue will be some $10m a year. The Government is forever talking about its commitment to reducing expenditure, although I must say, judging by the exponential growth in expenditure since the Hawke Government was elected, it is hard to believe its rhe- toric. But why it should want to impose an additional $10m cost on the taxpayer I just do not know, particularly when that cost comes out of something which is of such relatively or seemingly minor importance as inward duty free shopping. No doubt Treasury opposed this proposal because it would cost the Commonwealth $10m. The Australian Customs Service also opposed this proposal. Honourable members opposite have spoken in glowing terms of Australian Customs. I reinforce the remarks they have made about the professionalism of Australian Customs officers. Their professionalism has shown through in their submission to the Industries Assistance Commission on inward duty free shopping. Let us very briefly look at the arguments they made. The first point is that it would aggravate queuing and passenger delays at airports. The second point they made is that it would cause major problems with the completion of required and legally significant customs declaration forms. The third point they made is that it would probably increase revenue losses, and in saying that they are supporting the contention of Treasury. The fourth point they made is that it would increase passenger processing times, especially where airports operate on restricted curfew hours-for example, Sydney. The fifth point that the Customs Service made is that inward duty free shopping would lead to a risk of narcotic and message exchanges requiring additional Customs and security work loads. That is the nub of the argument and the nub of the Opposition's concern about inward duty free shopping and it is a concern which has not been addressed at all by those sitting on the other side of the House. In other words the very real concern that we on this side of the House have and the real concern that the Americans had and the reason why they have not introduced inward duty free shopping is where one would establish barrier control. Inward duty free shopping is, by definition, before one gets to the Customs barrier, not after. Therefore, this provides opportunities for drug trafficking and the passing of narcotics, as was pointed out by the Customs Service. Clearly, the effect of having inward duty free shopping before one gets to the Customs barrier is that inward passengers have contact with civilians before they have contact with Australian Customs officers. That is why Customs is concerned ultimately about this measure, that is why the Americans have not introduced it and that is why nearly all the European countries have refused to introduce it. I think I am right in saying that should we go ahead with the measure Australia will stand alone in having ignored that extremely important and significant argument. I have quoted the Industries Assistance Commission on a number of occasions but I think it is worth quoting its particular concerns on this matter as set out in its report. It stated: Incoming passengers could pass contraband to arrival shop staff who would later bring it through the barrier. It is not just me or Australian Customs making these contentions; they are also being made by the Industries Assistance Commission, which is highly respected by both sides of the House. The IAC has confirmed these very real problems. The Auditor-General in his report of September 1984 also expressed concern about the possibility of this process taking place under present arrangements for incoming passengers at Melbourne Airport. I think that it is worth looking precisely at what the Auditor-General said: In addition to the selling points located for departing passengers the duty free shop at the airport has a store and office premises which are located in the inward concourse area. This created a high level of risk as the premises were accessible to incoming passengers before they reached the customs inspection barriers. To reduce the risk, the Department had the location under security camera surveillance, but it would be preferable if the store and office premises were relocated to an area not accessible by incoming passengers. Those comments related to Tullamarine Airport, which does not have inward duty free shopping. That section of the report points to the very great dangers of moving ahead, in the ill-considered way in which the Government has done, to inward duty free shopping where there will not be a store of some kind before one reaches the Customs barrier but a sophisticated supermarket style shop. That, as I have pointed out, is the nub of the whole of the Opposition's concern about inward duty free shopping. It is the primary reason why interdepartmental committee after interdepartmental committee has rejected this proposal. It is the reason the Industries Assistance Commission has rejected the proposal. It is the reason the Americans and the Europeans have rejected it. It is a pretty good reason also for a large number of Ministers in the present Government to have opposed it, with the sole exception, as far as I understand, of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Mr John Brown —Very powerful. Mr DOWNER —As the Minister points out, he is a very powerful Minister. At least, I think that is what he said. He is a very powerful Minister. He has persuaded all of his colleagues to go along with this ill-considered and very serious measure which will, unless action is taken to avert this danger, only aid and abet drug trafficking in this country, which is one of our very major social problems that should be addressed and rectified as best we can; and it should not be aided and abetted. I hope that the Government will seriously reconsider, even at this late stage, the measures that it is proposing in this package of legislation. I think what it is proposing will be contrary to the long term interests of Australian Customs and, to a much greater extent, the Australian people. As I have said, the other measure about which I was concerned-the imports of metal working machine tools having duty increased from 2 per cent to 25 per cent-is also a matter which, frankly, requires very careful consideration. These Bills are over-hasty. They have not been considered properly. I would like the Government to reconsider them. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.39) —in reply-We have had an exhilarating, hard hitting and well informed debate. The debate began at about half past eight last night. Thank goodness we did not have an all night sitting. We have debated no fewer than seven Bills, but virtually all the discussion has concentrated on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). The main thrusts of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) are to provide for a system of inward duty free shopping at airports-there is no doubt that there has been more debate on that subject than on anything else-and also a change in the system for the payment of diesel fuel rebates. The licences granted for inward duty free shopping will be extremely limited, to the sale of certain quantities of prescribed goods-spirituous liquor, tobacco products and perfume. The only people able to purchase goods at an inward duty free shop will be travellers on incoming international flights. The Government took its decision to proceed with the introduction of these shops after exhaustive consideration of the issues. I think it is fair to say that it is essentially experimental. If it causes any of the major problems alleged by the Opposition, naturally it will be reviewed. There will be no change in the concessional limit, that is, the aggregate concession available to passengers. One could have picked up the inference from the debate that passengers reeling onto their flights at Hong Kong, absolutely stacked up with litres of grog will then get another set of bottles at Sydney as they reel off the plane. That is not possible because they will still be limited to the total concession. It is not doubled or increased at all. Many of the problems raised are completely avoidable. Nevertheless, the matter will be kept constantly under review. Clause 9 of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill provides for a different rate of rebate to be payable on diesel fuel used for different purposes. That would enable, in particular, the total customs duty payable on diesel fuel used in primary production to be rebatable, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 1985-86 Budget Speech. I refer to some of the comments made on the first Bill by honourable members. The honour- able member for Ryan (Mr Moore), befitting a member representing a Queensland electorate, was concerned about the definiton of rum. The new definition was the result of a review by the National health and Medical Research Council. It undertook an extensive review of the definition of rum, brandy and wine over several years-at considerable personal cost, I may say, to the members. Industry had ample opportunity to present its case to the NHMRC over that period. This is essentially not an industrial change, but a change related to health research. To change the definition of rum, it will be necessary to make further representations to the NHMRC. This issue was raised early in 1984 and was answered in similar terms then. If honourable members want to flick through their back numbers of Hansard, they will find it at page 2838. The matter will need to be looked at again by the NHMRC if the matter is to be referred to it because it has the responsibility for making the necessary recommendations to the Government. I think that was probably the case even when the honourable member for Ryan was the responsible Minister. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) suggested in regard to diesel fuel that the Government was giving on one hand and taking with the other-a remarkably original choice of phrase, I thought. He was arguing that we were giving back the excise on diesel fuel and taking dumping duties on fertiliser. I think that is an amazing statement because it is hard to believe that he is suggesting that the provisions of the anti-dumping Act should not be used if it remotely affects farmers. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) made a characteristically individual speech in which he indicated his support for this legislation, despite his Party's opposition. We hope that perhaps the honourable member for Ryan will intercede with the National Party to see that he comes to no disciplinary harm- Mr Moore —I will ring up Joh. Mr BARRY JONES —That will do. For the honourable member's information there would not be, of course, sufficient space to enable the total range of products that he mentioned to be sold. I think he mentioned, among other things that could be sold at inward duty free shops, 44-gallon drums of tractor lubricant which I have rarely seen in such shops at airports. The shops, of course, will be located between the aircraft and the Customs barrier. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) was concerned that declarations in repect of rebates would not be made. As mentioned in the second reading speech, adjustments to the rebate will continue to be made in accordance with consumer price index increases, as will adjustments to the diesel excise. The Bill clearly states that the declarations will need to be higher than the rate specified in the Bill. As in the past, increases will occur only if there is an increase in the CPI. The honourable member for Curtin expressed some concern that the beneficiaries of the inward duty free shops at airports might be found only in Melbourne and Sydney. That may have been the result of an ill-timed interjection by me. It is the intention that all international airports will have the facilities, and there is no desire to keep Perth out in the cold. Mr Rocher —It will take some time, though. Mr BARRY JONES —The whole process will take time. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) raised several issues. He spoke on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) as well, and I will refer to that in a moment. He devoted a great deal of his attention to inward duty free shopping. The Government is satisfied with the processes that led to the decision to introduce this legislation and it is not proposed to change it, despite the powerful arguments put by the Opposition. When an interdepartmental committee is established to consider an issue, the IDC is normally chaired by the Minister who has prime carriage of the policy. The issue was characterised not as an industry and commerce matter but as tourism matter. It was entirely appropriate that the IDC should be chaired by the Ministry for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I turn to the amendments in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). The honourable member for Mayo said that there had been an enormous increase in tariff on metal working machine tools. The increase is merely a restoration of the duties that applied before the tariff simplification of 1 January 1983. The Industries Assistance Commission found that local industry had lost sales following the reductions in sales tax imposed in 1983. The honourable member referred to the Australian Machine Tools Association. This is not an association of manufacturers, as he seemed to believe. It is basically a group of importers and merchants. He also referred to the cost impact on industry when duties were imposed on goods not made in Australia. It must be recognised that there is an industry producing parts and accessories, and it is clear from the IAC report that where specific products are not made in Australia it is open to the importer to seek entry of the goods under the commercial tariff concession system. I understand that some matters will be raised in the Committee stage of the debate on this legislation, so I will reserve further remarks for then. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 November, 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. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4 (Interpretation). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.50) —The Opposition opposes this clause and will be dividing on it. This clause relates to inward duty free shopping. A number of items in the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment (No. 2) 1985 relate to inward duty free shopping. The Opposition is opposed to this proposal for a large number of reasons. We have heard already this morning an explanation from the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) that this proposal has nothing to do with concessions. We concede that. We concede that the provision for inwards duty free shopping will be kept constantly under review. However, that is not the point; the point is that the introduction of inward duty free shops will expose us to large risks in areas of drug trading, will restrict the possibilities of surveillance and will put additional stresses and strains on the Australian Customs Service. As the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) pointed out, this proposal was considered an undesirable development by the Customs Service and by an interdepartmental committee. Because of the development aspects involved in this extension of the ability of people to buy duty free goods within the terminal area-as the Minister described it, between the aircraft and the Customs barrier-there will be a requirement for the construction of yet another shopping centre, another place in which people will gather. Instead of moving from the plane to the Customs barrier and then outside people will be contained within the restricted area for a longer period. There is no doubt that these days international travellers are subject to all sorts of pressures. Any area that allows the possibility of drug trading or other illegal activities ought not to be encouraged or facilitated. The Opposition sees this development as unnecessary. Certainly the Opposition sees the proposition as opening up all sorts of possibilities. The only argument which I have heard in favour of the proposal which carries any validity for me is the saving by Qantas Airways Ltd of fuel costs. It should be remembered that Qantas is but one of the airlines servicing Australia. By introducing inward duty free shopping we are not only giving savings to the international carriers to Australia but also losing to this nation a considerable amount of domestic revenue. That was noted in the submission by Treasury to the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on inward duty free shopping. Therefore, the Opposition will be opposing this clause. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(10.55) —In commenting on the decision of the Opposition not to support clause 4, I think that it is worth making a couple of points. I noted that the shadow Minister at the table, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), mentioned that Qantas Airways Ltd had made a submission to the Industries Assistance Commission concerning the extra fuel involved in carrying duty free goods. One should remember that almost every Qantas plane flying into Australia and bearing 400 passengers will almost always be carrying something in the vicinity of 40 dozen bottles of spirits. Quite apart from the extra fuel involved in carrying that load there are a few other factors that should be considered. First of all, the freight charge for 40 dozen bottles of spirit carried from any port-for example, Singapore-would be extraordinarily high. We should add to that also the danger of having spirits, which of course are flammable, loose in the cabin. As was pointed out recently in relation to the drama surrounding the misbehaviour of some Melbourne footballers, when the staff shut down the bar because of the inebriated state of some of the passengers, those passengers proceeded to drink the duty free liquor which they carried with them. This is just another danger which will be obviated if people can be encouraged to buy duty free liquor when they get off the plane in Australia. In addition, there was a belief associated with duty free purchases overseas that countries such as Australia needed to help the economies of developing countries. No one can tell me that the economy of Singapore, for instance, needs propping up by Australian passengers. Compare Changi Airport with Tullamarine or Sydney airports. One can see the obvious ridiculous nature of that argument. There are lots of compelling reasons why we decided Australians should be able to buy these sorts of duty free goods on their return to Australia. The final reason in favour of introducing inward duty free shopping is that it will result in an immediate advancement in the Australian economy by people buying those sorts of goods here. At this stage inward duty free shopping has been restricted to the purchase of alcohol, tobacco and perfume. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), there are certain weaknesses in duty free shopping. It seems to me to be an incredible advantage for the comfortable middle class, of which politicians are a part, to be able to travel abroad and, as part of that advantage, be able to bring back whatever amount of duty free goods they want for their own use. Also I think that there is a certain safety element that should be looked at in terms of people lobbing back into Australia with many large parcels of, for example, hi-fi equipment that were carried on the plane as hand luggage. Of course, we must add to that the knowledge that people who have travelled abroad and bought a hi-fi set or some other piece of electrical equipment in Hong Kong, or wherever, often have found on their return great difficulties in using that equipment in Australian conditions. If these things break down, as they invariably do, it is difficult to slip back to Kowloon to get them repaired. I think that is a good reason for in the future extending duty free shopping in Australia at the point of arrival beyond the three commodities catered for in this legislation. On balance, I think there was a compelling reason to allow inward duty free shopping in Australia. I know that several government departments put forward a lot of reasons why this should not happen. It seems to be mandatory for departments and interdepartmental committees to give 20 good reasons why something should not happen. Sometimes however there is just one good reason why something should happen which is not used. I hope I have advanced such good reasons in this debate. Question put: That the clause be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. F.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A, J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Siclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Outwards duty free shops). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.06) —Clause 6 is another clause leading to the facilitation of inward duty free shopping. While I take on board and understand the remarks of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), they still do not alter the position of the Opposition. We will be opposing all clauses which facilitate the introduction of inward duty free shopping, but it is not our purpose to divide on further clauses of this Bill. Clause agreed to. Clause 7 (Inwards duty free shops). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.07) —The same applies to clause 7. I maintain the comments I made before. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 to 11-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 12 agreed to. Clauses 13 to 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 17 agreed to. Clause 18 (Inwards duty free shops). Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.08) —This is the final clause in the Bill relating to inward duty free shopping. I raise just two other items which I think are worth mentioning. I would like to know from the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who owns the franchise at Sydney Airport in relation to duty free shopping. Who would be advantaged in these matters? Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.08) —The answer is that no decision has been made. Presumably Sydney will be tendered for in the ordinary way and some decision will be made at that level. But no decision was made about Sydney or indeed any of the airports. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.09) —Following the question from the Honourable Member for Ryan (Mr Moore), I ask the Minister for Science: Will the proposed duty free facilities be new facilities and not use the existing facilities? Will there be shopping at the existing facilities? If so, there must be an existing operator at the airport who will tender. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.09) —In doing administrative work for Customs I have gained some personal familiarity with this aspect. The facilities will be entirely new. They will be located between the off ramp from the plane and the immigration gates. So physically they will be quite separate from the current outwards duty free shops. I should have said something in strong defence of the Customs officials. The Customs regulations are enforced conscientiously by an extremely diligent group of people. They do not anticipate great drug problems in inward duty free shopping areas. I think that is really quite remote. There may be some problems related to congestion and people slowing down as they go through Customs. That is a decision for people to make. They can choose the fast exits or to be diverted into duty free shopping. Obviously the inward duty free shopping area will be supervised with the same vigilance that airports are supervised now. I do not anticipate any problems. There would have to be a separate area physically. As honourable members know, the concession for the duty free shops at Sydney Airport is held by Allders International Pty Ltd. My understanding, and I will double check, is that the inward concession has not been tendered for. I will have to take this matter up with my colleague, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who may have inadvertently given me a bum steer. I told the chamber, relying implicitly on his advice as I always do, that the concession had not been allocated to anyone at Sydney Airport. That is true, depending on when the new inward duty free shopping area is established. The assumption is that there will be the same concessionaire for inward and outward shopping. The question is whether the new shops actually come into operation during the currency of the present concession. Mr Porter —That is exactly the point we are making. Mr BARRY JONES —I will get information and advise the honourable member. I am not sure when the concession expires. If the inward duty free shop is ready for business, we will say hypothetically, by September 1986 and that is not within the concession period held by the present concessionaires, both will go up for tender together. It depends entirely on when the inward duty free shops are established. In a number of States it will be some time before they are established. I apologise for having inadvertently misled the chamber earlier. Mr Moore —Who are the major shareholders in this proprietary company? Mr BARRY JONES —That too is something that I will have to regard as being on notice and provide the honourable member with the information. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.14) —I thank the Minister for Science for his replies. They remind me to ask a further question in light of his answers to questions which I asked and which the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) asked. It seems to me that there is a case for different tenders to be called for outward duty free shopping on the one hand and inward duty free shopping on the other hand, which might provide for an element of competition in pricing. The next question I ask is this: Is it in any way contemplated-I assume the answer is no but I would like this to be confirmed in relation to the inward duty free shopping-that there is only going to be one tenderer? In which case, how can the Minister guarantee to the travelling public that the prices at the inward duty free store will be competitive with prices in overseas duty free ports and in downtown duty free shops that is, off-airport shops in Australia? Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.15) —Additional material may have to be obtained and passed on when the debate is resumed in the Senate. Members of the House of Representatives can be informed as well. In a recent issue of Choice magazine there was a comparison between duty free shopping in Australia and in Singapore, Hong Kong and some of the other great entrepots. That comparison indicated that the Australian duty free price was lower, I think, than most of the areas reviewed. That surprised me, but certainly prices were very low compared, say, with Singapore or Hong Kong. I suspect that in many cases a comparison between the duty free price going out and the duty free price coming back is not going to be very relevant. Much of that buying is partly impulse buying. I do not think anyone in their right mind is going to get a couple of litres of whisky and lug it overseas, take it through every Customs barrier and then bring it back again simply for the fun of having something to carry around. The decision whether to buy something going out or whether to buy something coming in is really predicated on all sorts of different factors. It is not done on a very sharp calculation where people say: `I think I can save 25c if I buy it at the end rather than if I buy it going out'. Mr Porter —It depends on the product. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course it depends on the product. Mr Porter —Perfume. Mr BARRY JONES —Perfume possibly, but remember that there are only three categories of goods involved. In the case of tobacco products, I find it difficult to believe. In the case of the demon grog, I find that a bit hard to believe too. I think perfume is a possibility. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(11.16) —I have listened to some of the discussions during the debate on this matter. I do not think I have heard a more ludicrous contribution come from the Opposition than there has been in respect of the proposal for inward duty free stores. What the Government's legislation is about is providing a better service to passengers, providing greater convenience to passengers, reducing costs to the international airline operators because of the less weight involved in carrying a substantial quantity of alcohol around the world from foreign ports and providing better value for people. Is it not better that people be able to purchase in Australia goods for home consumption from Australian employees rather than from abroad? What happened last night and during the debate this morning created a problem for the Opposition. As I understand it, one of the members of the Opposition is a consultant to the duty free operators association. He has a brief, and that is public knowledge. It has been published in the magazines of the industry. The battle is going on and the Opposition is putting up a case. It is putting forward a case for the off-airport operators as against on-airport operators. Let us get it right out in the open. That is the Opposition's case. Our case is that here is an opportunity, very much desired by the tourist industry and sought for years by the international aviation industry, to provide, firstly, a better service to people; and, secondly, to reduce the weight of alcohol being carried around the world in aircraft to this country which in itself involves a cluttering of the cabins of aircraft, a difficulty in evacuating people from aircraft in the event of a catastrophe or in the event of an emergency. That has been shown in recent events in other parts of the world-- Mr Barry Jones —Manchester. Mr PETER MORRIS —Manchester was one. In the event of breakage of those alcohol containers, it adds to the fire hazard in aircraft. At the same time, we enable people as they come off aircraft to purchase those three items alcohol, perfume and tobacco. Really, from what honourable members opposite are putting, the Opposition and the people it represents see that as the thin end of the wedge. Their real fear is not about those three items. Their case is argued-I think the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) said something about this last night-on the basis of cameras. The honourable member talked about passengers getting off an aircraft at Sydney airport half asleep, staggering down the concourse and rushing in and buying a camera. That kind of proposal or argument exposes what they are really about. That is not what the Government's proposal is. The Government's proposal is simply in respect of the three items I have mentioned-no more, no less. It is designed to give a better service to Australians and people visiting this country. It is designed to expand business in this country. Why is it not a better deal to be spending money in this country rather than abroad, employing Australians rather than overseas people? But the Opposition does not want that. It would rather that not happen. Members of the Opposition would rather run the brief they are running to protect off-airport operators. That is what the Opposition's position is all about. I would like to say something about congestion at international airports. Have a look at Sydney international airport where the terminal is totally inadequate. This Government is not responsible for that. We are debating one of the measures that will improve the services. We are moving to improve arrangements to facilitate passenger traffic through the terminal. All of the problems at Sydney international airport have been inherited from the Opposition. We are putting an emphasis on two things-passenger service and passenger convenience. We are seeking a more efficient utilisation of airport investment. However, our efforts to do something by way of this legislation are being opposed by the Opposition. The Opposition is opposing the establishment of an airport corporation on some quite spurious grounds. The last matter I want to mention is that, even though the Opposition does not want it, there will be a substantial addition to Federal revenue because we will be collecting a percentage of concessionaires' sales. Is there something wrong with that? Should we forgo a substantial addition to Federal revenue and say: `No, we do not want that money. Let us leave that off-shore. Let it be spent elsewhere.'? This is the same Opposition which is saying that we have to get the deficit down, that we have to reduce public expenditure. But it is a quite schizoid Opposition. What we heard last night and this morning was a debate of anarchy. The anarchists opposite are not sure what they are about. What has been said by those opposite shows the hopelessness and division within the Opposition at the moment. We will not move from our objective of providing a better service for passengers coming to this country, providing greater efficiency and taking the opportunity, where there is opportunity, to increase properly additions to Federal revenue. The point was raised about who will have the rights to concessions in the duty free stores. That will go to the existing lessees and concessionaires during the currency of their contract. There are very simple reasons for this. Mr Porter —Oh! Mr PETER MORRIS —That flushes honourable members out because what they are really talking about are people off the airport. They are not-- Mr Moore —Who are the shareholders? Mr PETER MORRIS —I will give that information to the honourable member in a moment. The honourable gentlemen's case is not about public benefit; it is about protecting a lobby group for which one of his colleagues is a consultant. He ought to come right out in the open and declare his interest. Let us be quite blunt about it-come right out in the open and tell us. The honourable member should not use the phoney excuses that he has been giving. Mr Moore —Will you deny that E. J. Walsh is involved? Mr PETER MORRIS —I would not know anything about that. The honourable member ought to declare his interest. Mr Moore —Well, you declare yours. Mr PETER MORRIS —I do not have a personal interest. I have an interest as a Minister to see that we get the best value for taxpayers' money. We will do that-no more, no less. I want to get the best deal that we can for passengers who use international airline services. What we propose is that the right to operate arrival inwards duty free shops should be granted to the existing licensees of airport departure duty free shops. These operators are presently mid-term in their contracts which were won in open competition following public invitation of tenders. There are practical problems with providing additional administrative and bond store areas that would be required by a second operator. The benefits should flow to consumers from economies of scale associated with the pooling of existing bond store arrangements, staffing, staffing facilities, administration, purchasing and marketing arrangements. As I have said, the inwards duty free store purchase is expected to replace mainly overseas and in-flight duty free purchases. Anybody who is interested will be able to put his case when the existing contracts expire. I have just been passed a note to advise me that E. J. Walsh is not involved in Sydney duty free stores. I do not know what that is about; I do not know why the honourable member opposite raised it. As I said, I am concerned only with improving the service that we are providing to people who use our terminals. We are taking the obvious and eminently commonsense approach, that of giving international airlines which haul alcohol around the world an opportunity to reduce costs and therefore reduce passenger fares. We will also take the opportunity to obtain additional income through the proper operation of services that people want. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.26) —The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has just been at pains to make some mention of me. It is a pity that his ears were not as good as his mouth because, if they were, he would have realised that the statements he attributed to me were in fact the original statements of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who I think was the first person in the Australian Labor Party to bring the idea forward in Caucus and in the Press. The honourable member said last night that in fact he thought that the Government had not gone far enough and no doubt he will continue to lobby in that regard. He said that inward duty free facilities should be extended to cover video cassette recorders and cameras. In my speech I raised the pure stupidity-and I think the Minister, by his comments, agrees with me-of suggesting that an inward passenger would be in the business of buying a camera, having just come back from a trip where he needed the camera. I went on to suggest that he buy 50 or 60 rolls of film as well when he gets back which he can put in the cupboard and use on his next trip in a couple of years time. That just shows how much the Minister listens. It was a member of his own Party who made that suggestion. I agree with the Minister that it was a very dumb suggestion as were most of the Minister's comments of a few moments ago. The Minister has gone as far as to tell us that the proposed arrangement will in some way replace the need to make in-flight purchases. A wonderful argument has been put forward about all the dollars that Qantas Airways Ltd will save by not having to cart alcohol all around the place. Is the Minister suggesting to me that Qantas would cease carting alcohol that it tries to sell to passengers and not try to maximise the sale of alcohol? Of course it will not. It will try to get the shilling; it will try to get the money. Mr Peter Morris —You do not know what you are talking about. Mr TUCKEY —I know a lot more about it than the Minister because in fact I am a bit smarter than he is. That is all we have to worry about. I do not take my instructions from where the Minister gets his. At least I am a free agent in this place. Mr Peter Morris —I do my own thing. Mr TUCKEY —Yeah, I bet the Minister does. We have seen plenty of evidence of that. If he wants to debate that issue with me, we will have a lot of fun. Mr Peter Morris —We will, I am sure. Mr TUCKEY —Good. Let me get back to the clause before the Committee. The Minister suggested that somehow or other people will get better value because they will be able to buy goods in inward duty free shops. The Minister knows what that means. He is suggesting that it will be cheaper to purchase goods duty free than to purchase them once a passenger gets through the barrier. That is absolutely true. The profit margin will be higher but there will be no government taxes. If the Government has a commitment to helping the consumers of alcohol, perfume and cigarettes, it should just take a simple decision to reduce the excise and other taxes that it imposes on the poor devil who does not have enough money to take an overseas trip-the fellow who has his holiday down the pub on a Saturday morning. That is what the Government might do if that is what its intention is. I heard the Minister say that that is where the savings will be. However, the profit margin on alcohol will be higher inside the Customs barrier. In fact, it is well known in Australia and throughout the world that the silliest place to buy anything is in an airport duty free area, where one generally pays substantially more compared with an off-airport duty free facility. I am wearing a watch which I was silly enough to buy for $150 duty free in Hong Kong. I saw the same watch for $100 on my inwards trip to Hong Kong, but did not make up my mind to purchase it then. Mr White —You have a free choice. Mr TUCKEY —Of course. It is fine to have a free choice. The Minister suggested that there would be better value in buying goods this way. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see what he said. He should not credit those comments to me or the honourable member for Stirling. We all know, because it is the historic fact, that the dearest place to buy goods is in duty free stores which pay massive revenues to the airport authorities. They have a monopoly and they make sure that it pays for them after they have paid for their concession. Mr Barry Jones —Did you hear what I said about the Choice survey? Mr TUCKEY —I did not see the Choice survey. I am just telling honourable members opposite what will happen. I also want to say something about the convenience argument. A person can sit on the aeroplane and in the last part of the journey a trolley is wheeled up the middle of the aisle and passengers can select items of alcohol, cigarettes or perfume and carry their purchases off the plane. The difference will be that the passenger will walk off the plane without the goods and five minutes later will be carrying them. That does not suggest to me a huge degree of convenience. I suggest that the Government's estimates of the huge revenues to the people around the place, particularly the Government, from this activity might not be all that it expects. There are other opportunities for abuse, clearly identified by the Australian Customs Service. I wander off the plane with a perfect stranger, I look over and see that he has not got his two bottles of Scotch, and say: `Hey, Charlie, aren't you going to buy some Scotch?' He says: `No, I don't drink it'. I say: `Here's a few bucks. Would you go in and buy two for me?' All I have to do is to stand outside the airport and line up five or six people and I have got a couple of years supply of alcohol. For all those people inside the barrier, it is as simple as that and it happens. It happens on other issues, too. One of the great problems is that although Labor members consider they have great political brains they do not understand these things. They have distanced themselves from ordinary people, particularly the blue collar people whom Labor members claim to represent. They do not know how the people think. Have they ever asked themselves the last time they sat down and had a few drinks with some strangers in the front bar of a hotel, as I do, and many of my colleagues do? People talk like this and they will do those sorts of things, and it is great. But the only benefit is the fact that at the last point before one goes home with the family, or as a tourist one goes off to a hotel, one knows that the Government will not charge the traveller the tax. The present Government introduced indexation of excise, as I said in the House last night. There was a time when the Treasurer of Australia had the courage to stand before this Parliament and people and say `I'm going to put up the price of beer or of whisky', and he had to confront that situation. We are well aware of the pressures that used to be put on him if that was even anticipated, but Labor brought in taxation by stealth. Labor did not worry about the poor working man-and beer, I would remind honourable members, has the highest tax level of anything. The Government indexes this every six months. When members of the public see the price go up in hotels these days, they do not know who to blame because Labor members do not have the courage to tell their own constituents that they are being taxed in this way. That is what we shall say about this arrangement. That is the only saving. The profit margin will be higher and there will be no tax. The Minister spoke of the percentage turnover to the airport authorities. Incidentally, it will be quarantined off, to use a favourite word in this place now, into the hands of the new airport corporation because, presumably, it will get the rent and presumably the rent will be a percentage of turnover. One does not know how that will be diverted to government revenue so that it can be transferred to some of the better social efforts we make around this place. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) was complaining the other day about how the Queensland Government is not pulling its weight. We will just be diverting a little extra money that might go to some worthy social cause. But in that process the Government, according to the estimates, will forgo an additional $10m of excise, which is the property of the Government and is available to spend in what the honourable member for Lilley would consider very worthwhile activities. So that is what will happen-and all this to convenience a person who wants to get a bottle of whisky, a bottle of perfume or a couple of hundred cigarettes five minutes, or let us say 20 minutes, later than that person otherwise would. What are the risks we take? We heard the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in his usual style telling us about all the lobbies for the small business sector. I stand unashamedly in this place for the small business sector. I believe those people are entitled to a living and to be protected from Labor's type of centralism and regulation. The present Government is taking regulation off the big boys. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and others have got a few concessions recently, but I do not see any being given to the little fellows. I stand unashamedly for them and their right to make a living and for the tourist hotel operator to sell a mixed drink rather than having tourists sitting in their rooms drinking out of a bottle. I stand for that operator and believe he has a right to make a profit-and he of course pays all the taxes. One has to consider other problems. There will be problems in confusing the in-flow of passengers and the problems that will be created for Customs in detecting drugs and the other imports that we certainly do not want. That is the basic principle on which the entire Opposition stands. It stands on the principle that nothing should be done to confuse further the situation in handling of inward passengers. Clearly, as Customs has said, this will happen. People will not take a strong and central stream from aeroplane to the checkout counters. They will be wandering off; there will be opportunities to meet and mingle, and all sorts of things that will contribute to importation of drugs and other undesirable commodities. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(11.36) —I did not intend to take part in the Committee stage of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, but I wish to make a brief reference to some of the comments made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). If one wants to get any advice about any sort of shady practices, or about means by which one might circumvent the laws or regulations, ask the honourable member for O'Connor-he is an expert. He has just given an example. He put forward a nonsensical proposition that people coming through the airport from an international flight will approach a stranger and say: `You haven't bought any whisky. Will you go over there to the duty free shop and buy me a bottle of whisky. Then after we have gone through Customs, if you are delayed or if I am delayed, wait outside there, when you are wanting to get home to the family, and deliver the whisky to me'. Mr Tuckey —It will happen. Mr ROBERT BROWN —What an absurd proposition. Of course it will not happen, and the honourable member for O'Connor knows it. As I was saying, if one wants to get any advice about circumventing laws or regulations or about shady practices to get around the regulations, ask the honourable member for O'Connor, but do not rely on that advice because we have just had a good example of the fact that the advice would probably be seriously deficient. Any person listening to this debate would have to congratulate the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on an overwhelming, compelling and absolutely convincing case they have made out. The paucity of arguments used by members of the Opposition should leave them in shame. They have made some ridiculous claims. In addition to all those serious, important and compelling arguments used by members of the Government, there is one that has not received any attention up until the present. The implication of the Opposition's position is that, rather than buy in Australia from Australians at Australian airports, passengers should buy in Hong Kong or Singapore. If passengers buy in Hong Kong or Singapore, they will be using Australian foreign exchange. The amount of money involved may not be very much, but we have a seriously adverse current account at present, a serious imbalance in trade at present, and here is the possibility of additional saving. But for reasons best known to themselves, and they have not advised us of the reasons-- Mr Price —Un-Australian! Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Chifley indicates that the position they have adopted is un-Australian, and that is putting it mildly. The honourable member for Chifley is a great Australian, a great advocate of all things that are important to Australians. It is a pity that Opposition members do not emulate the position so convincingly and effectively adopted in this place and elsewhere by the honourable member for Chifley-an outstanding national Australian advocate. Some of the arguments used by the Government, as I have said, have been absolutely compelling and convincing. There has been the whole question of the security of air flights. If we want any evidence, or if we want to be given any cause for concern about the adequacy of security and safety considerations on international aircraft, events in recent times give us more than sufficient reason to give our attention to it. All those points have been made adequately. I fail to understand first of all how the Opposition can possibly oppose this eminently sensible proposal, but not only to oppose it but to divide on the question. It will be recorded for posterity in the Hansard of the national Parliament that the Opposition adopted such a ridiculous and indefensible position on this matter. The case has been more than adequately made out. Yesterday, when I participated in the second reading debate on this legislation, I appealed to the Opposition. I said: `You still have time to realise the error of your ways and to improve your credibility not only in our eyes'-it has a long way to go to do that-`but also in the eyes of the Australian people. You still have a chance to withdraw from this absurd position you have adopted and do the sensible thing'. Of course the sensible thing-(Quorum formed) Had I been allowed to conclude my remarks I would have said one sentence. That final sentence was going to be that despite the fact that hitherto, in connection with this question-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! Would the honourable member for Stirling not conduct a conversation in the middle of the floor. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Mr Deputy Chairman, you will remember that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) was one of the members on the Government side who made an absolutely compelling case in connection with this legislation. It was a great case. Yesterday I referred to it as a sterling case. I was going to suggest that in the dying moments of the considerations of this legislation the opportunity is now available to honourable members opposite to redeem themselves, to show that they are men of substance, that they are men of conviction and open to convincing when they hear compelling arguments of the kind that have been presented not only by the honourable member for Stirling, but also by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the Minister for Science, the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. After all of the arguments have been presented, the Opposition has an opportunity to indicate that it is prepared to accept that advice and change its position. It is not too late for the Opposition to say that it has been convinced by the nature of the arguments and to indicate its support for the legislation. I made two particular points. One was that if honourable members want any advice about shady practices, about how to circumvent the law and about how to get around regulations, they should ask the honourable member for O'Connor. His time is monopolised by such considerations. However, do not expect to get advice of substance. The honourable member gave an example of people getting off an international flight at Sydney Airport or Tullamarine, seeing someone who was not carrying any whisky walking towards a Customs barrier and going up to that person and offering him a few dollars to buy a bottle of whisky believing that the person would take the money, buy the whisky, go outside the Customs barrier and wait patiently for the person to come out and for the exchange to be completed. The honourable member spends a lot of his time trying to devise smart practices but most of them do not work. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(11.45) —During this debate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) made an accusation which reflected on all Liberal Party members of this chamber. If I have it right, he accused a member of the Liberal Party of being a consultant to the industry. I invite the Minister for Transport to withdraw those remarks or to substantiate them. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.46) —I rise to extend this debate only because of the accusations that were just made. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) was at pains to say that if any honourable member wants to look at how people would treat with the law and how they might act there is something wrong about that. Firstly, he suggested that a person would not be silly enough to address a perfect stranger while walking down the airport passageway. That is not what I suggested would probably happen. Mr Ronald Edwards —You are inciting them to do it. Mr TUCKEY —I am telling the honourable member that people are not as dumb as you-Mr Cameraman-and would do it. I am saying what they will do; I am identifying the problems with the law. The first point I make is that one does make acquaintances with people on aeroplanes. They happen to be the people next to whom one sits. They are probably perfect strangers when one gets on a plane. Government members-Oh, oh! Mr TUCKEY —So Government members do not know the people they sit next to by the time they get off an aeroplane? That is probably the case with some of them. There are probably odours around that make people want to move away from them. I am well able to strike up a conversation with the people sitting next to me and it is not to get a bottle of duty free grog. I am quite happy to pay the going Australian retail price. I am quite happy to pay my taxes, unlike certain members of the front bench. Considering the deviousness of the Tuckey mind, is it not surprising that it has been necessary for me to bring certain matters to the attention of the House and to have suspicions that maybe not everybody on the Government side who criticised the tax system was so honest as to pay all of his taxes? I identified the then Minister for Finance as having dodged $1m worth of probate. He had a devious mind but I performed a service to this Parliament and to Australia. I pointed out to the Government how simple it would be to subvert the Australia Card. Mr Barry Jones —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor is now moving very wide of the clause before the House. There has been no general accusation and I think it is completely irrelevant for him to continue with what is a very broad-brushed accusation. He should concentrate on clause 18, which is precisely what we are dealing with. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Rocher) —I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to return to the matter before the Committee. Mr TUCKEY —It is interesting that while a personal attack was being mounted against me regarding my previous comments on clause 18, the Minister for Science did not get out of his chair to defend me. I am standing here to defend myself because at that time nobody from the Government side worried about the Standing Orders. Mr Barry Jones —You were not mentioned before. Mr TUCKEY —Last night I got another roasting from the honourable member for Charlton. He suggested, first, that I had a hotel in my electorate. I do not. He made some obscure suggestion that maybe there was some water in the rum. I took it that what he meant was that when I drank a glass of rum I added some water. I pointed out to him that I also do the same when I drink a glass of whisky. The point of my standing here and consuming the time of the Committee is that I have been attacked in this way. I rose a few minutes ago to speak to this clause to point out that the Government was creating a set of circumstances which would assist in further breaches of the laws of Australia, particularly regarding drugs, and I gave some examples. That was turned around by the honourable member for Charlton who suggested that there is something wrong with me because I point out to people how the Government's laws will not work. I gave the example of the Australia Card where up to $500m of taxpayers' money will be spent on something that will not work. What is wrong with an honourable member standing up in this chamber and identifying why it will not work? The greatest complaint which the Opposition makes about this clause is that the Government is facilitating the importation of drugs. Honourable members opposite can scoff about it. It does not matter if the Government is facilitating the importation of drugs by one half of one per cent, three-quarters of one per cent or 50 per cent. If it is adding to the opportunity for the importation of drugs and those sorts of substances, with all the harm that they do to our young people, it is not worth it. I have made the point that it is not worth it because the previous point of purchase available to an inward traveller is the aeroplane. A person can buy duty-free goods, particularly the products dealt with in this legislation, on the aeroplane. That is all the trolley on the aircraft is full of. Someone suggested to me a little while ago that perhaps the aeroplanes do not carry enough. Maybe there are other means to overcome that situation. If a person flies by Qantas Airways Ltd he can even purchase the goods in Australian dollars. The convenience is not worth it when compared with the improved opportunity, even fractionally, to introduce more drugs to this country. Honourable members opposite can forget all what I think of valid arguments about the loss of revenue to the Commonwealth and its application in helping needy people. I unashamedly repeat that the industry in Australia that is involved in providing goods that otherwise can be bought at duty-free shops contributes to the Australian economy in a substantial way. It is rumoured that only a mere 600,000 small business people will be involved. Many of those people will be affected by this in terms of competitiveness. The question is: Is it smart? I concede that if people make a decision to take a trip to Australia they are much more likely to do so on account of the Hogan advertisements than as a result of the fact that we suddenly convenience travellers to the point where they can pick up a bottle of whisky as they walk off the aeroplane. People come to Australia for the following reasons: Because it is damn cheap-the Government has devalued the dollar by nearly half of what it used to be worth; because of the good advertising program-I concede that; and because it is a great place to be and they are likely to get on and off the plane without being shot at and harassed in other ways. They have good reasons to come. Honourable members opposite can put away the idea that they will be encouraged to come to Australia because they can purchase a bottle of whisky at the airport as they get off the plane. Very few people will make a decision to travel to Australia on that basis. The only ones who would do so would be so drunk as they got off the plane that there would be little reason for them to come here because they would not see much; they would be in an alcoholic haze all the way. It is not that important. It is particularly not that important in the limited way in which the Government is doing it. In truth, if the Government wants to convenience people-I do not agree with it-it should take up the suggestion of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and let people pick up their video cassette recorders when they return to Australia. At least people would not have to hump them all over the place. But to make the changes merely for a bottle of whisky is meaningless. The Industries Assistance Commission or someone suggested that there should be some bonding arrangement back in Australia. If the Government wants to keep the dollars in Australia it should let a bona fide air traveller make his purchases, have them bonded and allow him to pick them up when he gets back. It may as well do so. That is what it has almost achieved in this regard. At least that would not open up the opportunities for drug dealing and so on as we believe the current legislation does. I reject the comments made by the honourable member for Charlton. I know that he was trying to get a little light-hearted about the matter, but he should be grateful for the fact that I think past the obvious on many of these issues. When the Government forms its legislation it is a pity that it does not say: `Well, that Tuckey might be a bit of a devious character, but he might think that way because he has been out in the real world while members of the Government have been hiding behind the doors of academia, union business, science matters and things of that nature'. The reality is that the Government is on the wrong track and, at the moment, I think that it is on the wrong foot. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.55) —I raise only three points. The first is that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) made a reflection on the Liberal Party and a member of the Liberal Party in relation to that member's professional representation. The Minister has not named that person. As he has not been prepared to name that person, I take strong objection to that insinuation. The Minister's intrusion into the debate brought in a fairly sharp contrast. There are now three positions in the situation that applies in respect of concessions. Firstly, there is the position put by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who said in his contribution that these concessions are there and they will be up for tender in the normal course for the allocation of these inward duty-free shops. Secondly, there is the position of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who took a totally different position, as far as I can recall, in relation to the concessionaires. Thirdly, the Minister for Transport has taken a different position. He said that those who currently have the concession will keep it. Mr Barry Jones —He is right. It is his responsibility. Mr MOORE —There are three different positions. Mr Barry Jones —No. He is right. Mr MOORE —We take the position of the Minister for Transport. If we take his position as the true one, the introduction of inward duty-free shopping means that the existing concessionaire gets an enormous advantage, for the latter part of his term, at no extra amount. According to what the Minister for Transport said, he will be the operator because he holds the concession. Therefore, he will pick up a very handsome windfall. While I am on the subject of economics, I find it quite fascinating to listen to the Government talk about the balance of payments situation and the effect of this, that and the other. I would have thought that the three items which it is proposed to sell-namely, grog, perfume and tobacco-were all imports. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.58) —Together with my colleagues the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), I also wish to express my real and genuine concern about the totally unsubstantiated allegations made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in the debate. The Opposition has expressed concern about the impact of inward duty-free shopping on the illegal importation of drugs. We raised that point. We maintain our concern in relation to that. The Minister for Transport has come in here, having been presumably called from his office, and has suddenly turned our concern about drug imports into a political debate. He made a totally unsubstantiated claim. He has now been asked twice by this side of the chamber to substantiate that claim and he sits there mute. Come on! If he is going to make those claims he should substantiate them. He knows damn well that they are not true. If there is a conflict of interest he should substantiate the allegations. He should come up to the despatch box. He has the right to do so. We have invited him twice-I invite him for the third time-to substantiate or withdraw these allegations. He used to throw around such allegations when he was in opposition. It is obvious that he is still willing to throw mud and hope that a bit of it will stick. Making unsubstantiated allegations is not, in my view, the way in which the proceedings of this chamber ought to be undertaken. Government members-Ha, ha! Mr PORTER —Honourable members opposite laugh. The allegation has been made. If there is any fact, any substance, to the allegation I ask the Minister for Transport now to come to the despatch box and explain or withdraw. He should have the decency to withdraw. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.00) —I want to make a few points briefly in response to the matters that have been raised by the Opposition. I say on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) that he did not specify a Liberal member. He said `a member of the Opposition'. I think it is very curious and very gracious of the Liberals to own up and say: `Well, it is not one of the Nationals'. They immediately identified that it was not a member of the National Party and that it must be one of them. It is curious that they should say that. The Minister for Transport knows his onions. He is an excellent Minister. I am glad he came into the chamber. The Minister for Transport knows more about what is going on in airports than anyone else in Australia, certainly more than I did, on the question of the concessionaires. I point out that the question of the change in the law and the change in the duty as applied is the responsibility of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and, of course, the Treasurer, as the Minister responsible for revenue. But the actual running of the airports, that is, in regard to the allocation of the concessions to the applicants, is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport. As I say, I was very pleased that he came into the chamber at the critical moment. I expressed my regret earlier that I was misinformed about what was going to happen in regard to the additional concession for the inward duty free shop. I wish to clarify one or two points. Honour- able members have really forgotten what it has been like to travel by air in the last few months. The airlines do not sell grog from the trolleys any more in flight. That used to be the case. But if honourable members reflect, they will recall that for some little time now the airlines have not sold liquor in flight on the journey to Australia. That is because of its high bulk; it is weighty; it is inflammable; and it is fragile. They still sell items like jewellery, tobacco and perfume in flight because they are high in value, small in bulk, and so on. Honourable members will recall that one of the factors that came out of the recent Boeing 737 disaster in Manchester was that the amount of cabin carried duty free goods was regarded as a contributory factory in hampering the exit of passengers from the aircraft. That must be taken into account. I referred earlier to an article in the Choice magazine for November 1985 which showed that Australian duty free shopping was extremely competitive compared with shopping in South East Asia. The goods are not always as cheap as those available in Europe, but the prices certainly compare very well with prices charged in other countries in our region. For example the price of 14 millilitres of Chanel No. 5 in Australian dollars in Brisbane was $49 and in Hong Kong $60.81. The Singapore price was not available. Mr Porter —That wouldn't have anything to do with the currency at the moment, would it? Mr BARRY JONES —No, I am talking about a price in Australian dollars. It is a constant figure. Mr Porter —What is the Australian dollar worth at the moment? Mr BARRY JONES —We are talking about a constant price in Australian dollars irrespective of where goods are sold. The price of a Canon AF 35 MII New Sure Shot was $175 in Sydney and $193 (Australian) in Hong Kong. Again, the Singapore price was not quoted. Similarly, in Australian dollars, a carton of Marlboro cigarettes was $5.40 in Melbourne, $7.45 in Singapore and $8.69 in Hong Kong. Those prices are all in Australian dollars. Clearly, so far as Australia is concerned, the pricing here is extremely competitive. The prices in Europe do seem to be somewhat cheaper. For example, a bottle of Chivas Regal, which is a very expensive 12-year-old whisky, costs $10.99 in Rome, $11 in London and $11.16 in Amsterdam. Mr Moore —What is the price of synthetic rum? Mr BARRY JONES —I do not think that the price of rum is listed. In Sydney the lowest duty free price for Chivas Regal was $9.90, in Singapore $16.50 and in Hong Kong $17.76. Comparatively speaking, local shopping represents very good value for the Australian traveller. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 November, 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. Clauses 1 to 13 and Schedules 1 to 5-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Schedule 6. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.07) —I move: (1) Schedule 6, page 18, proposed Amendment 14 of Schedule 3, omit: 84.48.9-Other... 25% DC:10%', substitute 84.48.9-Other... 2% DC:Free'. I do not propose to extend my remarks beyond what has already been said, in particular the excellent contribution by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer). Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.08) —The Government opposes the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). The simplification of the tariff in 1983 led to a drop from 26 per cent to 2 per cent in the duty rate for metal working machine tool parts and accessories. Subsequently, local producers of these tools made submissions to the Industries Assistance Commission as part of its metal working machine tool inquiry. One major company pointed to a 15 per cent drop in sales in 1983 after the duty rate was cut. The IAC recommended in its 1984 report on metal working machines that parts and accessories for use as original equipment in the production of machine tools be bountiable and dutiable at minimum rates. It also recommended that other parts and accessories, that is for replacement purposes, be dutiable at 25 per cent, thus essentially restoring the pre-1983 situation. The Government accepted these recommendations on assistance for parts and accessories. The Government also estimated that the extension of bounties to all parts would cost about $10m. The Commission noted that many parts and accessories are not manufactured locally. Importers should therefore be able to apply for tariff concession orders which, if granted, would allow imports to be made at 2 per cent rather than 25 per cent. Amendment negatived. Schedule agreed to. Schedule 7. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.12) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 22, Schedule 7, Amendments of Schedule 3, amendment 8, omit the amendment. (2) Page 22, Schedule 7, after Amendments of Schedule 3 insert the following: ``Amendment of Part I of Schedule 4 After Item 22 insert: `23 Components entered for home consumption on or before 31 December 1988, of the following types: (a)air brake equipment; (b) brake drums; (c) gearboxes with operating devices; (d) hubs; (e) propeller shaft assemblies; (f) road wheels; or (g) suspension systems, being components, including components imported with and forming part of unassembled vehicles, that are for use by a single manufacturer or assembler in the original manufacture or assembly of the cab/chassis or driveable chassis of a particular motor vehicle or a kind to which, if imported, 87.01.31 or 87.02.3 in Schecule 3 would apply To 31 December 1986 5% DC: Free CAN: Free From 1 January 1987 to 31 December 1987 10% DC: Free CAN: 2.5% From 1 January 1988 15% FI: Free DC: 5% CAN: 7.5%' ''. These amendments are necessary to correct a deficiency which has been found in Schedule 7 to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. Included in Schedule 7 to the Bill are the changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 to bring into effect the Government's revised assistance arrangements for the heavy commercial motor vehicles industry. Part of those arrangements, which are due to come into effect on 1 January 1986, involves the phasing out of bounty assistance on selected components. Such components, except axles which will remain eligible for duty free admission under a customs by-law, are to be excluded from by-law and are to have their bounty assistance replaced by progressively increasing tariffs. As presently drafted, Schedule 7 to the Bill provides for the phased introduction of tariffs on certain components when imported separately. It does not provide for tariffs on such components when forming parts of unassembled vehicle packs. To accord with the Government's policy, components in packs should be accorded the same treatment as components imported separately. The amendments to the Bill remove the provision applying the tariffs to separately imported components and replace it with a new item in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act, which has application to components whether incorporated in vehicle packs or separately imported. Amendments agreed to. Schedule, as amended, agreed to. Schedule 8. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(12.14) —Schedule 8 is the final Schedule in this Bill relating to inwards duty free shopping. I simply ask the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) to answer the questions I posed before, which he did not get round to answering. I do not see any point in further canvassing the previous issues. Who is the concessionaire and who are the current shareholders? I think that that is material at the present in view of the fact that the existing concession holder will get a substantial benefit under the terms put forward by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). The second point is that, despite all the yak about travellers spending money outside Australia on foreign goods, the three items which the Government proposes to allow to be bought on-airport are essentially total imports. I refer to grog, perfume and tobacco. Travellers would not be buying Australian tobacco; they would not be buying Australian grog. Question put: That the Schedule be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodges, J. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Title 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 21 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 21 November, on motion by Mr Hurford: 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. Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(12.26) —The Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill 1985 corrects a multi-million dollar bureaucratic blunder of the Government's own making, a blunder for which the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) must take full responsibility. Until late last year all the quarantine duties covered by this Bill came under the control of the Minister for Health. As a former Minister for Health I can understand the burden of his portfolio and I sympathise with him in some of the difficulties that he must be having in trying to administer Medicare, but there is no excuse for mistakes of this magnitude. This House is being asked to remedy a bureaucratic bungle resulting from the Hawke Government's failure to meet its own legal requirements. It is not a minor blunder; more than $3m in quarantine fees have been collected without proper legal authority. Now the House is being asked to give retrospective approval to what have been, under strict application of the law, illegal actions over the last 12 months. The Government is supposed to be making the laws, observing the laws and setting an example to the rest of the community. But here we have a situation in which the Government makes the law, proceeds to maladminister that law and then finds that it has collected money illegally and seeks retrospective approval for having done so. Members on this side of the House will not oppose the Bill, but we seek to highlight the poor administration of the law by the Government. I think it is fair to say that Groucho Marx would have been proud of this Bill. The Quarantine Amendment Act operating from 24 May 1984 inserted a new section 86E into the original Act which created ministerial authority to set quarantine fees. There was a dual requirement that new fees be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and that both Houses of Parliament be notified of such changes. The Government did only half a job on its own requirements. Its failure to notify Parliament of Gazette notices last October has created one legal problem after another. A notice in the Gazette on 1 October 1984 revoked all fee determinations for human, animal and plant quarantine. Two difficulties arose from that notice: Firstly, Parliament was not notified and, secondly, new fees were set only for livestock exports. Failure to advise Parliament meant that the determination became null and void on 24 October. The fees, therefore, were applied under the Acts Interpretation Act which dates back to the year the Commonwealth Government was founded. Meanwhile, the Government continued to charge fees for quarantine services other than livestock even though such fees had been completely revoked on 1 October. Between 1 October and 24 October there was no legal provision for any such fees to be collected. On 13 December 1984 administration of the animal and plant quarantine Act was transferred to the Primary Industry portfolio, but the consequent fee determinations made by the Minister for Primary Industry have also proven to be defective. An estimated $2.5m has been collected for human, animal and plant quarantine services without proper legal authority. Mr Nehl —Disgraceful! Mr HUNT —It is absolutely disgraceful. The honourable member for Cowper hit the nail right on the head and I hope that he says it again. A further $630,000 has been collected from airline operators in 1984-85 for removal of galley waste from aircraft without correct legal provisions being in force. What do we say about that? Mr Nehl —Shocking! Mr HUNT —It is absolutely shocking. It is disgraceful. It was assumed that section 64 of the Quarantine Act covered such fees but, under advice, the Government has now gazetted new measures under section 86E. The action of the House in passing this Bill gives effect to a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette last week. Whilst the Opposition does not intend to block the passage of this legislation, we do seek to have incorporated in the legislation three amendments which I believe are fair and reasonable and which should be readily acceptable to the Government. I foreshadow that in the Committee stage I will move amendments to protect any recipient of quarantine services who may have had reason to challenge the payment of these fees since the problems arose with the administration of the Act. Under the circumstances I believe that it is essential that the interests of all parties are protected, including both the Government and those receiving the services. Unless provision is made for anyone challenging the payment of fees to continue their action, this Parliament may, by approving this Bill, give unwitting protection to the Commonwealth Government in what should be unencumbered legal proceedings. I will outline the details of those amendments in the Committee stages of debate. I understand they have been circulated. The Government has taken the only available course of action to clean up this messy administration of section 86E by presenting a fresh Bill to the Parliament. At least it has not tried to totally cover up the whole debacle; yet, the point must be made that the way in which the Government administered its own laws leaves much to be desired. The Opposition's reluctant support of this Bill should not be taken as a precedent that we will not oppose retrospective correction of such mistakes in the future. The administration of government is not an easy task. I know it is not an easy task but surely we can expect that such a recent amendment should be properly implemented. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.34) —Let us bring a little common sense into this debate on the Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill. This Bill restores a proper legal basis to aspects of one of the most important public services in Australia. This Government acknowledges that. Let me put this particular piece of legislation into context. It was the Hawke Government which undertook a complete overhaul of the quarantine system to make it much more effective. It is the first such complete overhaul of the Quarantine Act since it was introduced in 1908. In fact, it is an overhaul which was applauded by the Opposition at the time it was undertaken last year. I will quote from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who said: . . . I am pleased to be able to say that on this matter of quarantine there is quite a broad measure of agreement. I am able to say some nice things about the Minister in regard to this Bill. He was referring to the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett. No Australian could doubt the overwhelming necessity for an efficient and effective quarantine service in the protection of the nation's interests. Australia is a unique country in many ways and its geographical characteristics and its isolated position have serious implications for our cultural and economic relationship with the rest of the world. In this context, the need for an adequate quarantine service becomes a paramount consideration and the financial means by which the service is maintained assumes a position of central importance. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has already capably outlined the necessity for the introduction of the legislation to overcome a defect in the legislative arrangements under which fees have been charged and collected for quarantine services already provided by the Commonwealth, but which services, because of the anomaly referred to, did not have legislative backing. Under Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth is obliged to have some legislative authority for the levying of fees. In relation to the matters dealt with in clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, this authority lapsed for two periods due to an administrative oversight of a technical nature; that is, a drafting error and a failure to table the notice revising fees within the prescribed period of 15 sitting days. In relation to clause 7, validating legislation is necessary because of recent legal advice provided by the Attorney-General's Department to the effect that, contrary to the view previously held by the Department of Health, there may be no legislative basis for the levying of fees in relation to the collection of aircraft waste even though the Act provides for the recovery of the expenses incurred. This Bill, therefore, seeks to validate certain fees charged by the Commonwealth to private individuals and to commercial groups for these vital services at varying times between October 1984 and October 1985. The legislation will cover $2.5m in quarantine fees. At this stage I would like to comment on the amendments to be moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) on behalf of the Opposition. The amendments proposed by the Opposition appear to reflect a complete lack of understanding of the Bill and its effect on the quarantine system. It appears to me that, were these amendments not put up by the honourable member for Gwydir, who does not usually indulge in such capers, it would be a typical case of the Opposition dreaming up issues and then running around looking for homes for them. I cannot forget with what energy honourable members opposite strived to insert an abortion issue into the Bill of Rights legislation. As the Attorney-General recorded clauses to meet their objections, Opposition members changed tack to find another clause or home for their issues. They were here to oppose it and, by golly, oppose it they did. However, maybe I have misjudged them in this instance. They may really misunderstand the purpose of the Bill, which is to pass legislation to set what has already occurred within the letter of the law. I make it quite clear that this legislation will not modify the quarantine system, the appeal process or any other aspect. The legislation will not raise additional fees, impose levies, fees or charges retrospectively and will not remove the rights of aggrieved parties to challenge the fees paid during the relevant periods. Therefore, these proposed amendments are irrelevant. Though possibly well meant, they are misdirected. I understand that the honourable member for Gwydir is attempting to preserve people's rights to protest if charges are imposed retrospectively. However, I think I have made it quite clear that this will not be the case and in these circumstances I think the Opposition should consider not proceeding with its amendments. I would like to put the particular amendments that I am referring to into context with the Federal Government's overall actions to reform administrative aspects of Australia's quarantine system-actions which I am pleased to note have, as I have said already, received the support of Opposition members in this House. Since its election in 1983 the Hawke Government has recognised the importance of an effective quarantine service and it has sought to ensure that the service fulfils its functions appropriately and economically. The Government, in its 1984 amendment to the Act, moved to increase significantly the penalties for the breach of quarantine rules to provide a formidable deterrent to the import and export of harmful products. The Opposition foreshadowed the need for a serious deterrent in this regard but it was the Hawke Government which responded to the appeals of the rural sector for a much stiffer penalty. As a result, the maximum fine for a person who brings a disease agent into Australia has been raised from $10,000 to $50,000. This is a much more stringent and realistic fine and will ensure that the quarantine rules will not be taken lightly by anyone. In addition, the Government has honoured its 1983 election promise to transfer some of its quarantine services to the Department of Primary Industry. Therefore, we now have a logical system in which the Department of Primary Industry handles the quarantine of animals and plants while the Department of Health handles human quarantine. At the time that this particular incident which this legislation is designed to cover occurred in October 1984 and was being investigated, the Minister had detected another anomaly with regard to the collection of levies paid by airline operators in 1984-85 to offset expenses for collecting and disposing of galley waste from aircraft arriving from overseas. The legislation, therefore, will also validate $630,000 in airline charges that were levied in this context without the authority of the quarantine Act. I have outlined the sensible administrative reform which has been undertaken to enhance the health of this country and to maintain its economic strength. I mention economic strength in this regard because of the crucial relationship between a totally effective quarantine system and our competitiveness on international markets. Australia is an exceptionally lucky country. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources, a landscape of enormous size, wealth and beauty and an environment which so far has been mercifully spared disastrous diseases such as rabies and foot and mouth. The control of these diseases in Australia is not due entirely to our isolated position on the globe. Neither is it due entirely to the fact that we are a lucky country. It is due, to a large extent, to the persistent efforts of our Customs and quarantine officers whose invaluable service has ensured that the diseases which cripple the agricultural output of our trading partners and rivals have not come here. Were it not for the quarantine services which many of us take for granted, our international competitiveness, not to mention our reputation for integrity in the international community would be severely damaged. Meat export, for instance, is one of the linchpins of our economy. If adequate protection for our livestock were not guaranteed, the cost in export earnings would run into millions of dollars. A major outbreak of foot and mouth disease would devastate farmers. But any of a number of diseases-swine vesicular disease, African swine fever, screw worm fly-would wreak havoc if introduced into Australia. Tourism offers considerable benefits for this country and has contributed much to the economic growth achieved under this Government; but it also offers potential dangers. An increased traffic of visitors to and from these shores increases the risk of exotic disease entering the country. Many of the visitors to our country are not aware of our essential quarantine stringency and the utmost care must be taken to ensure that our quarantine services can cope with the demands of an expanding tourist industry. A perfect example of this stringent security has been provided to me by a quarantine officer of the Health Department, which handles human aspects of quarantine. One of the major functions of this section, as referred to earlier with reference to this validation legislation, is the disposal of the galley waste from international airlines-that is, the unused food served on international flights. Because the food on these flights is prepared in many different areas of the world, it is far more likely to harbour exotic diseases. Such is the exacting scrutiny of the quarantine service that traces of cholera, which were detected in some airline food, were traced back, after analysis, to the water which had been used to wash some lettuce in Bahrain. Honourable members can gauge from this example just how vital our quarantine services are in the control of exotic diseases. I hope the House will forgive me for saying that so efficient are these services that I am confident there is no danger that any exotic birdlife disease may have infected this hallowed chamber as a result of the unauthorised entry this week. I know that our quarantine officers would be quick to determine whether this was animal, plant or human and act accordingly. The range of quarantine services provided by the Departments of Primary Industry and Health are undeniably essential. These services include treatment, inspection and supervision of animals and plants at all points of entry into Australia and an extensive surveillance of our coastline accounting for $7m from the Health Department alone. This Bill is all about maintaining these services by ensuring that quarantine fees, as discussed, are placed on a proper legal basis. The Government has acted quickly to restore this legality to the services' operations and passage of this legislation will allow this to continue. I feel secure in the knowledge that our quarantine services will play their part in reconciling the economic benefits of tourism and the health and safety of our people and of our environment. Particularly, I speak on behalf of Queenslanders whose new international airport in my electorate is due for completion in time for the bicentennial celebrations. The matters discussed today should be one of the prime concerns of any government. I stress that they are a prime concern of this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(12.45) —I move: That this House, noting the progress being made towards the establishment of a national meat inspection service and the constructive steps being taken with regard to export inspection, congratulates all governments for their co-operation in this endeavour. Australia is part of an ever increasingly competitive world market and as such I believe we should be aware of cost pressures in export oriented markets. The National Farmers Federation recently summed up the importance of maintaining international competitiveness in a series of farm briefs. Commenting on this area the NFF stated: All Australians have an interest in achieving and maintaining improvements in international competitiveness. Such an improvement will lead to increased economic activity in export and import competing industries. As a result Australia will be able to generate more exports and less imports. It therefore follows that any initiatives to achieve such an objective would be clearly inarguable. Already the Hawke Government has taken decisions to reduce cost pressures in our primary industries, a sector that still contributes almost 40 per cent to our export wealth, so much so that under this Administration increases in farm costs are now running at about 6 per cent in stark contrast to the 12 per cent typified by the Fraser period of government. Therefore any actions taken to reduce costs, and any action to develop an improved meat inspection system, should be worthy of public comment in this House. The establishment of a national meat inspection service coupled with developments in the Export Inspection Service is a reason for congratulating all governments involved. I stress the words `all governments'. Like the lack of a standard gauge rail system, a vestige of introspective colonial jealousies, we have had a classic example of historical division of Commonwealth and State functions for many years after Federation, no more so than when it comes to the question of meat inspection. Despite the fact that all involved have generally agreed that a single national meat inspection service was more efficient and obviously in Australia's best interests, progress unfortunately was painfully slow for many years. Governments, both Commonwealth and State, meat industry authorities, major importing countries and even the 1982 Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry endorsed the concept of a single meat inspection service. Clearly, there are obvious benefits arising from a single inspection service. For the benefit of this House I would like to outline some of the more obvious benefits. First, it provides for better control over the whole meat chain under one authority, providing for increased security of export meat, a higher level of compliance and one point of contact for all meat inspection. Secondly, it facilitates uniform domestic inspection and construction standards nationally, thereby allowing easier movement of meat and reduced costs to industry. Thirdly, it provides for uniform domestic legislation with ministerial orders aligned to the specific requirements of each State and Territory. Fourthly, it provides for a uniform national charging policy. These charges are lower than those applying in all States that presently charge. Fifthly, it eliminates the duplication of State inspection fees in those export registered works which also produce for the domestic market. Sixthly, it provides a base for more efficient use of staff, reduction in duplication and, very importantly, elimination of demarcation disputes across domestic and export operations. Based on experience to date, these can result in staff savings of some 10 per cent. Seventhly, it provides for economies through nationally based systems. For example, in computers, uniform transfer of documentation, training of industry and inspection staff and so on. Finally, it facilitates the introduction of more efficient and effective practices in areas such as animal welfare policy on abattoirs, exotic disease control and new inspection practices. Recognising the obvious benefits, there has generally been a co-operative approach by all governments-a very pleasing aspect and a reason for the introduction of this motion into General Business today. It is worth outlining the history. Prior to July 1983 each State, with the exception of South Australia, carried out the task of meat inspection for domestic purposes. Since 1964 an agreement had been in force with South Australia that provided for the Commonwealth to inspect both domestic and export meat, and further refinements to this scheme are presently under discussion. However, on 1 July 1983 the New South Wales Government transferred its domestic meat inspection service to the Commonwealth. This eliminated duplication of both staff and charges with considerable benefits to all concerned. Savings of some 19 per cent of total domestic staff have been achieved in New South Wales alone by this decision-19 per cent just in one State. From 1 April this year the Queensland Government transferred responsibility to the Commonwealth for all domestic inspection in export registered abattoirs and, again, the separate State fee in these works was abolished. The Tasmanian Government has passed legislation which will enable co-operative arrangements to commence on 3 March 1986. The Northern Territory has already agreed to a single inspection service, using the New South Wales model, to commence two months later, on 1 May 1986. The Western Australian Government has also announced an in-principle decision to transfer responsibility to the Commonwealth for domestic inspection in export registered works. Negotiations to this stage suggest that the separate State charge for inspection will be abolished towards the middle of 1986. Victoria presents some difficulties in the movement towards a single inspection service. For a while both the Commonwealth and the Victorian Governments had intended that such a scheme would operate from the beginning of the new year. Unfortunately, the necessary Victorian legislation to enable a single inspection service in that State was defeated by the Liberal-National Party Opposition in the Legislative Council just two days ago, at a cost to the industry of some $2.4m. I am sure my good friend and colleague, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), will enlarge on the effects of such a narrow minded decision, particularly by the National Party, which claims some type of special relationship with rural industry. Overall, the cost benefits have meant a saving of some $5m a year through the abolition of the dual fee. Furthermore, the economies and more efficient arrangements have meant that the 1985-86 inspection charges will be frozen at the previous year's level. The States, of course, always have the option to withdraw from the ministerial agreement at any time. However, at this stage the States seem more than satisfied with a system that produces economies and cost savings to the meat industry but still allows them to control such areas as domestic abattoir licensing, design standards in such works and the formulation of standards for domestic inspection. I now comment on the Export Inspection Service. Other speakers in the debate, I am sure, will enlarge upon some of my remarks. The Export Inspection Service was established in the wake of the meat substitution scandal and the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry that followed. This arrangement began on 16 March 1982 under the previous Government. Some of the major changes over the past five years have been as follows: Firstly, the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry have been implemented-a move, I am sure, that has been welcomed by all governments, by the meat industry authorities and by all concerned about Australia's future. The Inspection Policy Council, which advises the Minister and the service on policy issue functions, with membership from industry, unions and consumers, as well as State and Commonwealth governments has been established. New inspection arrangements for meat and meat products have been agreed with international authorities, unions, State governments and the industry. Final implementation is expected by the end of the current financial year. Numerous other changes have occurred along with the broadly based plans for the future with the aim of making inspection practices in Australia the envy of any other international competitor. As a result of these changes, costs were reduced considerably during 1985-86. Cost increases of some $10.5m have been absorbed and new and improved practices will mean further savings of about $8.5m. Direct savings to the industry of some $4.5m should reduce labour and material costs as well as handling costs. I think all honourable members will appreciate that the move towards a national meat inspection service and the Export Inspection Service generally have meant good news for the Australian primary industry field. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said in this House on 24 August 1983: I am convinced of the benefits of a single national inspection service and I remain optimistic that such an arrangement can be achieved in a spirit of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States. Let us hope that actions such as were taken by the Liberal-National parties in the Victorian Legislative Council do not diminish the Minister's optimism of just two years ago. My motion is stated in quite clear, positive and, I hope, bipartisan terms, which reflect a movement of sensible, co-operative endeavour and I commend it to the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Brumby —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(12.59) —At the outset, I want to associate the Liberal and National parties with the view that we should have a single meat inspection service in Australia but that that service should be accountable and responsible. I have no disagreement, therefore, with the thrust of the motion put forward by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) but I was a little intrigued when, in canvassing his argument he did not roam over the whole breadth and length of the killing floor. I would have thought that when he was talking about costs-that is a very admirable emphasis in any debate-he would have commented on the fact that the Government of which he is a member, representing a rural electorate, made a decision which resulted in inspection charges in this country increasing by 200 per cent. That is what we are talking about-containing costs. It is absolutely irrelevant, as I see it, to expound the pluses of a Government decision without also detailing the minuses. I want very briefly before developing the minuses of the present inspection service to indicate to the honourable member the reasons for the National Party in Victoria exercising a levelling effect on the lower House by its decision in the upper House. Members of the Party were concerned about the lack of discipline contained in the legislation. They were very worried about the fact that the ministerial arrangements gave power to hand over control of product description to the inspection services. Quite obviously there were very good reasons. I can understand the need and the wish to reduce costs by $2.4m a year, but there were these great reasons for concern. I might say to the honourable member that those reasons for concern were also espoused by the relevant industrial and farmers organisations in the State of Victoria. So in effect the National Party view was a view which was backed by the industry. Our concern about the legislation as it has come into practice is that the present arrangements, in effect, develop a monopoly service. It is a service which, in effect, has shown that it has enormous industrial power. It has very limited accountability. There is far too much emphasis on rights, and it completely disregards responsibilities. Let us talk about some of the things that the single meat inspection service has done in the very limited time it has been in existence. It can put an embargo on a particular works. In effect, it can break a works which does not bow to its demands. It can cause hold-ups in the operations. I have seen on the killing floor a meat inspector, for no reason at all, pull up the chain, amidst howls and hisses then from his fellow workers, because he sees an imaginary hair on the back of a carcass. All these things, these stops while the chain is in progress, lead to extra costs. We find also that a works might be killing 600 head of cattle a day, 400 for export and 200 for the domestic services. The industrial power of a monopoly service, unchecked and unchallenged, can in effect cause a shortfall in domestic product. Under the previous arrangement, if the Federal inspectors went out, the State inspectors could continue to operate and provide the domestic service. This system does not allow it to happen. Let us look at what happened in Queensland when the single Federal service took over. The inspectors waited until the next day-they were magnanimous-before they called a strike. It was a strike on the matter of changing their hours of work from 40 hours a week to 38 hours a week. In effect, the day after they took over that service in Queensland there was a strike. We saw what happened at Mudginberri. Inspectors refused to obey a direction from a Federal Minister to cross picket lines at Mudginberri. More importantly, they refused to cross picket lines-imaginary in some instances-elsewhere in Australia at meatworks where the relevant union was not the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. This is what happens when we have an unrestricted monopoly organisation with tremendous industrial power, backed up and aided and abetted by a government. The union movement saw fit to call out meat inspectors at works which were staffed by unions other than the AMIEU, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Mudginberri dispute. Let us look at this business of using power to grant a 38-hour week. Obviously it was a sweetheart deal between the union, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Public Service Board and, finally, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I cannot think of any other such sweetheart deal which indicates a paralysis of the mind. The unions do not want to get on with the job of making Australia once again a competitive country as far as exports are concerned. But what did the inspectors do? Instead of working the 38-hour week, they continued to work their ordinary hours and-wait for it-they had an extra 12 days added on to their annual leave. They still worked the same length of time, the same number of hours a day, but they were given extra annual leave. I cannot think of anything that is more ridiculous. This was at an extra cost of $4m a year to the Australian industry. A Press release from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), dated 25 September 1984, states: I believe that the plan has the potential to reduce costs by about $12m a year, using the present national export slaughter level of 7 million cattle equivalents as a base . . . We also find that those decisions were taken without any consultation with the industry. I refer to a confidential document forwarded to the Arbitration Commission. It was argued before the Commission that: . . . documentation . . . clearly indicated that productivity improvements in EIS amounting to $12m a year were foreshadowed by the Minister for Primary Industry as early as September 1984, well before the 38 hour week agreement was firmed up. Consequently it was a reasonable deduction that the 38 hour week agreement was not the pre-condition to efficiency gains. It argued that a 38-hour week would cost EIS an extra $4m per year-hardly a cost-saving exercise. So let us not talk about a principle decision in the Victorian Government which is going to cost an extra $2.4m a year while at the same time this Federal Minister is costing the industry an extra $4m a year. Equally important, as this document says, industry was not involved in the drawing up of the agreement and was not adequately consulted. So much for a government which talks about consultation. I am amazed, as I said initially, at what goes on in an organisation which has monopoly powers, backed up by a government which is not strong enough to legally enforce the powers that it has. We find that these meat inspectors now start work at 6 o'clock in the morning and are paid two hours overtime until the other workers come on at 8 o'clock. Because there is so much idle time they knock off at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and go home, because their part of the inspection procedures has been finalised. I suggest that, if we are interested in cutting costs, we should cut out this idle time. We should say to meat inspectors: `Right, you start at 6 o'clock and you knock off at 2 o'clock. Those are your standard hours of work and no overtime is allowed in this period'. At least then we would be bringing some type of accountability, some type of responsibility, into the system. These are the problems which have emerged. No wonder the cost of dressing a carcass in Australia is $A50 compared to $30 and $25 overseas. Let us now be constructive. We know the problems. The system has been in operation for sufficient time. There are obviously solutions. Firstly, the Minister must be legally responsible for providing the service. That is terribly important. Too often, as I indicated previously, when he gave an instruction meat inspectors refused to cross a picket line. The Minister must be legally responsible. I want to make my second point quite clearly, with no mistake and no double talk. We want to declare meat inspection to be an essential service, for logical reasons. First, the meat inspection service is the custodian of health and hygiene. Disease can be spread from beast to man. Secondly, we cannot market meat overseas, either export or domestic, unless a certificate is provided. We have enormous problems with our balance of payments. We have increased competition from overseas. We are talking about reducing our balance of payments. It seems that the Australian Labor Party cannot do much about cutting down imports, but maybe we can improve the balance of payments by increasing our exports and keeping costs down. If a service is declared essential by the Government, the Government has to stand behind its legislation. Let us give an example. In Queensland we had essential service legislation in the power industry. We had a government which was prepared to stand behind its legislation. What is the net result? Firstly, we have had no strikes. As a Queenslander, I have had plenty of power, like all Queenslanders during the last winter, and, equally importantly, there has been an enormous saving. To summarise, if we have essential service legislation, where it is logical and appropriate to do it, and a government which is prepared to stand behind it, we have no strikes, plenty of service and cost savings. These are the important things that we have to look at when problems emerge from a particular piece of legislation. Personally, I would like to see the inspection service privatised. I cannot see any sense whatsoever in incurring enormous costs in transferring veterinary officers from point A to point B. It seems to me to be logical, whilst the Government has the responsibility for providing the service, to have local veterinary officers offering their services on a fee for service basis. I was rather intrigued when the honourable member for Calare did not comment on the second part of his motion where he says that constructive steps are being taken with regard to export inspection. Why have an inspection service, as in honey and fresh fruits and vegetables, when the overseas importer does not require it? This issue is all about costs. The centralised wage-fixing system has over the years been largely responsible for keeping our cost structures above those of our major trading partners. On two aspects fundamental to international competitiveness-cost structures and inflation rates-this Government is proving to be hopelessly inadequate. It has used the prices and incomes accord as an excuse for weakness but the accord cannot cover up for any length of time the structural weakness of the economy and Labor's inability to get the basics right. If it has a legal power it has to get in and exercise that legal power and not run away from it as it did at Mudginberri. It has shown no discipline and no common sense in regard to the problems of Mudginberri and meatworks anywhere else. It is time we reconciled our policy with today's economic and financial realities. We are becoming less and less competitive with the rest of the world despite the 20 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. Here are the facts. Australia, alone among major trading nations, has increased Government expenditure by 6 to 7 per cent in real terms over each of the past two years. It has been alone in abandoning monetary supply targeting. It is the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country with full wage indexation. We have an inflation rate that is almost twice that of our major trading partners and three times that of Japan. We have interest rates at 20 per cent and on the rise compared with less than half of that amount in our competitor, the United States of America. Clearly, other countries can deliver both high growth and wage cost restraint without the need to resort to a rigid, centralised wage system. For example, in 1984 the United States economy grew by 6.8 per cent while labour costs grew by only 2.5 per cent. In Australia our gross domestic product grew by 4.6 per cent and labour costs by 4.1 per cent. To put it bluntly, Australia's costs are too high, its working hours too short and its productivity too low. That is what is wrong with the meat inspection service. Our rural sector faces low prices abroad and soaring costs at home. It faces transport and wharfage costs well in excess of those of our competitors and a bad reputation for reliability of supply. Our once rich rural sector is struggling to cope, let alone compete in a world economy distorted by subsidies and agricultural trade wars. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(1.13) —It is my pleasure to support the General Business motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). At the outset I will make a few brief comments to recap on some of the background to the national meat inspection service. It has to be said that the responsibility for meat inspection in Australia has historically been divided between the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth traditionally has had responsibility, obviously, for export areas and the States or Territories and, in the past, municipal authorities have had responsibility for the inspection of product which is consumed locally. That is the historical context but it has to be emphasised that for many years it has been generally agreed that a single national meat inspection service would be far more efficient than the present cumbersome and outdated arrangements. In some States the means of achieving that single service, and principally, in effect, the question of who will run it, has not been agreed, even though the principle of the need for a single meat inspection has been strongly supported. The Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry in 1982, following the meat substitution scandal, also endorsed the establishment of a single service concept. Many authorities and importing countries have indicated their support for a single system. There has been, particularly in recent years, growing and strong support for the concept of a single national meat inspection service. The reasons for that support are very well and logically based. The contribution of the honourable member for Calare was one of the most lucid explanations, the most tightly analytical speeches, that I have heard explaining all the substantial benefits which flow to meat inspection establishments, to States and, inevitably, to primary producers from a single meat inspection service. It was an excellent contribution and it left the contribution by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), which I will come back to in a few moments, just miles behind. There are a number of benefits of a single meat inspection service. Perhaps the first and major benefit, as the honourable member for Calare noted, is that it provides for better control over the whole meat chain under one single authority. It provides for increased security of export meat and it provides for a higher level of compliance at one point of contact for all meat inspection. That is absolutely fundamental to standards and export markets. Secondly, a single meat inspection service eliminates the duplication of State inspection and fees in export registered works which also produce for the domestic market. In my own electorate, the Mayfair company, which is a very large establishment, some years ago had an export licence. It was paying out $300,000 a year in inspection charges-double fees in a sense-for its exports which did not even total that amount. In other words, it was penalised by having to have every single animal in that abattoir inspected for export even though only 10 per cent of its total produce was going overseas. As a result of that arrangement Mayfair was forced to relinquish its export licence. I think that is a disaster for Australia. One more export establishment in this country went under with the old system of double costs and double penalties which, frankly, this country cannot afford. So, as I have said, the second benefit of a single meat inspection service is that it eliminates that duplication. There is a third benefit. It also provides for a much more efficient use of staff. It reduces duplication and it eliminates demarcation disputes across domestic and export operations. As the honourable member for Calare pointed out in his excellent contribution, the experience to date shows that staff savings can result in cost savings of 10 per cent. I want to get on to the question of Victoria, because this motion refers to encouraging the Commonwealth Government and the State governments in their efforts in bringing about a single meat inspection service. As the honourable member for Calare pointed out, many States have made agreements with the Commonwealth. In Victoria we have a fascinating but appalling situation. The Victorian Government is supportive and enthusiastic and concurs with the Commonwealth on the need for a single meat inspection service and has passed legislation in the lower House, the House of Assembly. I think it is a matter of great regret to this Government and to this Parliament that last Tuesday night in the upper House in Victoria the combined forces of the Liberal Party and more importantly, I think, the National Party, voted against this legislation, effectively to sink it. What that means is that that legislation, that proposal for a single meat inspection service in Victoria has bitten the dust. It has bitten the dust because of the blatant opportunism of the Liberal and National parties in the upper House in Victoria. That unrepresentative upper House, the members of which talk of democracy, of the State's interests and of representing farmers, on Tuesday night sunk a proposal put up by the Victorian and Commonwealth Governments that would have saved Victoria $2.4m. A saving of $2.4m per annum in inspection fees is not chicken feed. The fact is that the National Party in the upper House in Victoria simply caved in to unrepresentative vested interests in that State. The effect will be that it will cost Victorian producers-farmers, the people who produce the livestock that goes to the abattoirs-more than $2m. There is substantial evidence, which has been documented, that the costs incurred in abattoirs are effectively passed backwards in lower market prices for produce. What it means is that Victorian farmers next year, in 1986, will be getting $2m a year less in the market place for their produce-their fat lambs, their pigs, their steers and their vealers-than they would otherwise would have got. At a time when farmers are struggling because international markets have been corrupted by the European Economic Community, when they need every dollar of income they can get, I think it is an absolute disgrace that the National Party in Victoria should oppose this legislation and effectively make the farmers of Victoria lose $2m of revenue that they otherwise would have got. What we have seen is just a flagrant capitulation by the National Party in Victoria to vested business interests which will cost Victorian farmers $2m next year. I just cannot condemn that decision enough. I want to say just a few brief things about some of the arguments-if I could be generous enough to call them arguments-that the National Party and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals in Victoria put up in the upper House to oppose this single meat inspection service. They basically said that they are concerned about two things. First, they are concerned about State safeguards and, secondly, they are concerned about union power or domination. Let me look at the question of State safeguards. Under the national meat inspection proposal there are considerable safeguards for States which join with the Commonwealth in this single arrangement. The States will retain sole responsibility for the licensing of domestic works, for the standards of construction and equipment in domestic works, for the setting of standards for domestic inspection and for the setting of individual State requirements for the preparation of domestic meat. They are the State safeguards. It belies all of the logic, all of the careful analysis in the world to stand up in the Upper House in Victoria and say that one is worried about State safeguards and State rights when clearly under this legislation every right of a State to licence or set standards in its domestic establishments will be totally and absolutely safeguarded. What a lot of rot the National Party and Liberal Party in Victoria have come up with. There is absolutely no credence at all to their claims. I go to the second matter which they purport to be a reason for rejecting this legislation which, as I have said, will cost Victorian farmers $2m a year. They have talked about the problem of union domination or power because of the formation of a single service. They have argued that there will be too much power in the hands of a single union. I shall make a few points about that because that is one of the most puerile and banal arguments that I have heard in this whole debate. The National Party would do itself a favour if it came up with its real reason for opposing this legislation. It is because of its arrangements-if I can call it that-with a certain business interest in the abattoir industry in Victoria. The National Party is very close to that organisation and frankly, it just has not had the guts to stand up for farmers in Victoria. Let us look at the union question. Firstly, the record shows that the Commonwealth Meat Inspectors Association is a responsible union and has always preferred conciliation to disputation. I make the second point that as part of the 38 hour week package, the Meat Inspectors Association recently entered into an agreement, ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which includes a dispute settling arrangement. I emphasise that the arrangement provides that work continues while disputes are being resolved. In other words, there is no disruption to the industry. The third point I make is that in the past, where the Commonwealth Meat Inspectors Association has been involved in industrial disputes with the potential of affecting domestic inspection, it has taken action consistently, time and again, to ensure that product supply to consumers is totally unaffected. I make a fourth point. The Meat Inspectors Association and, as far as I know, every other union in the industry, is affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Accordingly it needs to be stressed, industrial action which affects domestic production is unlikely to be taken by the MIA in circumstances where it would not have been taken by State unions. That is an obvious point. Finally, I want to make a point over Mudginberri. New South Wales already has a single meat inspection service with the Commonwealth. It has had that for some time. It has saved costs of the order of 19 per cent. In respect of Mudginberri, New South Wales, where the Meat Inspectors Association carries out all domestic inspection, was totally unaffected by industrial action. So this claimed union domination, this union myth that, if there is a single meat inspection service, the union will suddenly bring our abattoirs to a close, is just a figment of the imagination of the National Party and the Liberal Party. I conclude by saying that I did not find the contribution of the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) very informative. He asked why we need export inspection at all, he talked about privatisation, he talked about-- Mr McVeigh —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! If the honourable member for Groom feels he is being misrepresented, he can raise that at a later time. Mr BRUMBY —We will stand up and do that to the blokes on the other side too; it is very constructive. The terms of this motion congratulate the Commonwealth Government and those State governments who have worked towards the introduction of single meat inspection services. We have heard from the honourable member for Calare of how many States and Territories in the Commonwealth have already entered into agreements, or will introduce agreements early next year which provide for single meat inspection services. There are savings to producers and to abattoirs of in excess of 10 per cent per annum through the single meat inspection service. There are improvements in productivity; there is the likelihood of fewer industrial disputes over demarcation problems. There is a range of benefits. Despite that, despite the support by the Victorian Government, the democratically elected government in Victoria, for a single meat inspection service, we had the scandalous situation last Tuesday night when the National Party and the Liberal Party voted to veto this legislation. The effect of that is that Victorian farmers who need every dollar they can get will be robbed next year, in 1986, of $2m of extra sales at market places. The reason they are being robbed of $2m is the National Party's flagrant capitulation to vested business interests over this whole issue. I repeat that it will cost farmers $2m next year. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —Very briefly, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), in the concluding part of his speech, indicated that I had said I was not in favour of any inspection services at all. What I clearly and definitely said was: Why have an inspection service in cases like honey, fresh vegetables and fruit where the overseas importer does not require them? I did not say that there is no need for any inspection services at all. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.29) —I support the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) in his very carefully worded remarks about the Export Inspection Service. I challenge the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) to take his speech back to Bendigo and present it to his local meatworks, argue the case with them on the ground, and talk about the costs that he so carefully put forward. We are talking about monopoly control of the meat inspection services. I compliment the upper House in Victoria for withstanding the pressure to have meat inspection services throughout Australia being under the total Federal control. In Victoria we have a bench mark, first of all, to establish the costing and, secondly, to make sure that the service in question will not be union dominated from a Federal source. The historical background of the meat inspection services, which shows the number of people involved in the industry, makes very interesting reading. An Industries Assistance Commission report in 1983 indicated that the meat industry was seriously depressed at that time and likely to remain so. We know that the meat industry has improved a little in recent times because of the devaluation of the dollar. However, the number of meat inspectors employed by the meat inspection service during this time, when there was a change in the industry, make an interesting comparison. At the peak years of 1976-77, 1,616 meat inspectors were employed. In the peak years of 1978-79, 1,794 inspectors were employed and, although cattle numbers have now declined, in 1982-83 we still had 1,632 inspectors employed. I challenge both the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the honourable member for Bendigo, to say where these inspectors have gone, what they are doing and whether they are effectively employed in the service. The number of cattle in Australia has been reduced from the peak figure of 33 million to some 22 million and we still have the same number of meat inspectors. I turn to the position of Mudginberri where the Federal inspection service, in a monopoly position, was supposed to undertake inspection services on behalf of the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The meat inspection personnel were sympathetic with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in their dispute with Mr Pendarvis over the tally system. The Minister, in this House and in the execution of his duties as Minister failed to instruct the meat inspectors to break the picket line and inspect the meat for export to gain revenue to that works. The inspection service was set up to look after all export work throughout Australia, and at Mudginberri it was flagrantly abusing its charter to inspect all meat. The honourable member for Bendigo was using figures to try to demonstrate that inspection services were more efficient and more cost effective in Victoria. I draw the House's attention to the comparison in the figures. The Federal contribution to cattle slaughter inspection charges is $2.55 per head and the producer's contribution is $2.55 per head, making a total cost of $5.10. The State meat inspection service or a similar service charge is $3.36 per head and there is a 25 per cent contribution by producers of 84c per head, making a total of $4.20. That quite clearly demonstrates that a cheaper service is being provided by the Victorian Department of Agriculture compared with the Federal inspection service. These figures are substantiated by the Meat Wholesalers Association of Victoria. The other problem that was discussed by the meat industry was the fact that a dual meat inspection was being carried on in export abattoirs. That was removed by mutual consent, saving $900,000. So that particular argument of efficiency no longer applies. Also, if we look at the figures for Western Australia, we see that the local authority meat inspection charges are $3.60 per head and are coming down to $3.20. The Commonwealth charges are $2.55 plus the 50 per cent contribution of $2.55 from the producers. We see from the figures for Western Australia and Victoria that the costs are lower at the local level. In answer to a question that I placed on notice on 28 February, the Minister himself quite clearly demonstrated the total cost of the Federal meat inspection service. In that answer, recorded in Hansard, he reported that in Victoria it cost $11.9m for a 10 month period up to April. That figure, if extended to represent an annual cost, would be $14m, which would cover 8.4 million units. Let us make a comparison between those figures and the State figures. The State inspection service was able to inspect 17 million units at a cost of $9m. I challenge the honourable member for Bendigo to take up these figures when he suggests that the Federal inspection service is cheaper than the State service. The honourable member for Bendigo referred to the 38-hour week matter. He made a great play of the fact that there was a no-strike clause in the agreement. We found that that did not operate too well at Mudginberri and other export works around Australia. The key feature in the 38-hour week proposal by the meat inspectors was that they did not, in fact, have a reduction in working hours to 38 hours; they had 12 days extra leave. That was the award agreed to, which means that meat inspectors around Australia will not be available for 12 extra days. That will cost the meat industry $4m extra. I would like to quote this morning's Stock and Land editorial on this issue. Obviously, this motion has been brought forward in this House because of the Victorian upper House's very firm desire to maintain a competitive meat service. The Stock and Land had this to say: A handover is often a simple solution to a more complex issue. The question still remains whether the simple solution would have been the best solution for both cost purposes and efficiency of service. Because the Department of Primary Industry is responsible for domestic meat inspections in both South Australia and New South Wales it is not a sound enough reason why Victoria should follow suit. Victoria is unique; it has far more domestic meat works and export works than New South Wales where a majority of meat works are killing for both domestic and export orders. . . . . Victorian processors and farmers know full well that the Commonwealth is offering a carrot. . . a reduction of the existing domestic fee, which it says will only recover 50 per cent of the cost of services. They are entitled to ask how long this subsidy on meat inspection will last. The other intriguing issue in the hand over debate is why hand over an efficient service to a Commonwealth service which was so heavily indicted in the meat substitution scandal of 1980. There we have it, the Stock and Land in Victoria supporting the position of the upper House to hold the meat inspection services. I draw the House's attention to the union pressure to which the meat industry is subjected in Victoria. On 11 October Mr Wally Curran, who is a well known personality in the Victorian meat industry and I think a personal friend of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), spoke about the meat industry in Victoria. A Press report stated: . . . employers would pay one way or another for the $100,000 fine imposed on the union for contempt of court, said the meat employees union. Union Victorian secretary Wally Curran said a week-long strike was planned at the peak of the Victorian spring season. He said the action would cost employers up to 20 days production and overload the market, forcing meat prices down and reducing farmers' profits. The union was fined for contempt after it refused to lift pickets at the Mudginberri abattoir in the Northern Territory during the continuing dispute with the abattoir owners. That is the attitude of the meat workers union and Mr Curran. We can see the result of having a monopoly position by the inspectors who work in sympathy with the meat workers union. I have here a comment by the Victorian shadow Minister, Mr Austin, who totally agrees with my position. He says, along the same lines: Wally Curran of the meat workers Union is watching this Bill with great interest because this would give his union the whip hand. One inspection service throughout Australia would mean that if the Federal Export Inspection Service were to strike, all meat works in Victoria would be shut down. I ask the honourable member for Bendigo to refute that proposition. Mr Austin continued: There are only 4 export works in Victoria and about 100 local abattoirs and other licensed premises. It is well-known that Mr Curran likes to have his members in and around Melbourne, and he does not have the same control over those who work in the country. Finally, I say that Victoria is lucky that the people voted to maintain a break on the excesses of the socialist Government by voting Mrs Rosemary Varty in at the Nunawading by-election. The upper House has exercised its control in a responsible manner by maintaining the meat inspection service which I have clearly indicated with the figures is effective and efficient and does a very good job. It will provide a benchmark for costing so that the excesses of the Federal inspection system will not go unchecked. This provides the possibility of producing a more flexible wages system, as we have seen demonstrated in the Mudginberri exercise. Also, in New South Wales, Charles David Pty Ltd, which is attempting to open a new meatworks, is looking for efficiency on the part of the meatworkers and the meat inspection system. I totally reject the motion and support the Victorian Opposition in its attempts to maintain a very effective and efficient meat inspection system in that State. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(1.40) —I rise quite happily to support the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and so ably supported by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) in his very precise comments about this industry. I must say that I speak with some knowledge on this issue because I have four major meat processing works, one of them a major export works, right in the heart of my electorate in places such as Kyneton, Castlemaine and Daylesford. Contrary to the position of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) and the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), I am right there on the ground where the action is happening and I understand what is going on in the meat inspection industry. I am aware of what has now happened in Victoria through this idiotic decision of the Victorian upper House to reject a proposal to streamline the meat inspection service. It is almost so ridiculous as to be unbelievable. The national inspection service is a major initiative and it will bring considerable benefit to the whole industry-to producers who have been badly looking for improved performance and markets so that their products have somewhere to go, to processors who are looking for more efficiency and lower costs and, of course, to the consumer. Both domestic consumers and export consumers are looking for quality and competition in the industry. I think those points are sometimes forgotten by honourable members on the other side of the House when they rise to oppose, simply for the sake of opposition, quite beneficial and wise moves to deregulate the areas of industry that affect the agricultural sector so badly. I make the point too, that this action by the States and the Federal Government to bring into being a single national meat inspection service arises from the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry which came about from the scandals relating to horse and kangaroo meat substitution. Mr Beddall —Who was in government then? Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, who was in government then? We have heard from honourable members on the other side of the House during this debate that the farm sector is constantly told by its representatives that wages and industrial relations in meat processing centres are the cause of their failing export markets. The farm sector is never told. Let no one underestimate the irreparable damage done to the red meat markets. Mr Brumby —Where are they? Mr O'KEEFE —As the honourable member for Bendigo asks, where are they? They have left the House now that we are talking some facts about this matter. They do not tell anybody about the irreparable damage done to the red meat markets of Australia by the actions of the kangaroo and horse meat substituters, under their government. Let no one underestimate the damage that was done. I commend the Government for its prompt action on the findings of the Royal Commission, in a report that was not pigeon-holed, but promptly acted on by the Labor Government in the real interests of the agricultural sector. I commend the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for his approach to deregulating all those areas that have imposed so many costs on the rural sector. As everyone in this House will realise, it is not easy to bring together the States and the Commonwealth in a uniform approach, as we have experienced in Victoria. Because of sectional and, in fact, absurd parochial interests, the National Party which claims to represent the interests of farmers, has voted to leave Victoria on the outer while the meat processing industry in other States benefits from this action by the Federal Government to co-ordinate the activities of the meat inspection service. Mr Simmons —Even Bjelke-Petersen. Mr O'KEEFE —Yes, even Bjelke-Petersen agrees, as my colleague the honourable member for Calare points out. Given that the Victorian Labor Government in the lower House was totally supportive of Minister Kerin, we have an example here of State Labor governments in several States acting co-operatively with the Federal Labor Government to bring about efficiencies for the rural sector. I predict that that message will not be lost on South Australian voters in the next couple of weeks. The national meat inspection service- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 1.45 p.m., in accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr O'KEEFE —As I was saying, that message will not be lost on South Australian voters shortly. The national meat inspection service initiative is a positive step. It is not just words; it is a very measureable and tangible benefit flowing directly to Australian provincial and rural industry through the activities of this Government. I think that is to be commended, and I commend my colleague the honourable member for Calare on his initiative in bringing forward this motion. Already, through these initiatives, we have seen savings to the industry of some $5m. We have seen the New South Wales domestic service make savings of some 60 per cent in staff costs. We have seen considerable efficiencies and economies achieved that have enabled Commonwealth inspection charges to be held at 1984-85 levels. I want to comment also on industrial relations. The honourable member for Groom made some mention of this issue; the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) wandered on to the topic, too. It has been mentioned earlier that producers-I accept this-are very sensitive to the handling of their produce. It is an area that is totally out of their control once the produce reaches the meat processing centre. It is out of their control, yet it affects their viability and livelihood. This Government has taken a very positive initiative in bringing industrial relations in the meat industry to a much better level. We believe that consensus beats confrontation any time. I am very pleased to support the honourable member for Bendigo in his outline of the way in which the new industrial relations package for the meat inspection service has been brought together. The Government is not satisfied yet. There are more efficiencies and economies that we are looking for. We are looking for ways of making further self-regulation possible. We are looking for ways in which the industry can modify its present operating and commercial practices to cut back further on inspection costs. For instance, we are looking at speeds on the chain and forward planning of slaughtering operations to bring forward those benefits. We are talking action to break down barriers, not build them. I should, in making that point, mention the Government's primary and provincial affairs committee, which has been formed specifically by the Cabinet to ensure that members of this Government-there are some 21 of them who represent rural Australia-are collectively working together to ensure that our policies work well in country areas. We have recently had talks with the National Farmers Federation, and the feedback to me is that that organisation has been pretty impressed with the level of expertise shown on this side of the House on country and provincial matters. I notice that there is no mention of this issue in a set of policy briefs that I have received from the NFF concerning meat inspection. I can only take that as a measure of the Federation's satisfaction with what has happened and with the directions that the Government has taken. I think that is good. As my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo said, we have just one problem. All that has been good news. There is one black spot on the horizon-where? Down in Victoria, due to the actions of the Victorian National Party in the upper House in blocking this legislation. As the Victorian Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Mr Evan Walker, said, here we had a situation where the Commonwealth offered us a more efficient cost-effective service that has already been accepted by other States, including New South Wales and South Australia. Victorian farmers are now disadvantaged because of the Liberal and National Party Opposition's intransigence. There is no other way to express it, and one wonders how that can have come about. I noticed in the House just a few days ago that my colleague the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) asked a question of the Minister for Primary Industry on this issue. He saw the problem in Victoria arising and he saw the writing on the wall, that the opportunists would succeed in the upper House over those representing rural farmers' interests. The Minister, in his reply to the question asked by the honourable member for Ballarat, said that the immediate cost benefits to the Victorian industry would be some $2.4m per annum. How an Opposition can vote in the upper House to pass up $2.4m worth of savings to farmers and meat processers leaves me staggered. We can only hope that someone will come to his senses down there, that the matter will be reintroduced in the State Parliament and that those benefits will flow on to the Victorian rural sector. I noticed that an Opposition member of the Victorian upper House who voted against this move by the Government is retiring early next year from the Central Highlands Province. Victorian provincial farmers in Central Highlands just might have an opportunity to let people know what they think of that sort of a move. I commend the Minister for his prompt action on the Royal Commission report. I believe that the co-operative approach that has been established between the States and the Federal Government is to be commended. I abhor the actions of the Victorian upper House Opposition in its short-sighted and opportunistic decision to oppose what every other State has leapt to join the Federal Governmnent in, and I note the substantial savings and efficiencies which are coming to the industry as a whole, except in Victoria, through this formation of a single national meat inspection service. I commend the honourable member for Calare for bringing this motion forward in the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(1.53) —In rising to speak on this motion by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simons) I would like first of all to take up a couple of points made by the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). The honourable member for Bendigo went to some length to put a case for a single meat inspection service which probably in theory was a very plausible case. What he failed to recognise is that in practice this has not worked nearly as well as it should have and the Government has not faced up to some of the real shortcomings that are presently in the Export Inspection Service. If he is so concerned about what is happening in Victoria and what happened this week, I think he ought to read the editorial of the Stock and Land which my colleage the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) read out a few minutes ago. I think that sums up very sensibly why the upper House would not be conned into what the Cain socialist Government was trying to do. On the question of savings-perceived savings might be a better word; I think the member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) has already pointed out what the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service has just had to pay out or will have to pay out because of the 38-hour week issue-it talks about a saving of $2m or thereabouts. As I recall it, the Victorian Labor Government spent well over $2m in advertising to try to win the Nunawading by-election. The fact that it failed I think shows that the people of Victoria were not conned and they wanted the right to have an upper House which could put a break on some of the excesses of the State Government in Victoria. The honourable member for Bendigo made some assertion about the National Party in Victoria but he would not actually allude to what it was. I suggest that he ought to put up or shut up because one does not want to make such statements and not carry them through. I suggest to the honourable member for Burke that his gratuitous comments about knowing all about meatworks because he has some in his electorate overlook the fact that there are many other honourable members in this chamber who have meatworks in their electorates. In particular, there are meatworks in both the electorate of the honourable member for Corangamite and my seat of Wannon. To say that he is the only one who knows what is going on is a little misleading. The honourable member for Burke said he could not understand why the Victorian upper House rejected the move to a single inspection authority. I suggest that he should at least have listened to the speaker before him, the honourable member for Corangamite, because he would have found out why it was such a sensible vote. I will just go through a few points on the motion moved by the honourable member for Calare. It seems that he spends quite a bit of time congratulating himself, congratulating his Government and congratulating his State colleagues. But I would ask, who is he kidding? Who is really getting an advantage and who is really gaining? Is the Government doing a service to a great export industry, an export industry that is earning Australia something like $1.6 billion a year in export income? Is centralising meat inspection really helping the industry? I think the honourable member for Corangamite has already outlined some of the weaknesses in the Export Inspection Service and the additional costs that the Federal service has over the very efficient State one. The Export Inspection Service at the moment does have some real problems in the level of costs and the level of inefficiency. The Government is trying to have one centralised service, creating a monopoly out of a service which is already considerably over-staffed. I think anyone who has spoken to people in the industry will have found that over-staffing is a great problem. We have only to look at a few simple facts to realise why it is such a problem. If we look at the level of export inspection service back in 1978 we will find that there were nearly 1,600 meat inspectors. Today we find that there are nearly 1,800 meat inspectors in the federal inspection service. In fact, there has been an increase-quite a big increase-of well over 100. As the honourable member for Corangamite has already pointed out, the number of livestock in Australia has fallen, particularly in the beef industry. In fact, it has fallen by nearly one-third since 1978. We have an amazing situation in that the number of livestock has fallen, the number of stock being slaughtered has fallen proportionately and yet the meat inspection service has more staff today than it had back in 1978. Mr Andrew —Scandalous. Mr HAWKER —As the honourable member for Wakefield says, it is scandalous. Quite obviously, there is growing inefficiency and considerable cost. We have already seen the move to the 38-hour week, which was nothing more than an excuse to get another 12 days holiday pay. It may be great to talk about a single inspection service but in practice we are seeing that this one is not proving to be very effective. My colleague the honourable member for Groom spoke about the problems of Mudginberri. I would just like to reiterate a couple of points that he made. We had a situation there where the meat inspectors refused to `cross the picket line'. I put those words in inverted commas because in fact they were living at the works and did not actually have to cross the picket line. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) directed them to work, he claims, on three occasions, yet they refused to do so. But what did he do about it? He said `It is too hard', and he walked away from it. Because of this $2.8m worth of export contracts were lost. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has paid fairly dearly for it, nonetheless this highlights just one of the weaknesses in the present system. As my time is running very short I would just like to touch on one or two other points. There is no doubt that the present Export Inspection Service leaves a lot to be desired. It is very inefficient. The Government should be aware of this. It talks about forward planning and so on, but in fact it is all talk. At the moment, in practice we are getting no results. The number of meat inspectors is increasing while the number of stock being slaughtered is falling. I think that for honourable members opposite to talk about the virtues of a centralised system overlooks what has been shown in Victoria, that a very efficient service can operate at a very much lower cost. So I think rather than congratulating itself, the Government should have a good look at the meat inspection service and see what it can do to address some of the efficiency problems and the overstaffing. When it has done that it might have some reason to come into this place and crow about what a terrific job it has done for the meat inspection service. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(1.59) —I am quite surprised to get this opportunity to speak on this motion. I must congratulate the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) on his fine motion. We all know very much how he looks after the industry. In this small amount of time-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being now 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Rankin will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Debate adjourned. Mr BURR(Lyons) —I raise for your consideration, Mr Speaker, a matter of privilege. I noted on page 1 of this morning's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald reference to a report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise to be handed down at a later hour this day. Certain matters relating to that report were published in that edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. In view of the inquiry that was held earlier into matters relating to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that was tabled in this House, I suggest that it may be a matter of privilege that these matters have been leaked to the media. May I ask you to look at the matters contained therein? Mr SPEAKER —I will undertake to examine the matter raised by the honourable member for Lyons as a matter of privilege and inform the House as to the position regarding it. Mr DRUMMOND —My question without notice is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the statement of Premier Burke of Western Australia that the Bill of Rights legislation should not be used to alter Western Australia's electoral system. Does the Attorney-General still maintain, as he did earlier this week, that it would be appropriate to use the Bill of Rights legislation to change the electoral systems of Western Australia and Queensland? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I was asked a question earlier this week, to which I replied, as to whether the imbalance in one of the upper House provinces of Western Australia, to the extent of 11:1, would be in conflict with the intentions of the Bill of Rights. I said in reply that article 25 of the Bill of Rights had an obligation to what was called universal equal suffrage. In my view, universal equal suffrage does not permit an intolerance or imbalance of 11:1. Therefore, it would be appropriate for a court to determine that matter. The way for a court to do so would be if there were no such Bill of Rights in Western Australia or an appropriate piece of legislation here pursuant to the international covenant to say that not only in Western Australia but also in all elections in Australia, both Federal and State, there should be compliance with the international covenant on the basis of universal equal suffrage. If that matter were the subject of legal debate in the High Court of Australia, it could well be that the High Court would say that the distribution, particularly in Western Australia and also in Queensland, was contrary to the Bill of Rights. That was what I said. I am aware of the fact, and I have no objection to it, that the Premier of Western Australia feels that Western Australians will be able to solve their own electoral problems. I am sure they will, and I am sure also that he will win the next State election; there is no risk about that. In winning it he will be fortified by the fact that the average Western Australian knows that there is electoral injustice in Western Australia which cannot be corrected because the upper House there will not allow that to be done. Further, they are also aware of the fact that when the Premier suggested to Western Australians that they might have a vote of their own people to see whether there should be electoral reform in that State, the upper House indicated that it would not approve of such legislation. I think that adds a lot to Premier Burke's chance of being re-elected with an even greater and substantial majority, and I am very pleased about that. Mr Tuckey —What about having a referendum on the human rights Bill? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —From the point of view of human rights, the people in Western Australia recognise that when it comes to electing the upper House they are not being given democratic rights. Premier Burke, as a senior member of our Party, is a pretty fair politician and is able to judge public opinion in Western Australia. I make it very clear that if Premier Burke is satisfied to remain Premier of Western Australia, I also am satisfied for him to remain Premier. Mr MILTON —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House of current developments in relation to South Africa, including the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons. Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker- Mr Hodgman —You had better be careful. Dawkins is after your job. Mr HAYDEN —My good parliamentary friend Petomaine is trying to rasp out some sort of message. I did not quite hear it. Mr Hodgman —I said that Dawkins was after your job. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should not invite the honourable member to interject. Mr HAYDEN —I certainly would not have knowingly sought to embarrass the Minister for Trade by asking the member for Denison to repeat that sort of comment. I make it clear that the Minister for Trade and I are good mates. He is a mate of mine from Western Australia. Honourable members-Oh! Mr HAYDEN —Very much as I have discovered in the last month or so that I have a similar good mate in Victoria, and they no doubt join a great phalanx of mates from New South Wales. I appropriately recall the words of the late Jimmy Durante: `Everybody wants to get in on the act'. It is a hard act to follow. I have seen reports that Kim Hughes has expressed his disappointment at what he calls a boycott by the Australian Embassy in Pretoria of rebel cricket matches. Mr Hughes accuses the Government of hypocrisy, saying that he looks forward to returning home so that he can let people know what is really happening in South Africa. I think we have to ask questions as to whether Mr Hughes would be in a position to be able to report on the internal affairs in South Africa. First of all, according to Dr Bacher, President of the South African Cricket Union, the situation in South Africa is too complex to allow Australian cricketers to be allowed to comment on it. Mr Hughes, according to the reports, has contractually undertaken not to make any comment about conditions in South Africa. I find it hard to believe that Mr Hughes would be in any position to tell the Australian public anything about the real situation in South Africa. He stays in comfortable hotels in white areas and he plays largely before white crowds. It is questionable whether the rebels will have been able or permitted to see the violence and squalor of many black townships, or indeed have had any opportunity to talk to the black community which feels so strongly opposed to the tour. While the rebels play, the level of violence in townships continues. In the past four months since the South African Government declared a state of emergency the number of people killed has increased sharply. The South African Institute of Race Relations reported only this week that in the period from 1 January to 21 July 1985, some 335 people lost their lives in township unrest. In the period since 21 July, the Press has reported that the death toll may be as high as 400. There are few signs that the violence in black townships is easing or that the South African Government is prepared to move boldly and decisively on political reform. In reply to the other part of the honourable member's question, the Eminent Persons Group proposed at the Commonwealth Head of Government Meeting has now been established and was announced by the Commonwealth Secretary-General on 25 November. We, the Government, welcome the establishment of the Group, and I trust that this is also true of the Opposition. The initiative has the support of all Commonwealth countries and can make a singularly valuable contribution to assisting the process of dialogue that is so urgently needed in South Africa. The initiative was put in place by the Prime Minister of Australia, and I think that we can all feel some pleasure and pride at that action. It is to be hoped that the South African Government will recognise the Group as a genuine attempt to contribute to peaceful change in South Africa. Mr TUCKEY —Is the Minister for Science aware of the W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd recommendations for a review of the trade measurement system? Does this report recommend a transfer of all responsibilities to a centralised national system and full cost recovery from small business and others by way of an annual licence fee? Further, is it a fact that the costs involved would be approximately $15m for implementation, plus $5m per annum minimum annual operating costs, resulting in a $20 per instrument annual licence fee? In the light of the fact that centralised meat inspection costs three times local government charges and has escalated 75 per cent under this Government, does the Minister support these recommendations to add to this additional cost to small business, along with the current 20 per cent interest rates? Mr BARRY JONES —The final report made seven major recommendations and 26 detailed recommendations. Mr Young —What are they? Mr BARRY JONES —Do you want me to give them all? An interdepartmental committee has considered the recommendations. It was agreed that Government officials would meet with private sector representatives to provide them with an opportunity to express their views. That meeting was held in August. A meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory officials was held later that month to consider the outcome of the meeting. Uniformity of legislation or its interpretation between States and Territories has been identified by all interested parties as being of most importance; it will require State legislation as well. Trade measurements tend to be enforced at the State level rather than the Commonwealth level. The officials had a further meeting in November 1985. The agreement is that the Committee will report to Ministers-that is, to me and the State Ministers-within six months. The matter will then go before Cabinet but no decision will be made before that. The factors raised by the honorable member for O'Connor, I assure him, will be thoroughly taken into account. Mr GAYLER —I draw to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a statement made last evening by the honorable member for Bradfield in commenting on the tabling of the Government's response to the report of the task force on Aboriginal and Islander broadcasting and communications. He stated: Perhaps over the last three years the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have been so obsessed with aspects of the Aboriginal land rights issue that many of the key elements relating to education and the general welfare of the Aboriginal communities, especially in the outstation areas, which are obviously most related to this report, have in many respects received less attention than perhaps was their due. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honorable member should come to his question. Mr GAYLER —I certainly will, Mr Speaker. Having related that to the Minister, I ask: Can the Minister advise the House as to the accuracy of these perceptions? Mr HOLDING —I heard the statement made by the honourable member for Bradfield and I regret it because I think that while the honourable member has been shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs he has endeavoured to apply himself to the facts of the situation. Unfortunately, I suppose because of the pressure of work, he was unable to acquaint himself with all the material. One of the distinguishing features of the newly formed Opposition under its present leadership, one of the single facts that emerge, is that if it thinks it can score a point it will never allow an assertion, whether true or false, to be encumbered by any reference to the facts. The evidence that is available with respect to the two assertions which are continually trotted out by members of the Opposition is this: The Government is so concerned about land rights that it does not attend to basic necessities such as health, education and the basic services that need to be applied to Aboriginal communities. That is assertion one, which is false. The second assertion is that the cost of administering the Department of Aboriginal Affairs means that so much of the funds that are allocated for the benefit of Aboriginal people never get to them. I would like to deal with this matter. All of the facts are set out and are available to any member of the Opposition if he wants to check the recently tabled report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Let us look at the evidence. Under the Fraser Government and when this Government came to office there were 27 Aboriginal medical services. Now there are 46 such services. The number of Aboriginal communities participating in community development employment schemes in the last year of the Fraser Government was 19. Mr Porter —You said that you were going to scrap them. Mr HOLDING —We hear from a shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who lasted less than 12 months. He was sacked. I know that the facts hurt but the Opposition has to face them. In the last year of the coalition Government there were 19 such services and now 34 are provided for Aboriginal communities. Often in my portfolio I am bedevilled by State rights. I never thought that the provision of electricity or water supply services was the responsibility of the Commonwealth; I always believed it was the function of the States. In the last year of the Fraser Government $2.1m was spent on the provision of those services. This financial year, under the Hawke Government, $13m is being spent. I turn to housing, which honourable gentlemen opposite, who have no regard for the facts, say is being neglected. In the last year of the Fraser Government the budget for Aboriginal housing was $41.5m. This year, under the Hawke Government, it is $54m. At the time the Fraser Government lost office the Government was supporting 22 outstation projects. At the moment we are supporting 59 outstation projects. The Government has now moved into the area of remote broadcasting and television services and record sums are being expended in that area. I turn to administration. Mr Peter Fisher —Make a statement. Mr HOLDING —I do not want to take up the time of the House making a statement. The facts are there and the Opposition will not read them and it will not think about them. Let me deal with the other- Mr Sinclair —Make a statement. Mr HOLDING —The right honourable member would not listen anyway. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who I trust will conclude his answer. Mr HOLDING —Mr Speaker, with great respect, I would like to develop one other point and again it is a matter of fact. It has been alleged continually as a throw-away line by members such as the honourable member for O'Connor that funds do not get to Aboriginal communities because they are absorbed in the administrative costs of the Department. The fact is that if honourable members look at the annual report of the Department they will see that its administrative costs were 10.15 per cent of its total budget. Any analysis would show that at no stage in the history of the Department has the figure ever gone above 12.7 per cent. It is interesting to note that the occasion when it went to 12.7 per cent was in the last year of the Fraser Government. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Does the Minister for Social Security recall responding recently to my long time request for details of the value of assets held by people who returned their assets form and as a result had their pensions cancelled? Will he now concede that the millionaires the Government used to justify the introduction of the assets test represent 0.1 per cent of these cancellations while 53 per cent of the former recipients possessed less than $200,000 in assets at the end of their working lives and almost 80 per cent of all those who lost their pension were below or well below the $250,000 level? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton should come to his question. He has the call for a question, not a statement. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Will the Minister agree that the Government's pro-assets test campaign has been exposed as disgracefully dishonest by his Department's own figures, and will he apologise to those thousands of elderly non-millionaires who have had to go through the trauma of suddenly rearranging their lives at the twilight of their years? Mr HOWE —I am rather surprised that under the new Howard administration of the Opposition we should return to this question because we hear nothing from the Opposition more than that in the area of social security we ought to be devoting ourselves to those most in need and indeed that there are people who do not deserve to receive payments who are currently receiving them. I think that if we are going to go down this track we have to be consistent. The reality with respect to the assets test is that its impact is on people with quite substantial assets. I have cited the case of millionaires. I ask the honourable member for Moreton whether he believes that people who are millionares or people with assets and curtilage around their home of more than $200,000 whatever percentage of the population they represent; I think he said the figure was 50 per cent ought to be competing for scarce resources with the hundreds of thousands of people, and particularly the hundreds of thousands of children, in this country who are living in desperate poverty. Governments do, as a matter of fact, have to make relatively tough decisions. I suppose what distinguishes this Government from the previous administration is that it has been prepared to make some tough decisions with respect to its expenditure. Also it has been prepared to put that money into seeking to alleviate the most desperate poverty within this country. It is very interesting, when one reflects on the expenditure priorities of the previous Government, to look at who suffered under that Government. Additional pensions and benefits for children declined by 34 per cent during the Fraser years. The mother's-guardian's allowance also declined by more than 34 per cent. One can kick people in this community, but to kick poor women and poor kids seems to me to be taking politics a bit far. Let us take the question of the unemployment benefit. After the Leader of the Opposition climbed down from his attack on people on the unemployment benefit and the supporting parent's benefit the other day he said that he thought the level of benefit might be adequate. Under the Liberals, the decline in the single rate of adult unemployment benefit was 18.6 per cent. The decline in the rate of the junior benefit was 45.6 per cent. This is what conservative administration means: It means that millionaires get pensions and poor women and children get kicked. In terms of our stewardship, we have nothing to hide. Additional pensions and benefits for children have gone up 60 per cent-from $10 to $16. The mother's-guardian's allowance has gone up from $6 to $12. The single adult unemployment benefit has gone up more than 40 per cent. The people who everyone in the welfare community acknowledges are poor have received additional assistance. Certainly we have had to make some decisions to ensure that resources are available. That is why the new administration in the organisational wing of the Liberal Party was rather less sympathetic to the kinds of views that were expressed by the honourable member for Moreton and indeed often represented by many members on the other side of the House. Mr Valder said: So if you are really talking about reducing government spending, it is all very well to say we will privatise this and we will do that, and fiddle about. That's all fiddling with the edges. If you are really going to make any big reduction in government spending-there are areas which you have to look at. He went on to say that he believed, if we are going to move in that direction, that the assets test is a justifiable direction to move in. There is a great deal of thinking to be done on the Opposition side of the House. We have seen the leadership of the Liberal Party change. We have not seen the Liberal Party sort out its policies. The reason the Liberals are in such disarray is that there are not two people on the other side of the House who can agree on anything the assets test or anything else. The Government does not resile from what it has done. We believe we are redirecting expenditure to ensure that people who are most in need receive further assistance. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling the honourable member for Throsby I indicate that when I called the honourable member for Moreton for the previous question I noticed a reflex movement in the Speaker's gallery. I noted that the former member for Moreton, the Hon. Sir James Killen, was paying his first visit to the Parliament since his retirement. We welcome him to the gallery. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOLLIS —Can the Minister for Trade advise the House of any further developments in the application to export alumina and bauxite from the Gove Peninsula? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Throsby for his question. Might I say that this is one of the many consuming issues with which I have to deal- Mr Sinclair —Don't read it out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —You need not read it out. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party abuses the tolerance that is given him because of his position. Mr Howard —Oh! Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition should pay respect to the Chair. Mr Howard —You should pay respect-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Minister for Trade. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Speaker-- Mr Sinclair —He doesn't know the answer. That is what it is all about. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. There is a difference between tolerance and the contempt that honourable members are showing the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —This issue is one of the very many with which I have to deal in my thoroughly exciting portfolio, one which is made all the more fulfilling in that I have such close and extremely satisfactory dealings with my colleague the Foreign Minister. These are important issues. I welcome the opportunity to go beyond what I said a couple of days ago. There have been some responses from the companies involved, but neither of them has attempted to address the central issues involved. In the case of Austraswiss, we have the need for the company to obtain a freely negotiated fair market price for its alumina as was provided for in the agreement that it signed at the time when the project was established. Secondly, in the case of Gove Aluminium Ltd, the fact is that the company now wishes to have approval for export prices for bauxite below any prices which have obtained at any time since 1978. I cannot volunteer-- Mr Sinclair —I raise a point of order. There are procedures in this place for questions without notice. There are also procedures for statements to be made. Ministers persistently have been reading from prepared answers to questions. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that that is not an appropriate way in which questions without notice should be heard. It is on that basis that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition and I have been interjecting in the course of this Question Time. I direct your attention to the standing order which requires questions without notice to be exactly that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party is well aware that the Chair has no way of knowing how the questions arise or how the answers are provided, nor has the House given him power to limit the length of an answer. Mr DAWKINS —I think that it is a pity that the Leader of the National Party should seek to trivialise this extraordinarily important issue, one that is central to the maintenance of ournational interest. As I was saying, it is not possible for me to volunteer the price details involved in the contracts because, under an agreement with all the companies, the price information they provide to us is kept confidential within the Government. However, of course, if the company were to release me from that obligation, I would happily provide the information which I am sure would be of very great interest to the House. But let me say that Austraswiss has made a couple of responses. The first one, denying that the company has sought under the Freedom of Information Act information relating to contracts of other companies, is frankly false. In its request for that information it has sought all reports, all memoranda and all documents relating to the international transactions between Australia and other countries in relation to alumina and bauxite. The Government, of course, has resisted the release of the information relating to the other companies involved in this trade. The Australian Government is not trying to break or renege on its contractual obligations. Indeed, the contract, as far as I am concerned, is not at issue. This Government is concerned-as have been previous Australian governments, including those of Liberal and National Party origin-to obtain prices which are freely negotiated, fair and reasonable. Austraswiss has failed to respond to my request to it. Instead, it has put out a very misleading Press statement which avoids the central issue. The other company, Gove Aluminium, has responded, but it has not provided the information that we have sought from it. Mr Hodgman —Respond outside the House. Mr DAWKINS —This is the place in which to respond to those questions and this is the place in which I intend to respond now and in future. If the Opposition would like me to release all the documents, it will find that the approach that I am taking is entirely consistent with the approach that was taken by several of my predecessors over very many years. Perhaps this is another example of the modern Liberal Party and the modern National Party deciding to turn its back on all of its former leaders and representatives in this place. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister that his answer has been going for some time. It makes it very difficult. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Speaker, this is a crucial issue which deserves a response. I want to assure the people of Nhulunbuy that this action has been taken only after the deepest and closest consideration of all the factors. It is in the interests of all Australians. We have no intention of seeing this lead to the closure of the operation in Nhulunbuy. But the Australian people would regard us as being derelict in our duties if we ignored this important issue. This is a question of the sovereignty of the Australian Government when confronted by an apparently unco-operative foreign corporation. We are, of course, aware of our responsibilities in maintaining our reputation as an important and reliable trading nation. But this is not what is at issue; what is at issue is a question of our national self respect, a self respect which I intend to enhance. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to table the document from which he was reading. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr DAWKINS —It includes commercial in-confidence information. I do not intend to table it. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I ask Bill Hayden's mate, the Minister for Trade, to advise the House as to whether the trade accord between Prime Minister Nakasone and Mr Hawke, relating in particular to bilateral negotiations between the United States of America and the Japanese on commodities such as coal and meat, is being fully honoured. Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question, which concerned the assurances that the Japanese Government has given the Australian Government in relation to our trade, particularly coal and beef. The Australian Government attaches the greatest significance to the undertakings which have been given repeatedly to the Australian Government. In relation to coal, the assurances were first given to the Prime Minister by the Japanese Prime Minister in January 1984. They have been repeated on subsequent occasions, most recently to me by Minister Murata when I was in Japan in June. Significantly, the assurances that were given at that time followed our taking up with the Japanese our concern at some reported purchases of coal from the United States, other than under normal commercial conditions. What the Minister said to me at that time, in repeating the assurances that had been given recently, was that the coal trade had to be conducted on a commercial basis and that he would ensure that that continued to be the case. We are very proud of the record of our coal industry since the Government came to office. It has been not only highly competitive but also highly reliable. Of course, those factors need to be maintained in the future. There have been some media reports that the United States has attempted to reopen the negotiated agreement relating to access for beef to the Japanese market. We have taken up this matter with the Japanese as recently as 14 November. They have said that the United States has not attempted to renegotiate those arrangements. We would resist any attempt to renegotiate those arrangements because, even though they were less satisfactory than we would have hoped, they have provided for growth in the imports of beef to Japan, a growth in which Australia is able to participate. Whilst it is true that arrangements have been made which give some preference to grain fed beef as opposed to grass fed beef, there is an opportunity for Australia to participate in the quotas for both of those categories. The Australian industry has responded-indeed, I think it should respond even further-to the opportunities that exist for it to participate in those global quotas for both grass fed and grain fed beef. I assure the honourable member and the House that the Government does attach the greatest importance to the assurances that have been provided to us by the Japanese Government. We are sure that the Japanese Government will stand by those assurances. Mr CLEELAND —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen a recent article in the Australian newspaper bearing the headline `Tanks in Canberra's gunsights'? Will the Minister comment on the claim made by the author of that article that the Army's armoured capability is under threat? Mr BEAZLEY —I have seen some Press reports to that effect and I have also seen the article referred to by the honourable gentleman. The first point I make is that the type of land forces that Australia really needs to suit our environment, which imposes considerable problems in the area of both strategic and tactical mobility, are very much at the heart of the work that is being done by the consultant to me, Mr Paul Dibb. I expect considerable and detailed comment on them in his report which will be available subsequently for debate in this place and elsewhere by the general public. Without in any way wishing to pre-empt the content of that report, I make the point-this is my personal opinion-that there will always be within the Australian armed forces a place for heavy armour as represented by the Leopard tank. There is absolutely no doubt that the Leopard tanks are among the finest tanks in the world. They have a well proven combination of firepower and survivability. We would always want to see an element of that in the Australian armed forces. In addition, as the honourable gentleman would be aware, as I announced at the time when we decided to proceed no further with Project Waler, we are looking at the upgrading of some of our M113Cs. I am expecting a report on that subject. Once that report has been received and a recommendation is made to us which is acceptable to the Government, we will be proceeding down that path. However, I think it also needs to be said that when we look at the Australian strategic context, considerable problems are posed us by the nature of our strategic geography. For many purposes, not all, the type of armour we have at the moment is manifestly inadequate in mobility. That problem is one which we will require to resolve. In the first instance I will be able to receive advice on that matter from Mr Paul Dibb. However, we are not waiting for that. As I also announced at the time we went through the assessment of the Waler program, I intended that there be an examination done by the Army of what our light armoured fighting vehicle capability ought to be, taking into account the enormous distances which we have to travel and the fact that we may require a type of armoured fighting vehicle that is designed for purposes other than the purpose which our current armoured fighting vehicles most clearly match, that is, of a fairly narrow Middle Eastern or European battle front. Therefore, in addition to making sure that we have the capabilities in fire-power and survivability that that situation necessitates we are also obliged to look innovatively, indeed radically, at what other requirements we have. Mr Dibb is doing that. The Army is doing that. The honourable gentleman may be assured that that will be at the forefront of our concerns next year when we sit down to take a look at the direction in which our Defence Force structure and capability ought to go. Mr CADMAN —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware that Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that non-British migrants do not have the same high income earnings as the average Australian? Further, is the Minister aware that the same group of migrants is, proportionately, the largest home buying group in our community? As this group is the hardest hit by the Government's high interest, home buyers money rationing policies, when will the Minister take action to relieve the plight of migrant home buyers and owners? Mr HURFORD —This is the first time in my first 16 years in this Parliament that a question has been put to me as Minister Assisting. I will receive this question as Minister Assisting the Treasurer because it has nothing to do with immigration and ethnic affairs. Mr Carlton —You should be worried about them. It is a serious question about migrants. Mr HURFORD —I am not worried because I know that the economy of this country is improving enormously, so much so that in my portfolio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs I note that there are over one million people wanting to come to this country each year but only 84,000 places are available. Yes, I have noticed those statistics. I have noticed that there are still people wanting to come from the United Kingdom, as there are from every other place in the world. I note also that these people want to come here because the country is being well governed and because there are, indeed, jobs being created at present, homes being built and because they can have a better life here than they can in the countries from which they want to come. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Aviation aware of media reports that South African Airways has withdrawn its application for three supplementary flights over Christmas? Can the Minister inform the House of the position in respect of these flights? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I recognise his concern in this matter. Let me say that there has been no obstruction of the South African Airways and Qantas Airways Ltd applications for extra capacity at Christmas time on their routes to southern Africa. While it is true that South African Airways applied in July for additional flights at Christmas-Qantas also subsequently put in an application for a flight to Harare-the Government clearly could not take a decision until after the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October at which civil aviation links with South Africa were a central issue. Immediately after CHOGM the Government again considered the matter in the context of reviewing aviation links with South Africa, as agreed at CHOGM. I wrote in early November to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs seeking their agreement for flights on the basis that for the moment at least, the Government maintain civil aviation links with South Africa. Subsequently both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs replied agreeing with my proposal on the basis that this decision did not in any way prejudice the outcome of the review. This decision was to be conveyed to the airlines on Monday, 25 November. Unfortunately for South African Airways, it chose to withdraw its application on Monday. It made the inaccurate accusations which have appeared in the media. The Government informed Qantas that its application had been approved. Yesterday South African Airways refiled for two supplementary flights on 23 and 24 December and 7 and 8 January 1986. The Government has decided to agree to these flights on the same basis as the original request, that is, that this action in no way prejudices the outcome of the review of civil aviation links with South Africa. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to the reported meeting last month between the Foreign Minister and the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative at the United Nations. I ask: Did the Prime Minister know of this meeting prior to its taking place? If so, did he authorise the meeting? Does the meeting indicate that there is a change in the Australian Government's attitude to the PLO? What guidelines has the Prime Minister laid down for meetings between Ministers of his Government and senior officials of the PLO? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. If he does not mind, I will take the parts of his question in reverse order. No, there is no change in the policy and the attitude of the Government to the PLO. In relation to the first parts of the question, I did not know of and did not authorise the meeting; nor did I need to know and nor did I need to authorise the meeting. It should be apparent to this House and all members of the Australian public that I have total confidence in my Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is a very good reason why I should have. He is an excellent Minister for Foreign Affairs. He diligently gives effect to the policies of this Government in a way which I believe commands the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. Let it be said-I am not suggesting to the honourable member that he implied there was something sinister, devious or secretive about what the Minister did-that the meeting which the Minister held was quite open; there was nothing secretive about it. I assure the honourable member that the meeting was open; there was nothing secret or covert about it. It is not to be taken that it implies any change in the policy of the Government on this matter. Mr O'NEIL —I will take back what I said about him. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Was there something I should have heard? Mr O'NEIL —No, Mr Speaker. It was the honourable member for Makin who said that. Can the Minister for Housing and Construction advise the House whether the proposal by the South Australian Opposition Leader, John Olsen, to sell Housing Trust public rental houses is permitted under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement? Mr WEST —The proposal of the South Australian Opposition to sell off public housing stock at a discount-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, under standing order 144, questions should not ask for an expression of opinion or for a legal opinion. This question transgresses both those rules. Mr SPEAKER —The question asked about the effect of certain action on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and I would not have thought that was a legal opinion. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Spender —The question was whether it was lawful or legal to do what is allegedly proposed to be done by the South Australian Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —Were those the terms used in the honourable member's question? Mr O'Neil —I will read it again, if you like, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Will the honourable member for Grey read the question? Mr O'Neil —And I must say, Mr Speaker, that I really hold you in very high esteem. Can the Minister advise the House whether the proposal by the South Australian Opposition Leader, John Olsen, to sell Housing Trust public rental houses is permitted under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement? That is straightforward. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may answer. Mr WEST —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad we have cleared that up, because the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is clearly under the administration of my portfolio. The proposal by the South Australian Opposition to sell off public housing stock in South Australia at a discount of up to 50 per cent will not be permitted by the Commonwealth under the current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Agreement clearly states that such sales are to be at market value or replacement cost. Mr Carlton —And you want to change that. Mr WEST —In response to that interjection I want to make it clear that this Federal Labor Government will not be renegotiating the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to allow such asset stripping as is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia. What the South Australian Leader of the Liberal Party Opposition proposes is not permitted under the current Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, nor will the provisions be changed to allow it. In that sense it is clearly in breach of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Further, if such a plan did proceed-- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Mr Speaker, if that is not a legal opinion, what is it? Therefore, the answer should be ruled out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr WEST —If such a plan did proceed under the Liberals in South Australia whereby they allowed a discount on public assets of up to 50 per cent without Commonwealth approval, there would be a cost to the State of approximately $85m in the first year. That is calculated on a very conservative take-up rate of 5,000 houses. So the South Australian Opposition proposal, I repeat, is not permitted under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and if it did proceed it would cost the State of South Australia $85m with a consequential increase in State taxes by a Liberal government, that is, in the unlikely event it was ever in a position to impose such a tax. It is no wonder that the South Australian Labor Government is so clearly hostile to such a plan because it has such a great record in the provision of public housing in South Australia. This year it has broken all records in real terms for Federal-State funding in that State indeed, across Australia. It will spend $304m this year, a rate of State funding of $170 a head, which compares very well indeed with a figure of $60 per capita which is the average of all the States across Australia. The lowest per capita expenditure in Australia on public housing no prizes for answering is in the State of Queensland. So the Labor Government in South Australia has a great record in ameliorating housing related poverty. As a result of this record expenditure it will be able to increase rental stock in South Australia by 2,900 this year compared with only 1,700 during the last year of the former Federal Government in Canberra. I conclude by saying and I want to make this clear to Mr Olsen that we will not renegotiate the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to allow his form of asset stripping of public housing stock in South Australia. Mr SPEAKER —I present the following report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House: `Report relating to the precincts of the new Parliament House and the parliamentary zone'. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 27 November 1985 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Housing and Construction: Construction Project Management. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 27 November 1985 on an efficiency audit of the Department of Housing and Construction: Construction Project Management; and (2) That the report be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Working Party on Affirmative Action Legislation. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General) —Pursuant to section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, I present the Freedom of Information third annual report for 1984-85. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Parliamentary Library. When final copies of the report are printed they will be made available to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed; That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) Pursuant to sub-section 6(2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report of the Australian Science and Technology Council on nuclear science and technology in Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and section 3B of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, I present the Commissioner of Taxation annual report for 1984-85. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 6 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Tribunal report of inquiry into superannuation and retiring allowances for holders of public offices. Mr DAWKINS(Freemantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 41(4) of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and sub-section 20(4) of the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978, I present the Export Development Grants Board annual report for 1984-85. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982, I present the annual report of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research for 1984-85. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Committee of Review into the Australian Volunteers Abroad Program. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1983-84. Although the tabling of this report has been delayed, copies of the report were distributed to all members and senators in January this year during the parliamentary recess. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present agreements between Australia and the United States of America concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I table a report of the Australian delegation to the Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which took place in Geneva from 27 August to 21 September this year. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971, I present the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to Section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Act 1947, I present the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN —(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)-Pursuant to section 35 of the Barley Research Act 1980, I present the Barley Industry Research Council annual report for 1984-85. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 15 of the Housing Assistance Act 1981, I present the housing assistance annual report for 1983-84. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Defence annual report for 1984-85. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Parliamentary Library. When final copies of the report are printed they will be made available to all honourable members. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I table details of the special purpose flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 January 1985 to 30 June 1985. Copies of this report are available at the Table Office. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920, I present the Department of Aviation annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, I present the Australian Film Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr Speaker, I do not want you to get the idea that new technology has taken over completely when I present this cassette which further explains the role and function of the Australian Film Commission. It will be circulated to all honourable members. It is a sign of the times. Mr SPEAKER —It is for the information of the House. Unfortunately, there is no hope of recording videos in Hansard. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner on the Timber Creek land claim. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 61 (3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, I present the Aboriginal Land Commissioner annual report for the year ended 30 June 1985. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOLLIS —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOLLIS —In yesterday's Australian Financial Review-27 November-at page 13 it was claimed that my commitment to the current Australian flag is less than enthusiastic. My enthusiasm for the flag is shown by the enthusiastic presentation of 55 flags by me so far this year in comparison, say, with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who, despite waving the flag, has presented only 18 this year. Mr HAWKE —(Wills-Prime Minister)-by leave-The year 1985 marks the end of the United Nations Decade for Women. All over the world, governments have been reviewing their achievements in the last 10 years in raising the status of women. Australia has been taking an active domestic and international part in this process. In July we sent a delegation to the End of Decade World Conference in Nairobi, which was held to review the achievements of the decade and to devise strategies to ensure that progress continues. Our participation in Nairobi reminded us of the harsh conditions under which women live and work in many parts of the world and of the continuing need to work for progress at the international level. At that conference Australia endorsed, without reservation, the main conference document, the `Forward Looking Strategies', which sets out a plan of action for carrying progress for women through to the year 2000. We in Australia have achieved some significant progress over the decade. In several areas of achievement for women we are in the forefront of the world's nations. Australia's governmental machinery for ensuring that women's concerns are taken into account in the formulation of government policy is in the top rank. The `Women's Budget Program', with its full-scale assessment of the impact on women of the Federal Budget, is without parallel anywhere else in the world. Our overall record is one of which we can be proud. Since coming to Office, we have, in the short space of less than three years: introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which provides the legal right to equal treatment; established an affirmative action pilot program for women in the private sector work force and introduced legislation for equal employment opportunity in the Commonwealth Public Service; ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and are represented on the UN Commission on the Status of Women; given high priority to the representation of women on Government boards, authorities and instrumentalities, appointing more than 120 women to such boards; increased the supply of child care places by 50 per cent in the past two years and undertaken to provide a further 20,000 new child care places by June 1988; significantly increased funding for women's refuges and guaranteed their funding until July 1989; this year exceeded the 50 per cent target for employment of women in the community employment program; agreed to assist the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education; established a National Women's Consultative Council; and initiated a $475,000 national women's consultation and assistance program to provide grants to national women's organisations and fund projects to improve the status of women. A range of general Government policies have also been of significant benefit to women and their families. These include our income-support measures, housing policies, Medicare, the home and community care program, the supported accommodation assistance program, and the children's services program. Women have also benefited substantially, both directly and indirectly, from the almost 460,100 new jobs generated since April 1983. Fifty-six per cent of these jobs have gone to women, and full-time female employment has increased by 137,100 in the same period. As we come to the end of the decade for women, it is time to say how we will continue to raise the status of women-to set out our Agenda for women as we move towards the year 2000. We want to give women the opportunity to contribute to the full to the future development of our nation, whether in a domestic setting, in the work force, or in any other aspect of life. This opportunity must be open to all women in Australia. We are talking about opportunities for Aboriginal women, for women from migrant backgrounds, for women with disabilities and for those who are in other ways disadvantaged, for young women and older women, for women at home and women at work, and for women in all the wide variety of circumstances that can face them. The Government is proud of the fact that in the past year an additional 107,200 women have found employment, over half of whom have moved into full time jobs. At the same time the unemployment rates for both adult and young women have dropped and the numbers of discouraged women workers have also decreased substantially. Although 46 per cent of women are now in the labour force, fully 64 per cent of women workers are employed in only three of the nine major occupation groups-clerical; sales; and service, sport and recreation-a situation which has shown little, if any, change over the decade. In general, jobs in these occupations attract low rates of pay and offer little prospect of advancement. The Government is committed, through its affirmative action proposals which I shall address shortly, and other policies, to improving this situation. We want to give women a say on this national agenda and a role in determining its priorities. It is against this background that I would like to present to the House the Government's preliminary thinking on the content of a national agenda for women. Through our national agenda we will aim to open up opportunities to all women, and we will do that in three ways. We want to give women a choice. We want to give women a say. And we want to give women a fair go. Giving women a choice is perhaps at the heart of our agenda. Women must be able to choose, more freely than has been possible in the past, the kinds of lives they wish to live. They must be free to achieve economic independence: To choose employment, and the training to equip them for adequately remunerated employment, which, as we know, offers the best opportunity for escape from poverty and dependence. Full access to education and post-school training opportunities is a central aspect of our agenda to maximise women's choices. Women must also feel free to choose to be full time mothers without the fear that their contribution to family life is somehow of a lesser status than work outside the home. They must be able to choose to combine motherhood and employment and not feel that the difficulties of being a working parent receive no acknowledgement or support. Increasingly, Australian women choose different roles at different stages of their lives. Many women want to leave the work force to nurture their young children and then be able to return to employment without having to start at the bottom again. In the past, economic factors and social prejudices have constrained women's choices and women have often been seen only in their familial roles as wives or mothers. Nevertheless, family life is the central focus for very many Australian women and the Labor Government is committed to giving support to families, and recognises the wide variety of family structures now chosen by Australians. Support is provided to all families with dependent children through family allowance payments. Since coming to office, one of my Government's major social welfare priorities has been to increase assistance for low income families. To this end, the family income supplement and the additional pension/benefit for children have been increased by 60 per cent and the mothers/guardians allowance has been doubled. As part of our strategy for young people we have announced increases in education allowances, which should be especially helpful in giving young women financial support to undertake education and training. We have also announced the introduction of a new traineeship system for young people. This will provide important new opportunities for young women and men. The Commonwealth Schools Commission is developing a national policy on the education of girls which will define a set of principles, objectives and priorities for action and serve as a basis for future State-Commonwealth collaboration on girls' education issues. On the same theme, following its acceptance of the main recommendations of the Quality of Education Review Committee report, the Commonwealth Government is pursuing resource agreements with State Government and non-government school systems. Among other objectives, these agreements will seek to obtain approximately equal representation and attainment of girls in major subject areas. Child care is essential for working mothers but it is also needed by women at home who need a safe place to leave their children while they do the family shopping, or visit the doctor, or simply seek some relief from the demands of full time child-raising. The Labor Government's approach to child care policy has been to expand the provision of places. When we came to office in March 1983 there were child care places for only 4.6 per cent of Australia's under-five children. Following significant funding increases in our first two years in office we have now a three-year plan to provide 20,000 additional child care places by 1988 at an estimated cost of $107m. By 1988 there will be government subsidised child care for 9.5 per cent of Australia's children aged under five. We have also developed needs-based planning to ensure that new child care places are located in areas of high need. We are committed to funding quality care that is affordable for low and middle income earners. Recent changes announced to the funding arrangements for child care centres will result in a fairer system which continues to benefit all families irrespective of income while recovering a proportion of the real costs involved from those whose incomes allow it. The adequate provision of child care will remain high on the agenda. Women who choose employment are entitled to have access to all the opportunities offered by the Australian labour market, to seek employment in any occupation which interests them, at the level which meets their qualifications. They are entitled to the enhanced skills and prospects which result from on the job training measures. They are entitled to a just wage for their efforts. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) announced in September special efforts to increase women's participation in labour market programs and open up jobs which were traditionally performed by men. A national strategy on women in the labour force is being developed by his Department. Implementation of some of the major recommendations of the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs will improve the participation of women in labour market programs. In addition to the traineeship system, a new integrated adult program will provide major support for the training of disadvantaged job seekers, including single parents and women re-entering the workforce after long periods of absence due to family responsibilities. In the special trade training program, aimed at developing new approaches to complement traditional apprenticeship training, 500 places have been approved for women on preparatory pre-employment courses. The Government is also pursuing a policy of affirmative action to enable women in all kinds of jobs to secure their entitlements to equal employment opportunity in the work-place. This policy was tested in a practical fashion through a 12-month pilot program. At the same time, we established a representative working party of government, business, trade union, higher education and women's interests, and a member of the Federal Opposition, to secure broad-based advice on how best to legislate to improve women's job opportunities. Today I tabled the report of the working party, whose recommendation the Government has already accepted. I would like to take the opportunity today to place on record my appreciation and that of the Government of the constructive input to the policy made by all members of that working party. As a major initiative in advancing the status and opportunities of women in the work force, the Government will introduce legislation early next year requiring all higher education institutions and eventually private sector employers of more than 100 persons to report annually to the Government on their plans for providing equality of opportunity for women. We will establish a new statutory agency within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations portfolio to administer the legislation. I am confident that agency will continue the co-operative and harmonious relationship with business, trade unions and higher education institutions developed by the Office of the Status of Women during the pilot program. Our affirmative action legislation will be supported by a number of complementary measures, designed to ensure that wherever possible obstacles to women's full participation in employment are removed. The Government will actively encourage large private sector companies to supplement the child care services provided under the children's services program by establishing child care for their employees. Tax deductions are available for some of the expenses involved, and these services will be exempted from the tax on fringe benefits. In addition, the Government will approach the States and seek their co-operation in removing regulations or other requirements which inhibit the development of new child care facilities. I am conscious that some State laws and awards contain restrictions on women undertaking certain types of work. The Government will convene a high level conference of business, trade unions, State governments and other relevant parties early next year in order to determine how these laws can be amended. The other supportive measures will be in the vital area of education. I have already referred to the national policy on girls' education being developed by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. In the context of the demands for qualified women expected to arise from the implementation of affirmative action, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will be taking additional steps to increase the enrolment of women studying engineering, the field of study where women are least represented, comprising only 5 per cent of students. In introducing this program we will be building on several smaller initiatives already funded through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's equity program. While affirmative action is designed to increase the range of jobs open to women, the Government is also taking action to improve the status of predominantly female occupations. The status of the nursing profession will be greatly enhanced by the upgrading of its training to a higher education diploma. The Government is committed to encouraging the development of more efficient small business, which is a vital sector of the Australian economy. The Government recognises the important role that women can play as entrepreneurs and will ensure that its small business programs are accessible to women. We recognise the importance of maternity leave for women workers and that the current provisions put women in private sector employment at a disadvantage when compared with those in public sector employment who are entitled to 12 weeks paid leave. Many comparable Western nations have provisions through their social security systems for paid maternity leave for women in both the public and private sector. In order to be better informed on the subject and following an initiative of the National Labour Consultative Council, the Institute of Family Studies is undertaking a review of the usage of maternity leave in the private and public sectors. I look forward with interest to seeing the results of this research. I announced in June 1983 at the International Labour Organisation convention in Geneva that the Government was committed to ratifying ILO Convention 156, that covering workers with family responsibilities. In keeping with accepted procedure, consultations are proceeding with State Governments with a view to reaching an early agreement on ratification. It will never with any truth or justice be said of this Labor Government that we are unaware of the tremendous contribution to our national well-being made by women in the home. Without the work they perform the economy would not function as smoothly. At present women's unpaid work in the home and in voluntary activities for the community is not measured and thus tends to be undervalued. In 1988 the Australian Bureau of Statistics will carry out a major time use survey which will provide sound statistical data on women's multiple responsibilities. Health is an area of fundamental importance to all women and to those for whom they are responsible. A National Agenda for Women would not be complete without action in this area. To the traditional focus on the financing of care for the ill, and on women's reproductive health, needs to be added improvements to the general physical, mental and social status and well-being of women in our changing society. The Commonwealth Government, in the context of its commitment to achieve the World Health Organisation's target of health for all by the year 2000 and in response to a resolution from the Second National Women's Health Conference held in Adelaide in September 1985, will develop a national health policy in co-operation with the States and Territories and with women's health networks. The policy will recognise the need to improve the overall well-being of women and will focus on the demands on women's health arising from their many roles. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will appoint a special women's health resource person to co-ordinate development of the policy. From the policy will follow programs to improve the general health status of all women in Australia, and through them the health status of all Australians. Giving Women a Say The Labor Government places a very great importance on the need to seek the views of women on matters of concern to them. We established the National Women's Consultative Council in 1984 to bring together a representative group of women to channel to government the views of their organisations on issues such as taxation, child care and matrimonial property. I would like today to thank most sincerely Mrs Edith Hall, the Council's Convener, and the Council members for the sterling work they are doing. I look forward to receiving the Council's first report on its activities. The Labor Government take the view that women are entitled to have a say on all subjects in all the decision-making forums of Government and not just decisions on so-called `women's issues'. We are determined to improve our already substantial record in the numbers of women appointed to government boards and authorities and I have asked the Office of the Status of Women to advise the Government on the means of doing so. We are also conscious of the need to seek the views of particular groups of women on matters of concern to them. To this end the Aboriginal Women's Task Force has consulted widely with Aboriginal women throughout the country. Its report will be published early next year, and the Government will provide a speedy response to it. My colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is currently addressing the representation of Aboriginal and Islander women while consulting with Aboriginal communities on a replacement national Aboriginal and Islander cosultative organisation. The Minister has also recently received a report reviewing the activities of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as they affect Aboriginal women. Recognising the additional disadvantages experienced by many migrant women, early in 1985 the Government consulted with experts, most of them women of non-English speaking backgrounds, on migrant women's issues. Recommendations for action were formulated in the four priority areas of health, safety and working conditions; access to language, education, training and retraining; access to child care; and services for aged and aging migrant women. These areas were specifically endorsed at a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. As part of our ongoing commitment to addressing the special needs of migrant women, we will ensure that in making government appointments the skills of migrant women are not overlooked. To gain greater insight into the special needs of rural women, the Office of the Status of Women will early next year assist the Country Women's Association to conduct a major survey of country women. I am particularly looking forward to the results of that survey. In the area of services for the aged and the disabled, the Government seeks both input and reaction to programs through key bodies including the Disability Advisory Council of Australia and the Australian Council on the Ageing. Women are well represented on both these Councils. I have invited young Australians to participate in the review of the Government's strategy for young people. I am personally involved in a national phone-in for youth covering all capital cities. I hope large numbers of young women will participate and thus have a direct chance to make their views heard. The Government intends to give consideration to changing the make-up of the National Women's Consultative Council, when the term of the present Council expires next June, so that a number of women from community groups can be added to those representing national organisations. Giving Women a Fair Go The Labor Government is committed to ensuring that all Australian citizens can live in dignity. We pride ourselves on being a nation which promotes justice and equality for all. A fair go for women is the third aspect of our national agenda. The Labor Government wishes to promote the dignity of women and to attack those attitudes or practices which undermine it, for instance, those which downgrade women's domestic and nurturing roles, which stereotype women as ignorant or foolish in the media or in advertising, or which look with equanimity on the violence perpetrated on women both outside and inside the home. Many of these issues can only be addressed by government on a long term, considered basis. Others lie outside the scope of direct government influence. However we are determined to act where we can, and to help create an environment where women's dignity is acknowledged and valued in those areas outside our sphere of direct influence. For example, because of the level of concern expressed by women about the way they are depicted by advertisers, the Office of the Status of Women will commission research in this area as one of its activities to mark the End of the United Nations Decade for Women. The Labor Government is committed to redressing women's poverty. The financial plight of many sole parent families is of particular concern to the Government. We have recognised the problem of unintended poverty traps which operate to keep people-particularly sole parent pensioners and beneficiaries-dependent on social security payments when they, and society, would benefit if they were able to join the paid work force. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his September statement on Reform of the Australian Taxation System, announced a number of measures to reduce poverty traps. The Government will continue to take action to reduce poverty traps as resources permit. The Labor Government is aware that the existing maintenance system is sometimes ineffective and fails to provide adequately for children in sole parent families. Some non-custodial parents are able to avoid making an appropriate contribution to the financial support of their children. The Government has under consideration a range of options to establish a sounder structure. The rapid growth in the number of women's refuges over the past 12 years-there are now more than 165 refuges receiving State and Commonwealth Government assistance-is grim testimony to the toll of domestic violence. I am certain I have the full support of this House and of State governments when I say that this kind of violence is intolerable. The Labor Government has significantly increased funding to women's refuges and, through the Commonwealth-State supported accommodation assistance program, has provided guaranteed funding until July 1989. We will evaluate these services to ensure the assistance provided is adequate. Through sport women can acquire skills and enjoyment, improved physical health, and also greater self-esteem and a sense of achievement. The Government will continue to facilitate women's participation in sport. The areas covered in this statement make up our national agenda for women to the year 2000. On some I have foreshadowed immediate action by the Government. For most our strategies will be longer term or will need to be further developed. Nonetheless, these are areas where the Government commits itself now to effective action to advance the status of women. I have already said that we want to give women a say on this national agenda and a role in shaping its development. We will publish it widely and invite women to comment on it. Senator Susan Ryan, the Minister who assists me on the status of women, will lead this consultation process. We have already invited the National Women's Consultative Council to assist the Government in seeking women's responses. Drawing on these widespread consultations we will develop our proposed agenda into a detailed set of strategies and policies to further improve the status of women in Australia over the next 15 years. I trust that we can secure bipartisan agreement to our proposed agenda. What we are seeking to achieve is a broad and comprehensive approach to improving the status of women, one that recognises women's important contribution to our society and which allows women to make free choices, unimpeded by discriminatory laws or practices. Under our national agenda women in Australia will have a choice, women will have a say and women will have a fair go. I commend that national agenda to the House. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I am happy to say on behalf of the Opposition that except for reservations and objections that we hold in a number of areas that I will come to, we are in very substantial agreement with the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In very large areas I am very happy to say that the goals and objectives that were set out in the Prime Minister's statement are goals and objectives that are held by the coalition parties. They are goals and objectives for which, over the years ahead, it ought to be possible for both sides of the political scene in Australia to work together. There can be no doubt that over the past decade there have been enormous advances towards greater equality of status for women not only in Australia but also around the world. It could also be said without any fear of contradiction that change, progress and reform in that area were long overdue. The time has long since passed when there can be any equivocation by any major political party in Australia as to the desirable goal of effective equality of status of women in the Australian community. Some of the prejudices and attitudes of the past which have prevented the achievement of that full status are not prejudices and attitudes that will find any receptive response within the coalition parties. The Liberal and National Parties are committed to an effective equality of status for women. We recognise the changes which have occurred and which affect the lifestyles of many women in Australia. We too share very much the goal expressed in the Prime Minister's remarks that we should desire to give greater choice to women in Australia. If the House will permit me I will refer in a moment to my speech to the New South Wales State Council of the Liberal Party in which I emphasised the importance of choice of taxation policies affecting women in Australia. It is worth reminding the House that for much of the past decade Australia has been governed by a coalition government. It is interesting that many of the measures to which the Prime Minister referred with approval in his statement were, of course, measures which were introduced by the coalition Government. It is significant that the first measure of importance to women and the family that the Prime Minister mentioned was the family allowance. That reform, which was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1976, has won very widespread approval as one of the major social reforms in Australia over the past 20 or 30 years. That reform was brought in by the coalition Government and it has worked to the benefit of women and lower income families in Australia. It stands as a permanent reminder of and a permanent rebuttal to those on the other side and elsewhere in the community who would argue that in some way the Australian Labor Party has a monopoly of concern, a monopoly of care and a monopoly of initiative when it comes to taking measures that assist the less privileged and less fortunate in our community. That measure has lain as the basis of the improvement of the status, economically, of many women within many family environments and it is certainly a reform of which I and many others as members of the Fraser Government remain infinitely proud. I think that it is also important to mention, as the Prime Minister did not, that during the lifetime of the former Government there was a significant liberalisation and improvement in the value of the dependent spouse rebate. Although we believe that provision for single income families can be better provided by income splitting, that particular rebate provides very significant help to low and middle income families who wish to exercise the choice of one parent remaining at home and caring for young children. We on this side of the House certainly regard that as a very important part of the taxation system at present. We welcome the fact that thus far the Government has resisted the undoubted pressure that has been placed upon it by some of the more radical of its supporters to abolish the dependent spouse rebate because we think its abolition would represent a very retrograde step. It is worth mentioning that under the stewardship of the Fraser Government there were increases and improved benefits for single parents, pensioners and low income families. There was the extension of the rehabilitation payment to disabled married women. There was the establishment of the Women's Welfare Issues Consultative Committee. There was the establishment of a special women's unit within the Department of Education, the Department of Social Security, the Attorney-General's Department, the Schools Commission and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. There was the establishment of the Office of Child Care, and the establishment of the National Women's Advisory Council, which allowed significant community input into government policy making. On the score of the contribution made to the development of policies which affected the status of women under the former coalition Government, I pay tribute to the work of the current honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) and the current honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) for their part as Ministers responsible for the status of women within the coalition Government and as shadow Ministers within the coalition Opposition. In welcoming the broad thrust of the Prime Minister's statement and in saying to the House that the Opposition has no difficulty in identifying itself with many of the goals that are set out in the statement, I take the opportunity of placing on record the contribution made by the former coalition Government to the improvement in the status of women within our community. The measures that were put in place not only provide a record of our action when in office in relation to matters affecting women but also reflect our philosophy. Perhaps I can develop for a moment the central core of our philosophy on this and indeed on so many other matters; that is, the principle of choice. It is a matter of satisfaction for those who want to see, in the hurly-burly of political debate in Australia, occasional areas of agreement between the two major sides of politics on important issues that both the Prime Minister and I stressed the importance of choice as far as the status of women is concerned. I would like in that context to refer to a speech I made to the New South Wales State Council of the Liberal Party of Australia which, in relation to taxation, set out, as best I can, the principle of choice and the facilitation of choice as far as policies which affect women are concerned. I said that one of the principles of our taxation policy was: . . . our determination to provide a family tax benefit plan as part of our taxation policy. I went on: This involves two elements. Firstly, we intend to restore fairness to the tax treatment of single income families through the introduction of income splitting. Income splitting allows married couples to divide their total income between themselves in whatever proportions they choose and for each of them to be taxed as single persons. This approach will greatly benefit single income families and those double income families where there is a great disparity between the respective incomes of husband and wife. It is designed to give real choice to those in the community who wish their young children to be cared for full-time by one parent remaining at home. Increasingly that choice has become a fiction for low and modest income earners. More and more those on low incomes with young children do not have the luxury of one parent remaining at home but are forced-often against their will through sheer economic necessity-to be two-income families. Our proposal will stop that and give people on that level of income a real choice. It is wrong in principle that a family unit at a given level of income from two sources should have a massive tax advantage over another family unit with the same level of income from one source. That is what applies at the moment-and that is what we intend to change. We also propose that tax deductions for child care expenses should be introduced. This recognises the reality that in today's world about 50 per cent of married women with dependent children are part of the workforce. There have been permanent shifts in the lifestyles of many families. Increasingly women wish to combine the responsibility of parenthood with careers. The Liberal Party recognises this and is adjusting its policies accordingly. Through a commitment to both income splitting and tax deductibility for child care expenses, the Liberal party is facilitating choice. We offer a framework within which a choice for parents with young children of being either a single or double income household can be more freely exercised than is presently the case. It is not for a government to impose a stereotype of behaviour. It is for governments to facilitate choice. That ideal of choice lies at the heart of every Liberal policy. Those remarks made at the Liberal Party gathering a couple of weeks ago emphasise that choice lies very much at the centre of our approach to taxation policy as it affects the family and as it affects both men and women. I therefore take this opportunity, in responding to the Prime Minister's statement-whilst I welcome so many elements of it-of reaffirming the commitment of the coalition within its taxation policy to the progressive introduction of income splitting and the introduction of tax deductibility for child care expenses. Through both of those measures it will be possible for a greater measure of choice to be restored to our taxation system and we will be fulfilling the important role of government; that is, to facilitate choice. Having indicated that there are very large areas of agreement between the Government and the Opposition on this matter, I point to one or two areas where we believe the Government has ignored initiatives which could help women obtain, in a practical sense, a greater measure of equality of status and where existing practices which are no longer relevant in modern times might be changed, made more flexible or discarded so as to be of particular assistance to women in the work force or women who wished to re-enter the work force. I refer to our rather inflexible industrial relations system. One of the very practical desires of many women in our community is, of course, greater access to permanent part time work. It is clearly desirable that achievement of that desire be facilitated. It is noticeable that the Prime Minister's statement says absolutely nothing about the need to have greater flexibility in this area. The Prime Minister spent 45 minutes talking at great length about the Nairobi conference, important though that was. He spent a great deal of time talking about the establishment of yet another statutory authority to oversee activities in this area, but he made no reference at all to the impact on the employment opportunities of women, particularly the part time employment opportunities of women, which derives from the fact that our existing labour market arrangements are so inflexible and rigid. If we did have a more flexible attitude towards part time work from the trade union movement and this Government, if we did have a more flexible industrial relations system that did not impose penalties on individual enterprises that made agreements to stagger their working hours to make them more acceptable to female and male employees who had family responsibilities-in other words, if we had a more commonsense approach to working hours in this country-there would be a lot more part time working opportunities available to women. In a statement that was supposed to set out the agenda for change and the agenda for progress towards providing greater employment opportunities for women, there was virtually no reference at all to the need to have greater flexibility. I must say that in a statement with which otherwise I find a very substantial measure of agreement, I am disappointed that there was absolutely no reference to that point. The Opposition sees no need for the establishment of a new statutory authority as envisaged in the Prime Minister's statement. There still seems to be a tendency which has been reawakened in recent times within this Government to establish statutory authorities right, left and centre to carry out obligations which ought to be encompassed within the normal purview and the normal operations of government departments. I also say to the Prime Minister and the House that whilst we have no quarrel with the desire of the Government and of the Australian Bureau of Statistics to carry out a major time use survey which would provide sound statistical data on women's multiple responsibilities, frankly, the contribution of women in the home-or, indeed, women and men in the home-towards the well-being of the community, goes a little further than performing work which makes the economy function more smoothly than it does at present. It bears repetition, in case there should be any doubt as to the emphasis placed upon the family unit by the coalition parties, that there is no unit in our society which provides a greater degree of personal security and cohesion or a greater avenue for individual fulfilment than the family unit. It stands prime amongst the commitments of the coalition parties with regard to the effective functioning of our society in all its manifestations, not just in an economic sense but in the sense of the average personal and social stability of our community. Whilst I do not disagree with the announced intention of the Government to carry out that survey, I say to the Prime Minister that the contribution goes a little further than just making the economy function smoothly. I think that most men and women in Australia would regard their contribution to family life as essentially being a non-economic thing, or something that goes far beyond economics and something of a very personal and significant nature. Beyond those general remarks, the goals that have been established by the Prime Minister in what he has described as a national agenda for women are goals that the Opposition is happy to support. I take the opportunity of emphasising again our commitment to taxation reform of particular impact in the area of the family, which will have enormous significance for women who have chosen to be full time parents at home, looking after young children or, alternatively, have chosen-as increasingly women are-re-entry into the work force. They are areas in which we on this side of the House believe there should be a complete facilitation of choice, and that is the basis of our commitment. In other respects I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and I am happy to say that the Opposition can associate itself with most of the goals contained in that statement. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-For at least the past 40 years, one of the most consistent factors in the conduct of Australia's foreign policies has been the disagreement which it has provoked in public life. By contrast, the most consistent factor in the comunity's reaction to that sector of foreign policy concerning overseas aid has been support and agreement in principle. The report of the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, the Jackson Committee, cites overwhelming commitment to the proposition that Australia should assist developing countries, especially the poorest of them and most especially those countries in our own region. I note for the record that the Committee members were Sir Gordon Jackson, who was the Chairperson, Professor Helen Hughes, the Deputy Chairperson, and Mr Neil Batt, Professor David Lim, Dr Peter McCawley and Dr Brian Scott, respectively members of that Committee. I am honoured that in the House are Professor Helen Hughes, Dr Peter McCawley and Dr Brian Scott, who served on that Committee. the Government is extremely grateful to the Committee members for the diligent, professional and publicly spirited manner in which they went about their import task. Another demonstration of the community's interest is the Jackson Committee's receiving more than 400 submissions in the course of its work from individuals and community organisations. Despite Australia's record as a comparatively generous aid donor, there is little sign here of the so-called `aid fatigue' which affects some other developed countries. This is not to say that the issue provokes no argument or controversy. It does, and very often in the most passionate terms. But the argument in the main is about ways and means rather than underlying principles. The Government has examined anew the fundamentals, principles, methods and rationale following publication of the Jackson Committee's report, the reaction to the report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and the response to the report by the community in general. This process began when I tabled the Jackson Committee report in June last year. The Government decided at that time that it should allow at least 12 months for such considered responses to be thoroughly evaluated. My statement today will describe the results of this evaluation. It is the Government's formal response to the Joint Committee. As I said in the House on Tuesday, the sensitivity with which we administer the welfare of our own community should also inform the policies by which we conduct our relationships with the rest of the world. This is especially true of the aid programs in which we try to help improve conditions for people in other countries who do not share our good fortune or who cannot match our material prosperity. Our objective is to promote the economic and social development of the societies in which these people live, particularly in our own neighbourhood. Primarily, these programs grow from a humanitarian concern for our fellows. There is no point, however, in being coy about the fact that our aid program also has our political and economic interests firmly in sight. Our foreign policies and bona fides are enhanced by our status as a relatively generous and objective donor of aid. We are concerned to ensure as far as we can that economic growth and social progress are achieved in developing countries, especially in our region, and that they be achieved in orderly and stable ways. This in turn will ensure that our relations with regional countries, both political and commercial, develop in a harmonious and mutually beneficial way. Aid is not somehow tainted because, among other things, it helps serve our own economic interests. But there are arguments that go in that direction. The Government, in other words, maintains a balance of motives in our aid program-a necessary and perfectly defensible balance-between our humanitarian concern for our fellow human beings and our economic and political interests. It is the complexity of these interests which provokes contention over ways and means and forms in the aid program. There are people in Australia who insist that, since our aid is provided on the basis of need, it should be given only to the neediest individuals. They argue that providing aid which contributes to infrastructural development, as distinct from alleviating hunger and disease, is a wrong priority; that it helps not the neediest but the richest. There are examples around the world of projects which are no more than status symbols or which do nothing to improve social progress but which are given official aid for the most transparent and expedient of political reasons. There are examples of aid for infrastructural development which has primarily, if not entirely, advantaged commercial elites in both donor and recipient countries. The Government acknowledges this. But it argues that it should continue to conduct the kind of integrated program which balances humanitarian and infrastructural aid towards economic and social progress; which can, by proper priority setting and management, avoid the problems I have just described. In other words, our aid should be given in ways which help provide the environment in which humanitarian aid can be most effective. An isolated village can be given aid to improve its health, housing and education services, for example, and to improve agricultural production. If the village remains isolated and if it has no way to exchange its products, however, it will not be able to exploit its new advantages and move beyond a subsistence economic setting. If, on the other hand, roads are built to enable it to get its agricultural products to market and if its subsistence economy can be developed into an exchange economy, it will be able to realise its new potential. An example of just such an integrated development can be seen in the crop substitution program in northern Thailand, where hill tribespeople are being helped to substitute cash crops for their traditional opium poppies. Substitute crops have to be found; the people have to be taught how to grow them efficiently; they have to have markets which are reliable receivers and sellers of their substitute crop; these markets have to be accessible. This is a simple illustration of the need for balance between humanitarian and infrastructural aid in an effective program. Development must be sustainable. This requires a judicious mix of programs and projects aimed at promoting both growth and equity. Australia will benefit from the economic activity which will flow from the stability which comes from sustainable development. This is one of the reasons we give aid. Furthermore, as I have said, it should be recognised that there are coincidentally demonstrable inherent advantages in the terms of trade we enjoy with many of the countries which receive our aid. In just about every case, there is a healthy trade surplus in our favour. If one takes Papua New Guinea as a case in point, the balance on trade and current account is about $500m as against our aid to PNG which totals about $320m. It is true that Australia's share of imports into PNG has fallen from 50 per cent to 40 per cent but the volume of our exports is still substantial. There is no reason why industry should not take part in our aid program, so long as equity and effectiveness remain primary considerations and so long as this guiding principle is strictly observed: The aid given must be good for the recipient. This participation is encouraged by such policies as the 20 per cent preference rule in the procurement of goods and services for the aid program. The development import finance facility scheme is another which helps Australian enterprise to compete for development-related contracts by providing grant funds for use in concessional export credit packages arranged by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. This scheme has been slow in getting under way since it was introduced during 1980-81. A sum of $1.6m was allocated to it in that year and $2m in 1981-82 but no actual expenditure was made. In 1982-83, about $1.5m was spent from the $2.2m allocated; in 1984-85, only $936,000 from the allocation of $10m; and, in 1984-85, $12.5m from the allocated $16m. Another $16m has been allocated this financial year. After this hesitant start, the DIFF program is running well. The Government is advised that Australian business is becoming more aware of the program. There are, of course, risks in the scheme. In one case, for example, DIFF and EFIC between them provided 70 per cent of the cost of a whole project. We must be careful to ensure that such schemes do not develop primarily as help for Australian industry rather than developing countries. We have to be careful, when we administer such schemes, that we are fulfilling our primary purpose of providing aid, and good aid at that. Another general argument about the form of our aid concerns the proportion which should be allocated between bilateral and multilateral aid. It is said, for example, that Australian industry could benefit if more aid were given bilaterally. There are difficulties about this at the receiving end of our aid. Aid allocations can be classified in four ways: That given via the multilateral banks; that given to PNG which is a special case; that provided for humanitarian relief; and that provided on a bilateral basis. The first three classifications are not particularly flexible, unless there is a considerable period of time to make the adjustment. For instance, it would take about seven years to direct a significant amount of aid from multilateral banks to the other forms of aid. The point needs to be remembered that, if we diverted funds from such agencies as the International Development Association-which is the largest source of soft loans for the poorest of the poor countries-we would be doing our bit to cripple the economies of those least able to cope. Aid to PNG is organised over a five-year period. Humitarian relief is obviously unpredictable. But there are basic amounts which must be kept within this classification because we must anticipate calamitous events which will put sudden and great pressure on our resources. An example is the famine in Ethiopia for which more than $29m was provided in 1984-85. The recent earthquakes in Mexico and Colombia for which Australia provided $2.9m are other examples. It bears remembering also that the island states of the Pacific and Indian oceans with whom we have a special connection are liable to natural disaster. There is not much opportunity to rearrange the constituents of our aid program so as to favour bilateral aid, even if we wanted to, without markedly increasing the aggregate amount. There will always be argument about the appropriate level of this aggregate amount. Australians can take some credit, however, for supporting a steady increase in the level over the past 40 years, through bad times as well as good. The current level is more than $1,000m, which puts Australia among the leading donor nations. Give or take some marginal differences, the directions and the form and the management of our aid program have been essentially unchanged for some years now. When this Government assumed office almost three years ago, it decided that, since considerable time had elapsed since the last review, a detailed, clear-headed look was due at the program in its entirety. Were we allocating aid as effectively as we could or should? Was our aid focused on the areas where we could best help solve the worst problems? Were we using the talents of all the people who had skills in the matter? Was our aid program being managed as efficiently as it should? Did we need to develop some propositions about future directions of our spending on aid? The Government was fortunate in that its predecessor had begun moves to commission an inquiry into the aid program. It was also fortunate in that it was able to call on the services of Sir Gordon Jackson, his committee of eminent academic and business specialists and a secretariat-all with formidable expertise in the subject. The Committee has carried out a profound analysis on an issue which is complex enough in itself and which stems from such a complex of mandates. This analysis stimulated the valuable report by the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee and a busy process of response by many other interested and involved people and groups in the community. I propose to deal with the major issues and propositions which have been thrown up by this process. The basic assessment of the Jackson Committee was that aid is given primarily for humanitarian reasons to promote development but that it also complements our strategic, economic and foreign policy interests. The Government accepts and indeed has predicated its aid philosophy on just such an assessment. The Government also continues to accept the commitment to work towards achieving the allocation of the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of gross national product on overseas aid, despite the sad but unavoidable fact that we are enduring highly sensitive economic circumstances. The three years up to and including this year have been the most successful period, from the economic management point of view, we have seen for many years. Economic growth has been at the rate of about 5 per cent a year in this period. Unemployment and inflation have been reduced. Activity and employment in industry have increased. But, since we are involved in international trade, we cannot isolate or insulate our economy from pressures on our external account, on which we draw down finance for our overseas aid. If this drawing on our external account were made to an extent which was demonstrably imprudent-however good the cause may be-we could run into problems. It is part of the price we are paying for having to inherit a dollar which was artificially valued for expedient reasons. That may have brought about some short term political benefit but, in the medium to long term, it was quite damaging to the economy. We have to manage our economy in a realistic way, in a firecely challenging environment, and we have to live within our means. So the inescapable fact is that our aid program has to be kept, for the time being, within stringent limits. But I remind honourable members that the current annual level of aid expenditure is still more than $1,000m. I am pleased to point out that the Government has decided that the real level of official development aid will increase yearly in the future. And I repeat that we will continue to press on towards our objective of providing 0.7 per cent of gross national product a year for overseas aid. The Jackson Committee recommended that Australia make its aid more effective by targeting it more carefully. Our aid program, therefore, will now aim to concentrate its resources on fewer methods of delivery within fewer sectors. It will concentrate on areas where we have particular expertise or resources. This is another change which will take place deliberately. There will be no abrupt break in our program to any one country or sector. Due account will be taken of the interests and needs of both Australia and recipient countries. Our legitimate commercial interests will naturally be considered at all times but not to such an extent that serving those interests will be detrimental to the primary goal of development nor to the extent that our humanitarian motivation is compromised. Indeed, by drawing on competitive sectors of the Australian economy, our aid and commercial concerns should coincide. Though we live in a region of developing countries, as I said a moment ago, we are also a member of the international community. It follows that we accept a share in aid responsibilities at the global as well as the regional and national levels. We shall therefore continue to take part with other countries in the programs of organisations which have global application. We shall be selective, of course, in funding these organisations so as to ensure that our contributions are used effectively. The Government has in mind the World Bank and its affiliates, the United Nations development program, the world food program, and certain sector-specific agencies which allow Australia to be active in key areas of global need. By this I mean such areas as international agricultural research, aid against drug abuse, for refugees and for mothers and children. These priority agencies include the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, the United Nations Children's Fund, and the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. We will also contribute to certain Commonwealth programs. Before I leave the subject of global aid, I would like to emphasise the Government's commitment to improving efficiency in multilateral programs. This is necessary if the funds provided by donor countries are to produce the best results and if developing countries are to get the maximum benefit from the resources which come to them from multilateral sources. The Jackson Committee having proposed an aid eligibility framework as a more effective way to focus and deliver our aid, the Government has identified four groupings for the purpose of government-to-government aid at regional and country levels. The first grouping consists of Papua New Guinea, the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean small island states; the second-South East Asia and the small South Asian states-comprises countries to which we can apply a comprehensive programming approach. The third grouping-China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh-are those countries where we must take a more limited approach; and the fourth-composed of all other developing countries-will continue to be eligible for short term technical assistance and training opportunities, though their access to other forms of aid will be limited. This planning framework is an adaptable tool which allows for flexible response to perceived needs and which calls for clearer thinking on forms and mechanisms of our aid to specific countries and regions. The largest recipient of our aid is Papua New Guinea and it will remain so for the foreseeable future. Our relationship has been long and amicable-a partnership which was recently confirmed when the Prime Ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea signed the new five-year aid agreement. This agreement provides for a continuing high level of aid but, in recognition of Papua New Guinea's goal of self-reliance, for a 3 per cent real annual rate of decline overall. Nonetheless, the total aid commitment for Papua New Guinea over the new five-year period, in current values, will be nearly $1.5 billion. The agreement contains challenges for both our countries. Papua New Guinea has had little experience in managing bilateral aid which is specifically targeted. It will require some effort on the part of both countries to ensure that the benefits of this aid will be fully realised. Australian and Papua New Guinean officials will hold annual discussions to assess the effectiveness of our aid and to ensure that incipient problems do not become unmanageable. The aid program will continue to take account of the small size and fragile nature of the island economies of the South Pacific and the Indian Ocean. Some South Pacific countries are already obviously reaching a limit in their ability to absort traditional forms of aid. We are therefore examining alternative ways to meet specific economic and social needs. A regional team of specialist advisers has been formed to help in this work. An Australian aid mission visited the Indian Ocean small island states last year. It noted that their economies were fragile and that a cautious, measured approach was necessary to increased aid. Work is under way on developing an appropriate program for these small island states. South East Asia embraces countries at different stages of development, characterised by widely varying patterns of growth and income distribution. Our aid programs to this region will continue to reflect this diversity. The Association of South East Asian Nations countries are rapidly reaching the point at which the traditional donor-recipient relationship is no longer relevant. Though they are all middle income countries, there are substantial differences between them and our aid program will need to take into account the different development challenges they face. The depressed standards of living in the Indo-China states mean that they continue to warrant our humanitarian concerns. The third grouping in our eligibility framework includes China which, although it has made enormous progress recently, remains an underdeveloped country. Our aid program there is becoming more focused, with a sharpening of sectoral targets. The new program will emphasise the provision of Australian expertise in such key sectors of the Chinese economy as agriculture, transport, minerals and minerals processing. Along with China, the bulk of the world's very poor are in the heavily populated countries of south Asia. These countries receive substantial benefits through our contributions to multilateral organisations. Our bilateral programs to these countries, on the other hand, have declined. We are placing new emphasis on enhancing our bilateral relationships in the region. We hope to be able to resume more direct assistance also. We will continue to support the Asian Development Bank and Fund and other organisations which are effective channels for assistance to countries in our region. Before leaving the subject of eligibility, I want to mention Africa, which is assuming a particular place in our aid policies as in our foreign policies generally. The response of Australians to the famine in Africa has been prompt and generous. But long term development strategies are necessary so that the emergency does not continue. Australian aid programs to African countries will therefore focus increasingly on the objective of national food security. The Government is committed to a program which will draw on Australian resources and expertise to tackle the real problems. Our aid to African countries will continue to be channelled mainly through the World Bank and other multilateral organisations. We have also taken steps to look into the possibility of membership of the African Development Bank. The Government recognises that non-government organisations are often able to do effective work in areas beyond the reach of official programs, and particularly at the village level. They implement programs which complement official aid. Perhaps most important of all, they help Australians to appreciate the often horrendous problems of developing countries and to demonstrate their personal concern about them. The Government has already acted on the Jackson Committee recommendation that official subsidies to NGOs be increased. Aid delivered through NGOs was increased by nearly 80 per cent in the current Budget over the previous financial year. Further increases in subsidies for projects of NGOs are justified, though further long term growth in these subsidies will need to be commensurate with the capacity of NGOs to mobilise public support and to deliver the increased allocation. Training aid and especially the provision of special courses tailored to regional requirements will grow in importance as a means of strengthening social, economic and commercial links between us. Other initiatives taken since the Jackson Committee finalised its report include restructuring the student program, establishment of a special fund and new activities to assist the role of women in development, establishment of community based development education and wider programs of development research. When I set up the Jackson Committee one of my major concerns was to ensure that our aid program was effectively managed. The Australian public, which provides the $1,000m a year which is going into our aid program, has the right to expect that the aid program is efficiently administered. The Jackson Committee report documented the difficult organisational history of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. It described the external pressures which led to management resources being reduced without any compensating improvement to efficiency. The point had been reached at which resources were beginning to drop below the critical level needed to deliver aid, let alone to ensure that it was the highest possible quality. The point had also been made in reports by the Senate and the Public Accounts Committee. The Jackson Committee made a number of recommendations designed to transform ADAB from a clerical to a professional organisation. It recommended that ADAB be restructured, that it be given management autonomy and control over resources essential to the delivery of our aid program, and that an immediate catch-up program be set in train to remedy ADAB's critical shortage of professionally qualified and trained staff. The Government has accepted these recommendations. ADAB must have the capability to put the Government's aid objectives into effective practice. It must have the human and other resources to ensure that the Australian people get the full value of every aid dollar spent out of their taxes. ADAB, in line with the Jackson Committee's recommendations, has now developed a new organisational structure which will allow the delivery of aid to be carried out in a professional manner. This new structure allows for an increase in senior positions and a staged increase in overall staff resources at modest cost. This financial year, aid administration costs constituted 1.54 per cent of the entire aid program. Only New Zealand had a lower proportion of overhead among all OECD countries. As a result of the administrative reforms adopted by the Government, our proportion is expected to rise to 1.7 per cent. However, it will still be one of the lowest proportions on overhead among donor countries. In the Government's opinion, it is a cost worth bearing in the cause of greater efficiency in our aid program. I conclude by reiterating on behalf of the Government its acceptance of the major premise of the Jackson Committee; that, while it complements and enhances our political and economic interests, our overseas aid program is designed primarily to promote durable and equitable development for humanitarian reasons. Australia is a developed country in a region notable for high levels of poverty and related problems, for economies inhibited by inadequate standards of infrastructure and shortages of administrative skills. Our aid program is the logical extension of our realising the consequences, to us and the rest of the region, of the developing countries having to compete for wealth and prosperity in a free market. We are aware of the consequences which flow in developing countries when wealth and prosperity are restricted to a privileged, influential elite. Regrettably, we sometimes see evidence of the need to eradicate corruption in developing countries. We see the result, for example, when monopolies in such basic commodities as sugar or coconuts are made the personal belongings of political cronies. Though developing countries must bear the responsibility of following development oriented policies, they cannot be blamed for all the calamitous problems confronting them. The resource base of such countries may be too narrow. They may produce only a few staples subject to sharp variability of price beyond their control. They may have populations that are too large for their resource base. They may have entrenched cultural obstacles in the way of efficiency and equity. Population growth may be faster than economic growth. They may not have easy-or even any-access to liquidity on terms that are fair and sensible. Whatever the reason, when peaceful revolution is made impossible, violent revolution is inevitable. Aid alone will not answer these problems. But it can help point the way, whether it helps feed the hungry or cure the sick or improve the administrative skills or even just helps get fruit and vegetables to market. Above all, it can help improve the lot of individual human beings-sometimes tiny children-who are forced by the economic circumstances of their societies into debasement and exploitation. If it were only for this reason, I believe we should continue to devote the maximum possible proportion of our resources to our overseas aid program. I could not finish on this point without mentioning trade. The more the developed countries erect barriers, or fail to lower high ones, against trade from developing countries the more they hinder the drive of those countries towards self-sustaining economic development. If they provide aid and then hinder this trade, they are in effect trying to pay conscience money to soften the impact of their protectionist policies. Maybe they are even doing that on the cheap. I am happy to repeat the commendation I gave to the Jackson Committee report when I tabled it last year. This most comprehensive and professional analysis to be made of our aid program has stimulated a dynamic discussion of the subject which I hope will not easily or soon subside. In fact, since I tabled the report, I have received more representations on aid than on any other single issue concerned with foreign policy. Because this interest is so intense and so that there is a regular and dispassionate review of progress along the path I have just set out, I have agreed with the Chairman of the parliamentary JFADC that ADAB should report regularly to it. The frequency of these reports has not yet been decided but my inclination is that they will be at around two-year intervals. The measures which I have just outlined, the steps which the Government has taken and which it intends to take, will ensure that our aid program fulfils the aspirations we all hold for it. I am confident that it will act to encourage competitive and relevant Australian expertise, that it will make a genuine contribution to the social development of our neighbours and, above all, that it will help raise the status and enhance the well-being of the individual people for whom it is intended. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —by leave-The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its examination of the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program picked up a statement of mine that I made nearly 10 years ago on the rationale for aid. In an address to the Swinburne College I stated: Australia, like other Western aid donors, gives aid for a complex of reasons, with humanitairian concerns being paramount. I said: My Government believes it is the unquestionable right of all human beings to be relieved of poverty and to have a decent standard of living. A decade later I stand by what I said. Before going further, may I join the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in congratulating and thanking the members of the Jackson Committee for the value of their work and the recommendations that are before not only the Parliament but also, as the Minister said, the people. They have attracted intense interest. Foreign aid, of course, is a transfer of taxpayers' money to other peoples, other governments and the officials of international organisations. It is a very scarce resource and that should always be borne in mind. The Australian Government has an obligation to see that that resource is used to maximum effect. The fact that aid is motivated, to a large extent, by humanitarian concerns should not prevent its effectiveness from becoming an issue. Nor should it obscure the fact that the aid program should also, in part, complement our strategic, political and economic interests, as the Foreign Minister indicated. What is so welcome about the Jackson report is its overriding concern to improve the effectiveness of our aid program and its understanding of the complex and varied motives that underpin it. Regrettably, the record of aid in contributing to the relief of poverty and sustained economic growth is nothing to trumpet. There are some outstanding exceptions; but, if we look towards Africa, the least developed countries and parts of our own region, we see that the situation is still grim. This, of course, has revived both the strong criticism of the `growth' approach, as it is termed, to aid programs as well as calls for a reorientation of Australia's aid program to a `basic needs' approach and the direct alleviation of poverty. The Jackson report talks of growth with equity and the importance of making development sustainable. The report states that development cannot be achieved solely by concentrating on basic needs, that infrastructural development is also essential. I agree with the Jackson Committee and in this regard it has largely reaffirmed the work of the Harries Committee on Australia's Relations with the Third World which in its report described the basic needs approach as misplaced humanitarianism and a `band-aid' approach. That may be going too far, but at least it sets the right direction in regard to the affirmation of those who proclaim that the basic needs approach must dominate. The Opposition believes that this emphasis on growth and development is correct. To the extent that is has gone wrong, it has been in the implementation of this approach. In that regard it has gone wrong because many thought that newly independent nations needed greater planning and centralised control of their economies than do advanced economies. This ignores history and it flies in the face of the success of the newly industrialising countries in Asia. Moreover, such an approach was probably likely to fail because of the weakness of public administration and large scale organisations in less developed countries, their public bureaucracies proving to be not only, in some instances, hopelessly inefficient but also, regrettably, in the case of many, corrupt. It has gone wrong because it was thought that uncontrolled trade with industrialised countries and openness to foreign investment and foreign enterprise were generally harmful to economic development. This again ignored history and the striking association between the extent to which developing countries have been open to foreign competition and given priority to exports and their rate of economic growth. Growth has also been hampered by the policies pursued by the governments of many developing countries-policies which have stifled the market, exploited farmers through government marketing laws, favoured urban elites, disdvantaged agriculture, ignored the problems of population growth and overly encouraged urbanisation. The reality is that the West can most effectively improve the material well-being of developing countries not only through aid but also by reducing restrictions on trade and by opening its markets to their trade. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) might not accept that proposition, but the need to open trade is a reality that has to be faced in our aid programs. This, regrettably, is something on which the honourable gentleman has a closed mind, according to some of the remarks he made last night. Dr Theophanous —Not at all; just on a balanced basis. Mr PEACOCK —If we could all get it into balance, the situation would be a lot better. However, I will not go back to the debate last night. The Harries report was unabashed in hammering the theme that I have struck and the Jackson report also gave this considerable emphasis. I listened with interest to the Minister on this point. I was interested because he seemed to be rigidly sticking to his last and tip-toeing around this aspect. But he should not, because it goes to the very core of development programs. Moreover, I believe that the developing world would be helping itself if it were to remove or reduce restrictions on the inflow of Western personnel, Western enterprise and Western capital. The needs based approach to aid is a crucially important one. But in the end a solution will be found only through sustained growth. Effective aid programs combine both and a balance has to be struck, as the Jackson report and the Foreign Minister today have acknowledged. In the end, though, the emphasis must be on growth; otherwise the cycle of poverty will not be broken. There is no point in pouring longer term development assistance down a drain. Such developmental assistance must not only be tailored to the recipient country's special needs but also be used properly by that country. As I indicated in my opening remarks when I spoke about scarce resources, resources are too scarce to allow them to be dissipated. That said, there is only one appropriate response to starving people or people crying out for immediate humanitarian assistance, and that is to help them. Increasingly, I am convinved that on the question of basic needs assistance non-government organisations-dealt with by the Jackson report and referred to by the Minister today-can often do it better. They can frequently go where Government aid cannot. They can frequently bypass bureaucracies and operate more directly at the grass roots level. I do not want to overstate it, but this can frequently be done. This is something the coalition will examine carefully in government. At this stage it is sufficient to express the Opposition's disappointment with the Government's response to the Jackson report's recommendation on voluntary aid agencies. As the Jackson report pointed out, the one per cent share of Australia's official aid given to voluntary agencies is well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development median range of 5 to 6 per cent. The Government has tinkered with increases in funding of 80 per cent; but this is from a very low base, which I am the first to admit did not increase sufficiently under our Government. While I accept the need to keep a close eye on the capacity of non-Government organisations to deliver additional allocations of aid effectively, the Government's response today through the Foreign Minister on this point is disappointing. Let me now turn to the volume of Australian official development assistance. The Government has stated repeatedly that it intends to achieve the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance. The Australian Labor Party platform specifically calls for a target of 0.5 per cent in 1985-86. Well, what has happened? The estimate for 1985-86 is 0.45 per cent of GNP. The House should wait for this, because there is some sleight of hand here. The Government has included for the first time as part of Autralia's official aid budget funding the educations of overseas students in Australia. It has backdated this bookkeeping adjustment, so-called, to the 1984-85 period. The Jackson report recommended this procedure and it does make sense. However, for comparative purposes the real figure is not 0.5 per cent but rather 0.41 per cent, and this is the lowest percentage of aid to GNP for more than 20 years. Yet, the Labor Party proclaims 0.7 per cent as its target. It then specifically calls for a target of 0.5 per cent in this financial year. The aim is fair enough; but the Minister has cooked the books to give an accounting result that appears as more than it actually is and the net figure, when one examines it, shows that this Government, so oft proclaiming itself amongst that brotherhood of international socialists and proclaiming its duty to mankind, gives us an aid program which, in terms of percentages of GNP, is the lowest in 20 years. Mr Ruddock —You can tell who is suffering compassion fatigue. Mr PEACOCK —A lot of fatigue is setting in here. It is not all from compassion. I will get on to that on another day. This action has come from the Labor Party which honourable members will recall has savagely criticised the volume of aid provided by previous coalition governments. The Labor Party talks of a global moral consensus. Again, this can wait until another day because we are dealing specifically with aid, but the Minister refers to a basic needs approach and the humanitarian elements involved. He said in his statement yesterday that a primary goal of Labor's foreign policy is to achieve a global moral consensus. He did not explain to me what that meant. I sought to grapple with it and I found later in the speech that the adjectives had actually been reversed. Moral global consensus had become global moral consensus, but with no explanation as to whether the twain met or what they actually meant. The global moral consensus and the high-standing position taken rhetorically by the Government do not add up in terms of the percentage of aid it has allocated. This is the party that talked so much of its role in the developing world. Frankly, its humbug is exceeded only by its hypocrisy. These cuts were not made at a time of economic crisis. If we listen to Government Ministers at each Question Time or to Labor Party rhetoric around the nation we are told that this is a time of allegedly great economic growth. Not only has the volume of aid declined dramatically but also the value of the Australian dollar has declined. On a trade weighted index the Australian dollar has fallen by 25 per cent this year. Of course, this has savagely reduced the value of our overseas aid. The Jackson report stressed the importance of Australia aspiring to the 0.7 per cent figure and stated: Australia's aid effort should not slip back. It has slipped back dramatically. The Labor Party as such may have a commitment to international economic development but this Government has not met that commitment. I now turn to the direction of our aid program. I agree with the conclusion that: The Australian aid program is spread over too many countries with too many initiatives and activities implemented in too many different ways. The Jackson report's suggestion of four geographic categories as a framework for the delivery of Australian aid seems a sensible approach. It needs to be watched in practice to ensure that it maintains sufficient flexibility. It recognises that Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific should remain central to a bilateral aid program, and properly so. Papua New Guinea should continue to remain at the centre of our aid program. This stems from the special relationship between our two countries. The Opposition endorses what the Government is doing in seeking to move the aid program away from budgetary support and to arrangements similar to those applicable to Australia's other bilateral aid programs. The previous budgetary support has, in my view, been outstanding but I accept the need for change as does Papua New Guinea. On the latter point, it is important to recognise a matter which I will mention in a moment. Papua New Guinea faces serious development problems and requires a renewed commitment from Australia. The gradual replacement of budgetary support, which now amounts to some 30 per cent of Papua New Guinea's budget, will be much easier for us than for Papua New Guinea. It promises an increasing maturity and self-reliance to our relationship while making our aid more accountable to the Australian people-a not unimportant factor. The timetables unilaterally laid down for this change are not, in my view, what is required. Rather, considered negotiations between our two countries are the preferable approach. I also indicate my concern with our aid commitment to the South Pacific region. Australia must exercise primary responsibility for the South Pacific. When the Fraser Government came into power in 1975 the first aid program I produced increased our aid commitment to the South Pacific by 400 per cent. That is some indication of how our interest in the South Pacific had languished under Whitlam. It is well to recall that the Foreign Minister who has reduced our aid commitment during his present period in government did the same thing when he was Treasurer in a former Government. We, in seeking to focus on the South Pacific, introduced a three-year rolling program which increased our commitment by 400 per cent. We must exercise primary responsibility for the South Pacific. There is a humanitarian need to be met and, of course, it is an area where foreign policy objectives play a part. Mr Cadman —Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —I am glad that the honourable member agrees with me. I am unabashed in saying that foreign policy considerations have to be brought to bear, although I add that when pursuing such objectives we should not allow them to override strategies of growth and the meeting of basic human needs. We should admit unashamedly to the important foreign policy influences that are obviously there. The inclusion by the Jackson Committee of the four Indian Ocean island states in category I, I find interesting. I am, at this stage, unconvinced by the arguments that gave them equal priority with the South Pacific. We will review their categorisation when we return to government, as I will review the whole bilateral aid program. That is not to say that they are not deserving of assistance. They patently are but, in terms of Australia's duty, I do not believe that they rank equally with other countries in category I. I remain convinced that the orientation of aid should be not only mainly regional but also concentrated in those areas where we have a real expertise. That is the thrust of the Jackson report and we will watch how the Government implements that recommendation with great interest. A major criticism of the Jackson categorisation process, from my point of view, is the placing of Africa in category IV, whereby it is excluded from project aid and country programs. I can understand why this was done, particularly if the Committee was predicating recommendations which had as their fount a concentration on our own region. I have long listened to people telling me that we should not be involved in aid programs in Africa because it is a long way away and we do not get too involved in South America and the like. We have increasingly-again, through the efforts of the previous government-been raising the profile of Australia and its effectiveness in the Commonwealth of nations through very close contact with Commonwealth leaders at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. We have been able not only to make significant shifts in foreign policy internationally but also to meet areas of very real need. I do not say that that is the prime criterion. That is by no means the case. Meeting basic needs and putting them in balance with the overwhelming stress on growth are the criteria. The region must be the area of primary influence. I can understand why this was done but I do not agree with it. I disagree with the Jackson report whilst accepting that with scarce and limited resources programs will be somewhat restricted to Africa in comparison with those which are our primary duty. In addition to providing some project aid to Africa, I believe that we need to accept the need for technical assistance in such areas as agriculture and to consider joining the African Development Bank. Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —I visited Ethiopia at the end of last year. What is happening there is symptomatic of what is occurring throughout much of Africa. It is becoming apparent that Africa is confronted by a breathtaking crisis which the international community cannot turn its back on. I pause to say that, whilst there might be some faults and deliquencies in the West's response to the tragedy that has unfolded in Ethiopia and the Sudan, I have not seen much evidence of humanitarian response from the Soviet Union and its satellites. But that is for another day also. It is becoming apparent that Africa is confronted by a breathtaking crisis. It is not something we can turn our back upon, nor can it be approached in a piecemeal fashion. The former approach is morally unacceptable, while the latter would serve only to make the problems interminable. The one and only good point-if one can call anything in this context a good point-regarding the tragic starvation in Africa is that we can fix it in the short term by feeding people. The one thing we know is that if we get food in and it is distributed, we are at least meeting in the short term the crisis of starvation that is facing countless millions of people. But in meeting the medium to long term problems the international record is frankly deplorable. The tragedy clearly will worsen unless there is the political will to plan for the future. There is little or no evidence of this occurring. I have not sought to make this a political issue for the obvious reason that one needs as much community support as one can get for programs to relieve starvation in Ethiopia. I do not intend today to say any more than that the Australian Government, with the rest of the international community, through the Foreign Minister, have got to inject some political will to move this tragedy to a point where the medium to long term problems are dealt with. If I had been Foreign Minister, I say frankly that I would have pressed for a meeting of my international colleagues to plan agricultural development and reafforestation in Africa. We came together at the Foreign Minister level and I chaired a meeting in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations to meet the critical tragedy that was unfolding in Cambodia. We received immediate pledges of signficant sums of money. Therefore, I am not thinking of the short term, but of getting foreign Ministers together to plan, in conjunction with African countries, what can be done in the medium to long term. If that is not done now, Africa will be facing this critical situation year in year out. The suffering of people that goes on simply because there is a lack of political will to look beyond the problem of today and to seek to solve the problem of the future is deplorable. I hope that the Minister will be able to crank up the international community in 1986. The same must be done for Africa as was done in meeting the short term problem in Cambodia, or the long term outlook will be a disaster even worse than the immediate tragedy we are facing. We need to undertake a comprehensive and co-ordinated donor approach to both the short term and long term problems. The ultimate goal must be to return Africa to food self-sufficiency. Apart from providing substantial emergency relief aid, the Western World must also bring persuasive pressures to bear. People tend to duck this. There is talk of the human tragedy, but there are certain realities behind these tragedies, and pressures have to be brought to bear to fix them. Long term development assistance increasingly should in these situations be long term assistance conditional on African governments adopting policies conducive to agricultural production and efficiency. These must provide encouragement and incentives to smallholder producers, and the criteria for such long term assistance in my view should be whether or not there is some chance of success. Another debate over aid that I must mention concerns the bilateral/multilateral mix. The Jackson report did not examine in great detail the effectiveness of multilateral aid. It did, however, recommend our involvement in the African Development Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank, and I am inclined to agree. I think my friend the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), will inject a note of approval on the Caribbean Development Bank, as he did earlier when I referred to the African Development Bank. I will not push it too hard, although I am trying to enlist a little support. The Minister in his statement went to some length to explain why it was difficult to cut back on our multilaterial aid effort. The fact is that under Labor there has been a drift to multilateral aid and this becomes clearer if one removes the little fix of the overseas student component from the bilateral aid figures. The international financial institutions deserve our support. Their importance at this time cannot be overstated. The Jackson report confirms that such funds are increasingly used effectively. My problems with multilateral aid refer particularly to many of the United Nations organisations. There is a trend in this country, and in a few other places, that one is not allowed to criticise the United Nations. I am not talking of the talkfest of the General Assembly and other matters that should be looked at and examined and procedures implemented, but of some of these United Nations agencies. I did not do enough of this myself when I had the capacity to do it some ten years ago, but I will in the future. There is very little accountability, no control over their use, and very little benefit to Australian industry. The main argument in favour of multilateral aid is that it is said to be de-politicised, but in my view that argument is quite misleading. Political control and accountability is substituted by the control of international officials and no accountability. Furthermore, when one looks at the multilateral organisations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, a body which through its scientific and industrial research has an impact in some fields of aid, and more particularly at the Food and Agriculture Organisation, one sees that they are a shambles. When one examines the role played by all the recipients in demanding the sort of budget FAO gets compared to the influence that donor nations have over it, one finds that they are screaming out for reform. I have some signficant questions in my mind about the drift to further multilateral aid. Of course, multilateral aid will always exist with us. Of course we will continue many programs, but I am not as impressed with, and on behalf of the Opposition do not accept, the Jackson recommendation of maintaining a share of multilateral aid at roughly 25 per cent, but I agree that there should be a bias towards development banks. I now turn to the question of aid and trade. I have already stated the Opposition's view that trade is the key to economic development. The Minister has raised a different aspect, and that is the question of industry participation in that aid program. The Minister has been very cautious in his statement today on this link, acknowledging that: There is no reason why industry should not take part in our aid program, so long as equity and effectiveness remain primary considerations and so long as its guiding principle is strictly observed; the aid given must be good for the recipient. I concur with this cautious approach. Opportunities for Australian business should open up in Papua New Guinea with a gradual re-orientation of our aid to project aid and accordingly tied to some provision of Australian goods and services. Similar benefits should accrue with a slight shift away from multilateral aid to bilateral aid and a more aggressive approach in bidding for contracts financed by multilateral organisations. One can look at the total value of some of the contracts, as indeed did the Minister, and compare that figure with our aid program. But I have to say again, in re-examining my own administration for the period I was Foreign Minister and looking at what Australian industry does and what a government can do to try to assist in this area to encourage Australian industry more, that our performance to date has not been particularly good. With regard to aid/trade financing mechanisms, there is no point living in fantasy land. Objectionable as many of these mechanisms are-and to those of us who believe that these mechanisms distort international trade they are objectionable-I have to face the reality that Australia cannot allow its own industry to be placed at a competitive disadvantage by other donors' aggressive use of aid to foster their own exports. Again a careful balance is required between our industry needs and the goals for our overseas development assistance program. The two are not incompatible-I use the double negative-and the situation should be kept under constant review. I am as cautious on that matter as the Minister is. Let me now turn to one aspect of the Jackson report which the Minister has ignored. It is easy to understand why he ignored it because the Jackson Committee's recommendation on overseas students was comprehensively rolled in Cabinet. As I understand it, the Foreign Minister put the recommendation but as we know it was not successful. I am sorry that it was not successful. I am sorry that the wimpish arguments of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) prevailed. On this issue the Government was presented with two fundamentally different reports-the report of the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy, the Goldring report, and the Jackson report. In my view the Goldring report was conservative, rigid and hopelessly myopic. It was a document in favour of the status quo and entrenched bureaucratic educational interests. The Jackson report, to the contrary, offered a more dynamic and radical alternative which promised both an expansion in educational services and an increasingly effective educational aid program. This Government has opted for the shoddy compromise. But basically, as the Minister for Education said on 22 March, the Government was adopting `basically the Goldring approach'. The great pity is that the market approach advocated by the Jackson report would not only provide Australia with an export industry but also it would have enabled Australia to meet its foreign aid obligations in a clear and equitable manner. We would have had a comprehensive system of scholarships based on merit and which included developmental criteria. We would have allowed foreign students unlimited access to tertiary institutes in Australia without prejudicing Australian students. We have now not allowed foreign students unlimited access to our tertiary institutes as a consequence of this extraordinarily shoddy compromise which is based on what I consider to be the backward-looking recommendations of the Goldring report. In conclusion, I am a firm believer in Australia maintaining its aid programs as grants rather than as loans. Debt is the major problem facing developing countries and aid by way of loans to be repaid only adds to that crippling burden. Australian governments of both political persuasions have been correct in ensuring our aid is overwhelmingly in grant form. In government we will not change this. The record of the Labor Government on development issues generally, and aid in particular, is disappointing. It has not carried on the work of the Fraser Government on north-south issues. It has abandoned any pretence of obtaining promised aid levels and has ignored the major problems of international debt and poverty in the Third World. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I table the text of a statement relating to the Government's response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in respect of the Murrumbidgee in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —by leave-I wish to advise honourable members of the Government's decisions in relation to the future of the provisional Parliament House. The Government has considered the report by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House concerning the future of the provisional parliament building. Before responding to this report, however, I would like to say that we are all indebted to the Committee for the work and effort that went into the making of the report. This building, which has witnessed events affecting the lives of all Australians over nearly 60 years, has exerted its own peculiar influence on those events and the people working within it. The Committee has come to grips with a most difficult task in proposing suitable and fitting purposes for a building that has been at the centre of Australian political and cultural development for so long. The Government agrees with recommendation No. 1 of the Committee that the building, which has significant historical and heritage value, should not be demolished. With respect to the second recommendation, the Government considers that any decision to retain intact, modify, or restore the building to its 1927 form should be deferred pending examination of the findings of the conservation analysis currently under way. The Government agrees with the view expressed in the Committee's report that any future use of the building should take cognisance of the building's history and its location in the heart of the Parliamentary Triangle. The building therefore would need to incorporate national purposes and these should promote public access to and use of the building. While not opposing that part of recommendation No. 3 concerning the concept of the building including a constitutional-political history museum, such use would require only part of the available space. Furthermore the Government considers that the function and the range of related existing and planned institutions must be kept in mind in developing the museum proposal. Accordingly, an interdepartmental committee is to be established to consider the appropriateness of establishing a constitutional museum, including its scope, size and relationship with other institutions. That committee will also, in light of the findings of the conservation analysis, give detailed consideration to the need for structural modifications to and the multiple-use and management of the provisional Parliament House. A number of other possible users include: A meeting place for Premiers' and like conferences, headquarters of international organisations of which Australia is a member. The Government agrees with the Committee's view that Canberra is an excellent venue for such headquarters, but it does not agree with the Committee that the building is unsuitable for such purposes. Provided that special security arrangements can be made, these could be appropriate uses for the parts of the building. It could also be used as a general information and tourist facility in the Parliamentary Zone. Given the building's central location and the planning intention of developing and land axis concept with malls and tourist-related facilities down to the lake a Regatta Point-type exhibition could be fitting. Restaurant, kiosk and creche facilities would also be in keeping with such plans as well as being ideally located for tourist purposes. Turning to the recommendation relating to the collection of works of art and other items currently displayed or stored in the provisional building, the Government would wish that most of the more significant objects concerning Australia's constitutional and parliamentary development be maintained together in what is recognised as a valuable national collection in its entirety. If a constitutional museum is established, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will therefore be consulting with the Presiding Officers with a view to making suitable arrangements for the display of relevant items on an `on loan' basis in the museum. With respect to the future management of the building, it is the Government's view that control of the building and its remaining contents should reside with the Government after the Parliament moves to the new Parliament House. This matter shall be considered by the IDC in relation to the museum proposal and the management arrangements for the building as a whole post-1988. The conservation analysis and plan recommended by the Committee is, as previously mentioned, already under way. Howard Tanner and Associates Pty. Ltd, a firm of architects and conservation planners, has been briefed to undertake the conservation analysis. The Government will report further to the Parliament after the IDC has considered the findings of the conservation analysis. Finally, the Government agrees with the Committee that the continued long term use of the provisional Parliament House by parliamentary departments is inappropriate following the transfer of Parliament to the new Parliament House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I am afraid that the Government seems to have failed to realise that this is the people's Parliament. This Parliament House, while termed a provisional building, is in fact something that is very much part of the Australian community. The decision as to the future of this place is not for the Government to take. It is not for the Government to come in here today, through the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), and tell us what the Government is going to do. It is not for the bureaucrats of Canberra to determine the use of a Parliament that has been so vital in the constitutional evolution of Australia. This Parliament, since 1927, has been the core of parliamentary debate for all those areas represented by either senators or members of the House of Representatives. Accordingly, I regard the statement by the Minister not only as inept but also as a total abuse of the ultimate responsibility of the Parliament. It is not for the Government to come in here and tell the Parliament what it is going to do in this respect. In case the Minister has forgotten, as some Ministers tend to do-with their heads in the clouds and their feet feeling that they really do not need to worry about those lesser beings who are elected members of parliament-let me remind him that the fate of this place will not be determined by the Government. It will be determined by the senators and members of this place for the time being. While there are elements within the statement with which I agree, I find the high-handed, arrogant approach that has been adopted totally unacceptable. For example, we are told that there is to be an interdepartmental committee to determine some aspects of the use of the place. Why on earth can we not have a parliamentary committee? What is up with those who own, control, run, and live and work in this place? Are the members of the Australian Labor Party so subject to the bureaucracy that everything that they wish to do is determined not by individual decision but by what they are told to do? We can see the puppets of the Labor Party answering to the beck and call of the bureaucrats in the same way as they do to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In the last few days the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has told us how the ACTU got the better of him again in the dealings on superannuation. The Minister for Territories came into the Parliament and said: `Never mind parliamentarians telling the people of Australia what they are going to do with this place. We will let the matter be decided by the bureaucrats'. I know that the bureaucrats know better than the Government, because the Government is inept and hopeless, but I let the members of the Government know that there are some people in this place who would rather like to have an opportunity to pass judgment on whether this Parliament House will be used and, if so, for what purpose. I now turn my attention to the facilities in this chamber itself. There are few more hallowed or more traditional parts of Australia than this debating forum. It is a small chamber. It is not large compared with the size of perhaps the Congress of the United States of America or some of the newer parliaments in some of the countries we have seen around the world which try to emulate our democratic system. It is a chamber in which debate is facilitated by the proximity which we enjoy between one side of the House and the other. It is a debating forum in which it is possible for reasonable discussion to take place. There are opportunities for visitors in the gallery, Press in the gallery and for those listening to the broadcast today to get some idea of what is going on in the Parliament. But what does the Government want to do? It says: `Let the matter be decided by the bureaucrats. We will set up an interdepartmental committee'. An IDC is going to resolve the future of the Parliament House. Never mind whether it is possible for parliamentarians to consider the appropriateness of establishing a constitutional museum, including its scope, size and relationship with other institutions, which is the first of the reference points for the IDC. Never mind letting parliamentarians give detailed consideration to the need for structural modifications to and the multiple use and management of the provisional Parliament House. I would have thought that it would be more appropriate for the Minister to tell Mr Speaker, who is not present in this chamber at the moment, and the President that he would be prepared to permit the officers of the Parliament to consider in what way, and to what degree, the facilities of this chamber could be preserved and how those other facilities around the Parliament might best be used in the future. I do not regard it as acceptable that the Government is telling us that it has appointed a firm of architects and conservation planners to undertake a conservation analysis. It is not for the Government to undertake these things: It is for the Parliament to undertake them. For the time being, this is the home of the Parliament. Even the Minister should know that the police officers we see about this place have no authority in here unless directed by Mr Speaker himself, as former Speaker Scholes would recall. I find it incredible that a government which at times pretends that it has some concern for the parliamentary insitution seems to ignore it, and arbitrarily refers a number of matters first to an IDC and second to a firm of architects, without discussing them in the Parliament itself. I know that the Parliament has financial dependence on the Government, but let it be known to all that there is now a one-line appropriation for the Parliament. It would have been quite appropriate for the Government-of course, it has to declare its hand-to explain its attitude to each of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. I do not believe it appropriate that it should arbitrarily tell us what is to be done. I believe those are matters which should have been processed by consultation with the Committee. I suggest to the Minister that he take back to his colleagues the suggestion that in the evolution of the necessary decisions regarding the future of this place it certainly would be far more desirable that the Government act in a consultative way rather than, as now seems to be the case, pass the buck to bureaucrats to make the final determination on how this place will be used. There are a number of matters about which each of us, I think, is concerned in terms of the future of this Parliament House. I think there are difficulties in some of the facilities. The statement mentions the southern facade of this building. One of the matters which influenced me in supporting the decision to construct a new Parliament House was that I believe probably all the water pipes, electrical fittings and many of the infrastructures of this building need replacement. The building has been here since 1927. It is an old building. There could well be a fire risk unless many of those things are replaced. Therefore, it is essential that when this building is converted for future use the same treatment be accorded it as was given to West Block. For those listening on the radio, West Block is one of those older government office blocks that have been tenanted and used by the bureaucracy since approximately the time this provisional Parliament House building was occupied. At the time this building is converted many of its infrastructures and services will need to be re-examined. Many of them may need replacement. It is essential, whatever is done, that it be borne in mind that some of those facilities-I mentioned the southern facade-be examined internally as well as externally. As far as the internal facilities are concerned, I do not know whether many honourable members have been through the rabbit warren that is Parliament House. There are an incredible number of buildings which I suspect very few honourable members have visited. I have had an opportunity to go into most of them. There are rooms out the back of this place which I think most of us do not know exist. There is just about as much accommodation for those who work in and service the place as there is for those who are elected to it. Of course that accommodation is necessary. I draw attention to it because I think that whatever purpose this place is used for it will be necessary perhaps to remove some of it, to modify it, and to take into account the possibilities that I think there are for preserving this debating forum and the Senate chamber for whatever purposes might be ultimately decided. In that respect, I certainly see it as being highly desirable that we encourage the use of this building for regular meetings. For that reason, I tend to agree with the statement by the Minister that it is possible that this be a meeting place for conferences such as the Premiers Conference. However, I believe it should not be used for only public-type conferences. It is an appropriate place for meetings that might well be of a broader national nature. It has been suggested that it become the headquarters of international organisations. If not the headquarters, it can certainly be a forum where international bodies and delegates from this country to international bodies might well find it convenient to present this nation's point of view. I believe that this forum and the Senate have to be preserved. Whatever adjunct there might be in terms of a museum or tourist facility, the two chambers must continue to be the focal point. I hesitate also when I look at some of the other recommendations. I hope that the King's Hall facility will be retained. I certainly hope, too, that those library facilities, which I think have a particularly important place, could also be left in their present form. From my perspective, therefore, I believe that it is important that a number of integral parts of this building should be retained-the two chambers, King's Hall and perhaps, with some adaptation, the Parliamentary Library. The rest of the building largely, I think, has a great deal of flexibility. There will need to be a good deal of modification for it to suit whatever ultimate purpose the building might fill. Above all, I stress to the Government that it is not for the Government to determine the use of this building. We all accept that within the Parliamentary Triangle there must be particular concern for the future. The John Gorton Government took particular decisions that ensured that there would be no development within that Triangle without it being referred to the Parliament. I know that this reference by the Minister comes about in part because of that obligation. I think it is essential, however, that before any decisions are taken, that there be reasonable unanimity among members of both Houses. It is a very important building. It is one that I think should remain, therefore, within the control of the Speaker and the President rather than of the government of the day. I am concerned at the attitude that seems to have been taken by the Government to a report which certainly showed care and consideration and, as far as I am aware, was unanimously agreed to by those who represented all parties in this place on what is, after all, a joint standing committee. I believe therefore that, while we take note of the statement made by the Minister, one can only have reservations about the arbitrary nature of the Government's response and the degree to which it seems to be quite unprepared to listen to the very valid conclusions reached by those who represent us on a committee that was constituted specifically to concern itself with both the new Parliament House and the future of this one. For that reason, members on this side of the House will watch, with very considerable interest and not a little concern, future developments and whatever statements might be made by the Minister or his successor on this matter. Indeed, one believes that only with a change of government will proper care and concern be given to this place. Mr Holding —That will be a long time. Mr SINCLAIR —It will not be long at all. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The Minister for Territories claims to have been misrepresented. He may proceed. Mr SCHOLES —I recognise that the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was having a bit of a fling at the Government, but I think it is fair to inform him that the appointment of architects to do a conservation study is in response to a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. I think it is wrong to suggest that the Government is acting improperly in responding to it. Also, the Presiding Officers are on the interdepartmental committee. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I was a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House at the time when it deliberated on this matter and was one of those who concurred in the report of the Joint Committee. I welcome the assurance of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) that the Speaker and the President of the Senate are to be involved in an interdepartmental committee. But I must say that, as a member of the Committee, I am concerned at the procedures that the Government has used to second-guess, I suggest, the views of the members of the Parliament. When we deliberated on this matter and came forward with a detailed and comprehensive report to the Parliament, it was after consideration of numerous submissions by various government departments which had views on what ought to occur in relation to this site. The Committee came up with quite firm views as to the way in which this building ought to be managed in the future; that there ought to be a continuing involvement of the Parliament in the management of it, particularly in relation to the important furnishings of it. I think it is most regrettable that the Government has determined to use the recommendation relating to the conservation analysis for rejecting the decisions of the parliamentary Committee on whether this building should be retained intact, modified or restored, because experts are now being asked to adjudicate on a matter on which the parliamentary Committee had already made a determination after receiving a great deal of information on that subject. The members came to the view that it was inappropriate to demolish very significant parts of our history, even the areas which are of significance to people who were in this place in 1975-I think that that will be a significant point in the future which people will want to be concerned about and talk about-and return to the 1927 model. It was the view of members at that time that this question ought not to be one to be handed over to some experts to try to tell us that the 1927 model was far more preferable and that we ought to avoid the history that has been made, even in recent times, in this building. I would like to comment on the question of the interdepartmental committee, because it is being asked to second-guess the decisions of members of parliament who have already commented on those decisions of the bureaucrats. I think that it is most unfortunate for a government to deal with the Parliament in this way. I ask the Government to take this matter back and to develop ways and means in which the members of the Parliament-not only the Speaker and the President, the Presiding Officers, but the parliamentary committees-will be the determinants of the views that ought to be taken. The Government should make some observations on it, but it should certainly not ask the bureaucracy to take it over, as I believe has been done in the way in which the Government has responded to the report. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I table a policy discussion paper on the second regional radio network for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr DUFFY —The second regional radio network is a strategic element of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's plan to provide all Australians with three high quality radio services: ABC regional radio, ABC radio national; and the fine music and cultural ABC-FM service. These three services will be available across Australia from 26 January next year via the Aussat domestic satellite system. In addition, the Government gave an election commitment to increase the number of studios and transmitters attached to the ABC's terrestrial regional networks through the introduction of a second regional radio network. We said in 1983 that we would commence the introduction of this network within our first three years of office. We have achieved this goal. Already, planning for the second regional radio network is under way. Part of this planning involves the allocation of frequencies to the new network. In many parts of Australia FM radio frequencies will be used. Honourable members will recall that the shortage of FM frequencies was caused by the previous allocation of parts of the FM radio band to television services for channels 3, 4 and 5. This Government has already decided to clear the FM radio band of television services and as this work proceeds there will be more frequencies available for FM radio services including the second regional radio network. The second regional radio network will benefit over four million people located throughout regional Australia. This initiative will have three results: 1. The employment of some 60 additional staff to generate regional program content. 2. The construction of 16 new regional radio studios and the upgrading of all existing regional studios. New studios are proposed for the following centres: In New South Wales: Coffs Harbour, Lismore and Dubbo; In Victoria: Traralgon, Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton, Swan Hill, Mildura and Warrnambool; In Queensland: The Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast and Mount Isa; In Western Australia: Karratha, Derby and Kununurra. 3. Over the next five years, all this activity will lead to the progressive doubling of the amount of regionally produced programs-programs that will reflect the need for more local news, information and current affairs programs, as well as interviews with local identities. Honourable members will be aware that this Government has been working to equalise broadcasting services throughout Australia. Honourable members will also be aware that this Government has already addressed the provision of broadcasting services in Australia in three ways: First, all Australians, no matter how remote, will be able to receive ABC TV and radio, either through terrestrial transmitters, or by satellite through the homestead and community broadcasting satellite service-HACBSS; Second, over 600,000 people not currently receiving commercial television will be eligible to receive the remote commercial television service RCTS through the Aussat satellite; and third, my Department's forward development unit FDU has reported on options for the provision of three commercial television services to the majority of Australians within the next few years. Having successfully initiated the equalisation of television services throughout the country, the Government is now turning attention to radio services throughout regional Australia. The ABC's second regional radio network is one aspect of this planning. I commend this policy discussion paper to the House and invite honourable members, broadcasting organisations and other interested parties to provide me with their comments over the next two months. I present the following paper: Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Ministerial Statement, 29 November 1985. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.31) —The Opposition welcomes the statement on a second regional radio network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation made by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). The Opposition welcomes the recommendations presented by the ABC. For many years we have recognised the need and the desirability of having more services to the regions of Australia. As well as that, we have recognised the importance of blending localism with national programs in program planning. I am pleased that the Minister and, above all, the ABC in preparing the booklet just tabled by the Minister have recognised that so that people throughout Australia will be able to get what is now called ABC Radio National and, as well, have a greater localism in the programming and in news presentations as an alternative service over and above the services which the metropolitan areas get through Radio National. It is very important that people throughout Australia will now have access to both channels of ABC radio. This is a matter which goes back many years, as indeed the booklet itself recalls. The previous Government recognised the need for this development but also recognised the need to get the ABC's house in order. It set up what is now known as the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was this committee which recommended that the provision of a second network of outlets for the ABC radio should continue to have the highest priority in ABC radio development because it is the best means of redressing the imbalance of ABC radio services between metropolitan and regional areas. I am delighted that ABC now feels itself able to be organised in this manner. I also say that with the Minister's co-operation I have had the opportunity of seeing the physical arrangements of the ABC in several parts of Australia and talking to senior management of the ABC. I have become privy to some of the program, engineering, property, purchasing and development work of the ABC. I believe it is moving in the right direction. I join with the Minister in urging those people who wish to make submissions on the basis of the document, to modify or improve the proposals in the document, to make those submissions to the Minister in the next two months. I do not doubt that the most serious issue arising out of this document will not be its objectives so much but where the programming actually is carried out. I do not doubt that honourable members on both sides of the House will have different views to advance to the Minister over the next few weeks. The timing is unfortunate in one sense that we have the Christmas break coming down. I join with the Minister in urging everyone who has a strong view about this subject to focus on it immediately and get his views in before Christmas. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members I table a copy of the internal audit review by Price Waterhouse of the Australian Institute of Sport. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the internal audit review by Price Waterhouse into the Australian Institute of Sport. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —by leave-I refer honourable members to my comments to the House on 19 November 1985 concerning criticisms made that day in the Daily Telegraph of certain aspects of the administration of the Australian Institute of Sport-AIS. Further news- paper articles have since appeared and I have commented on these in answer to questions in the House. I indicated on 19 November that Price Waterhouse, the contracted internal auditor to the AIS, was to look into the matters raised. The terms of reference for this review, as authorised by the Chairman of the Board of Management, Professor John Bloomfield, were: As internal auditors to the Australian Institute of Sport undertake an internal audit examination of: 1. The specific allegations made in newspaper articles appearing in the Daily Telegraph of 19 and 20 November 1985 and any subsequent criticisms which are relevant. 2. The adequacy and efficiency of financial management practices and controls at the Australian Institute of Sport. A report by close of business on Wednesday 27 November 1985 is desired. The letter conveying the terms of reference to Price Waterhouse was signed by the Secretary to my Department, who is also a board member of the AIS, on behalf of the Chairman of the Board of Management who lives in Perth. The letter indicated, amongst other things, that: Whilst it is for the Board to consider the question of priorities in financial terms, your examination might please provide any information you consider appropriate and on which decisions can be made. I will be providing the Minister with advice on this aspect. Of course as internal auditors you have full and open access to all staff and records at the Institute and I give you my assurance that this will occur. Should you, during the course of your examination, wish to discuss aspects with me, please feel free to do so. Price Waterhouse yesterday provided the Chairman of the Board of Management, Professor John Bloomfield, with an interim report, a copy of which the Chairman has given me. I thank Price Waterhouse for providing this report so quickly. The auditor indicated that due to time constraints a more detailed report on the second term of reference is to be provided at a later date. Further reports will be made to the Board in the course of normal internal audit examinations. Let me say at the outset that no claim of an illegal act or act of impropriety can be levelled at the AIS. As I suggested to the Parliament last week, and I now reiterate, the Government and the Institute have nothing to fear from this report. The overall expenses of the Chief Executive, Dr John Cheffers, as the report states, were completely justified. This was because of the higher profile the AIS deserved and the excellent return accruing to the AIS from the increased publicity generated from this heightened recognition. The AIS was established under the Australian Capital Territory Companies Act and this report shows that no act of an illegal nature has been performed by the staff of the AIS which has acted at all times in accordance with the articles under which the AIS was established. Given its company basis honourable members must be aware that the AIS does not operate in the same way as a government department or statutory authority. As I said in the House last week I have implied no criticism of Minister Bob Ellicott, who set up the AIS with the structure of a private company. There was an urgency to get the AIS up and running and I suspect that Minister Ellicott would have preferred some different kind of legislative set-up had time been available to him. Public Service guidelines and structures cannot be readily applied to the Institute which operates with all the autonomy available to a private company, albeit under the control of the management board. I turn now to the specific allegations in the Daily Telegraph and briefly address the report's basic findings on each point. The Daily Telegraph drew attention to increases in the Institute's expenditure on hospitality and stated: The auditor indicated that given the increased size of the Institute and the desire to lift its profile, the extra expenditure has been justified in purely commercial terms. Entertainment of members at the 1985 Tax Summit: The auditor found that the cost `does not appear excessive given the importance of the occasion and the amount of publicity received'. Travel by AIS staff Cheffers, Purnell and Bowman to Melbourne and Sydney on the weekend of this year's football grand finals: The auditor found that individual costs were not unreasonable but considered the broader question as to whether the travel was necessarily a matter for management and the Board. The records show that Dr Cheffers and his colleagues undertook personal appearances, speeches and marketing tasks on these trips. Reference is made in the report to the matter of the `Carbine Club' lunch refuting the allegation that Cheffers lied on this issue. Cuts in coaching budgets: The auditor found that there were no cuts made to the budgets allocated to individual sports and for the purpose of providing funds to the Illawarra Institute of Sport. Purchase of expensive office equipment: The Auditor noted that the Daily Telegraph had inaccurately over-quoted these costs. Whilst expressing the view that there was `some justification' for this level of expenditure the auditor felt that `the same effect could have been achieved at less expense, particularly in so far as the desk is concerned'. I am advised that the configuration of this desk is such that it is used also as a conference table. As far as the appointment of Dr Jean Roberts is concerned: The auditor indicated that `we have been unable to find any evidence of undue influence being exerted by the Executive Director in relation to the appointment of Dr Jean Roberts'. Higher duties allowances: The auditor found that `the payment of higher duties allowance to the General Manager was made in accordance with existing Institute policies'. Spot merit scheme and travel of General Manager's wife: The auditor indicated that `the payment of a spot merit award to the General Manager appears to be within the guidelines for the scheme approved by the Board but notes that it exceeded the approved limit'. Employment of Executive Director's family: I note that the Daily Telegraph article alleges that Dr Cheffers said his son had not worked at the Institute. Dr Cheffers advises me that he was never asked a direct question about his son and in fact had not denied it. He was asked whether members of his family had worked there and he replied: `Yes, my daughter'. He claims his son's employment as a computer programmer was so brief he did not recall it. With respect to the payment made to Dr Cheffers' son, the auditor noted that `the consulting fee of $150 per day was reasonable by consulting fee standards'. The purchase of rowing boats: The auditor did not find any impropriety and while noting that aspects of the quotation process were rather `clumsy' found the `initial quotation by Sykes was reduced as a result of the Institute adopting the common commercial practice of asking the preferred supplier to ``sharpen their pencil'' '. The final result was that the AIS procured the best boat at the cheapest possible price. Is this a scandal? I would like to refer now to a matter which I find personally distasteful; that is, the allegation by the Daily Telegraph that the Executive Director, Dr John Cheffers, used coercive tactics in attempting to influence appointments to the Australian Athletics Union. This allegation has not been substantiated, and I have been advised by Dr Cheffers that the allegations made by `unidentified sources' to the Daily Telegraph are untrue. Honourable members will see that these allegations have been dealt with comprehensively by the internal auditors, Price Waterhouse, and it becomes clear that they are nothing more than scurrilous and mischievous claims which, when analysed closely, amount to very little-at most an occasional display of lack of judgment at the management level within the Institute. Certainly no instance of illegality, dishonesty, misappropriation or the like has been made by the auditor. In fact, the House should be aware that as recently as 4 November 1985 the Commonwealth Auditor-General wrote to me saying, amongst other things: Australian Institute of Sport The audit of the Institute for 1984-85 has been completed and a copy of the financial statements and my report thereon are attached for your information. The results of the audit of the Institute's accounts and records were satisfactory. I understand that the Auditor-General will be examining Price Waterhouse's findings in the current review to decide whether his office needs to conduct any further examinations at this stage. I should also mention that the AIS Articles of Association provide that the business and affairs of the Institute shall be overseen by its Board of Management. The Articles also provide that the Board may delegate to or confer upon the Executive Director any of its powers. Pursuant to these provisions, the Executive Director, under the Board, has been responsible for the day-to-day management of the AIS, exercising substantial powers. The auditor has addressed in a preliminary way the broader question of financial management and controls, and the budget process. The report recognises that steps are being taken to overcome certain weaknesses, and adds: Given the size of the Institute, particularly now that it has assumed responsibility for the running of the National Sports Centre and all its facilities, we believe the administration and finance sections have performed remarkably well. However, these increased responsibilities made more urgent a move to statutory authority basis and were the catalyst for these changes I set in train many months ago. I should like to go on record that I have been mindful of the need to review the basic structure of the AIS for quite some time and as early as April this year I suggested to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) that we initiate a joint review of the Institute's staffing and funding arrangements. This was agreed to in September and I have asked the Board to put it in train. The auditor indicated that the Board's move to establish a finance committee should be applauded and, in recognition of the need to institute tighter financial controls, the Board of Management has advised me that it has today expanded the role of the finance committee that it established on 29 October 1985 into a more comprehensively-tasked executive committee. This committee of Board members will monitor and oversight the executive and financial management of the AIS. The auditor has identified a potential budget shortfall of $450,000. I am advised that the Board today at its regular scheduled meeting, as a matter of routine business practice, took the necessary action to have a balanced budget for the full financial year. This is exactly the practice followed by companies, private or public, government departments and authorities all over Australia. As I indicated to the House last week, I have put in place the necessary arrangements to convert the AIS from a company to a statutory authority. Under this arrangement the AIS becomes completely accountable to the Parliament. My action has been in train for months and I will not accept the suggestion that I reacted to baseless newspaper articles in administering my portfolio. This matter of statutory authority basis was considered by the Government on 13 November and endorsed on 18 November before any newspaper report appeared. I am sure honourable members opposite, all Australians, and particularly the Minister who began the Institute, Bob Ellicott, will be extremely concerned at the damage these shallow allegations could cause the AIS. It is a great pity that the Institute, which was set up by the Opposition and has grown to become the world's greatest sports training institute, should be placed in such a negative light by such doubtful allegations. I am sure all will appreciate that the survival and the success of the Institute depend upon the support of not only sponsors and the Australian sporting community but also all Australians. A possible allegation that could be levelled at the AIS staff is that they have been too enthusiastic in selling their product. But that has obviously worked as sponsorship and recognition of the AIS have hit high levels. The United States Academy of Sport recently awarded a distinguished service award to me in recognition of the standing, world wide, of the Australian Institute of Sport. Mr Connolly —Did you give it to the Institute? Mr JOHN BROWN —What does the honourable member think I did with it? The message that the AIS is here, it is the best in the world, and Australia is again on the track to taking on the best, has obviously got across. It was a job that needed to be done and the results will obviously have a great and beneficial effect on national pride and international identity. Overblown articles implying lavish expenditure, which have been discounted in the auditors' report, have done no good for the reputation of the AIS or for sport generally in Australia. I hope that the Daily Telegraph will rectify the damage its sensationalism has caused in the very near future and publish positive articles on what the AIS is really all about and what its achievements are, because they are considerable and a matter of great pride. I must pause here to pay tribute to the Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who throughout the course of this unnecessary business, while pursuing his legitimate inquiries, has shown a genuine concern for the future of the Institute. It is a pity that one small section of the media has not been able to emulate this responsible behaviour. Let me assure the House that if there are any matters in the future that I consider warrant further action I will have absolutely no hesitation in taking swift and appropriate action at that time. In closing, I want to reiterate my earlier view that exaggerated criticisms of administration, and of style, involving individuals should not be allowed to obscure the magnificent job that has been done in developing the Institute into the finest sports training institute in the world. The members of the Board under Kevan Gosper, recently retired, and now Professor John Bloomfield, are all highly distinguished Australians. It is a matter of deep regret that these people, giving generously of their time and talents to administer the Institute, have by implication been impugned by the vicious assault made on the management of the Institute and the Executive Director by the Daily Telegraph. Reasonable questions and justified criticisms are the rightful prerogative of the free Press. However, I am sure that all fair-minded commentators would agree that the Daily Telegraph articles were blown out of all proportion. They must however be answered fully and promptly. I hope this statement and the accompanying report have fulfilled my commitment in this regard. Since its inception in January 1981, the Institute of Sport has made a great contribution to the development of sport. The original proponent, Bob Ellicott, the board members-past and present-successive executive directors and dedicated Institute staff have all contributed greatly to these achievements. While fully recognising the importance of appropriate financial systems and controls, and ensuring that all necessary action is taken to that end, we are determined to avoid diversion of the Institute from its vital course by sensationalised comments on administrative matters. I hope that the media take a responsible look at that report. There are two or three lines that could be blown up into serious articles, but if the media take a balanced look at that report and particularly the line I quoted earlier-which says that, given the size of the Institute and the responsibilities that it undertakes, the performance of the administration and finance sections has been admirable-they will give at least a balanced reporting. I thank the House for this opportunity to respond properly and fully in order to put the record straight. I present the following paper: Administration of the Australian Institute of Sport-Ministerial Statement, 28 November 1985. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.52) —I think I can assure the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that the Press is taking note of that report as he wished. I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the member for McPherson moving a motion of censure of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism because- (1) he has misled the House in response to questions, and (2) of his failure to exercise proper ministerial accountability. We move this suspension because the Minister has misled this House. He has assured the House that all is well at the Australian Institute of Sport; yet the auditors reported in August and November 1985 that all was far from well. On 19 November the Minister said in this House: `I am not aware of any financial shortcomings either now or in the past'. Yet on 16 August this year and on 7 November, two reports were issued specifically in relation to internal audit matters. They concerned a number of matters-travel and subsistence, procedures relating to the hire of the National Sports Centre, cash handling procedures, the payment system and the operation of souvenir shops. The Minister has failed to exercise proper control. He admitted in this House on 19 November that he is fully responsible for the Institute. The report tabled today indicates that the Executive Director of the Institute has spent money excessively on entertainment, furniture, travel, the misuse of the spot merit scheme and the employment of his own family. There has, in particular, been a serious injustice in the purchase of rowing boats. The lack of financial management was clearly documented in August, in November and again in the auditors' report today. However, through all this the Minister maintains that all is well. The Minister is not a fool, but one has to ask: Is he blind; is he careless; does he not care for his own responsibilities; and why does he commend this careless approach by the Institute to the misuse of taxpayers' money? On top of all this, the Minister today made a statement which makes an absolute mockery of his ministerial responsibilities. all the allegations in the Daily Telegraph of some days ago which prompted an investigation have been in part or in whole substantiated-all of them. The allegations, the Minister said at the time and again today, were nothing but grubby journalism. If one picks up the report, one sees page after page after page where the Daily Telegraph allegations are substantiated. How he can come into this House with a whitewash statement and say there is nothing in it is certainly beyond us. He has ignored all the criticism and has used only some of the selective parts of that report. It is not good enough for any Minister. The Minister ignored his responsibilities to put things right at the Institute and he has has ignored his responsibilities to properly manage public funds. I add that $14m worth of public funds is allocated to the Institute this year. We do not lightly seek to suspend Standing Orders and censure a Minister. If he had taken some note of our request some days ago for a full inquiry, this might have been avoided. Instead, he sought to cover it up with an auditors' report. This is no criticism of the auditors, but it is unfair to ask auditors to check on their own work. We have maintained that someone from outside the Institute and not the internal auditors should have been required to do that investigation. As it is, the auditors have not been able to complete their job and some of the matters raised in the allegations are still to be addressed. The auditors admit that in their report. This is more than just a financial check, although that in itself is serious enough, because what we are talking about is the complete style and responsibility of the Minister and the management of the Institute of Sport. If there had been a full inquiry, the Minister would not be taking things so casually. It is now clear why he wanted to avoid that full inquiry. This report, which he seeks today to whitewash, in itself is damning enough. It is the Minister's attitude to this auditors' report that causes us to seek this censure. He seeks in his statement to dismiss these serious allegations. If he had addressed them seriously, again a censure motion might have been avoided. His attitude is in line with his lavish spending on his numerous overseas trips and his approval of excessive amounts of money to be spent in his own electorate on sports facilities. The Minister has not attended to his duties. I quote again from the auditors' report which has just been tabled: There appears to be a lack of understanding of the budget process. Latest financial reports indicate a potential budget shortfall of approximately $450,000 a situation that is clearly unacceptable. There is no evidence of the existence of a corporate plan. The staff budgeting system is poor. Relations with some Government departments appear to be poor. There is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst staff and some are highly critical of the financial management of the Institute. Is it any wonder that we seek to censure this Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he should be actually giving reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders, not for the censure. Mr WHITE —Mr Speaker, the Minister should be censured because I believe he knew that things were not right at the Institute. Why else would he have moved this year to change the status of the Institute to that of a statutory corporation? Why has he done this after only two years since he assumed responsibility for the Institute? He is moving to change the status of the Institute to give him more control and at the same time he says: `No, everything is fine'. He cannot have it both ways. We, therefore, Mr Speaker, have moved that Standing Orders be suspended so that we can initiate a censure motion against the Minister. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.01) —I second the motion. This is a matter of very grave concern which involves the administration of the Australian Institute of Sport and the responsibi- lity of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), to take adequate precautions with taxpayers' money which, as my colleague, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), has just told the House runs to some $14m in this financial year alone. I remind the House that on the 19th of this month questions were put to the Minister about what he described as little less than a scurrilous article in the Daily Telegraph. The Minister admitted firstly to my colleague the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) that, yes, he did accept full ministerial responsibility for the activities of the Australian Institute of Sport. Having said that, he then went on to stipulate that he had never received at any stage prior advice before he had read the articles in the Daily Telegraph as to whether there were any matters of concern relating to the internal and the financial administration of the Australian Institute of Sport. It is quite an extraordinary circumstance that one day before this matter was raised in the Parliament the Minister told us that in fact the full Cabinet had approved the establishment of this organisation as a statutory authority. Mr Young —We do not mind giving the honourable member leave to move his censure motion. If he does, we will be able to deal with this matter directly. Question resolved in the affirmative with an absolute majority. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.03) —I move: That the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism be censured by the House for: (1) His misleading statements in the House on 19 November when he said, `I am not aware of any financial shortcomings at the Australian Institute of Sport. I have not been made aware of any in the past. The only accusations, imputations or rumours that I have detected at any stage are in that rather grubby little article in the Daily Telegraph this morning'. (2) His failure to act on audit reports dated 16 August and 7 November 1985, the latter drawing attention to weaknesses in the following areas: Travel and subsistence, cash handling procedures and the payments system. (3) His failure to exercise proper ministerial control of expenditure of taxpayers' money by officers of the Australian Institute of Sport. (4) His failure to conduct a proper public inquiry into all aspects of the financial administration of the Australian Institute of Sport. (5) Failure to adequately respond to the conclusion contained in the Auditor's report which said: `Internal audit work carried out both prior to and during the current exercise causes us to be concerned as to the financial management and financial well-being generally of the Institute'. Today the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has engaged in a massive whitewash combined with a fair amount of media kicking. The Minister's statement is grossly inadequate and in attempting to get himself off the hook he has deliberately set out to mislead the Parliament. In today's statement, the Minister said: As I suggested to Parliament last week, and I now reiterate, the Government and the Institute have nothing to fear from this report. Today the Minister tried to come in here and whitewash a report that contains damning allegations. He says that the Government has nothing to fear. This merely reflects the gross irresponsibility of the Minister who, when presented with a report of this kind, has effectively decided to ignore it. On 19 September in this House, the Minister declared his total confidence in the Institute. He said: I am sure that the affairs of the Institute of Sport . . . have always been handled well . . . He went further on 20 November, and said: I am very confident that, when I come back with the report from the internal auditors, everything will be found to be in apple pie order. The internal audit is quite devastating in its far-reaching criticisms. Today the Minister has attempted to suggest that the only valid criticism of the Institute is that its staff are `too enthusiastic in selling their product'. That is the only criticism he picks up out of the report. Apparently the abuse of financial management in the report does not rate very highly. The principles of ministerial responsibility in these matters have been clearly laid down by the present Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and others. On 25 August, the Attorney-General said in this House: Ministerial responsibility, I remind honourable members, does not concern the question of what one knew; it concerns the question of what one ought to have known. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said on 7 September: Ignorance is no excuse. The Minister has continuously failed, despite the knowledge that all was not well at the Institute, to address himself to the problems of the Institute. It is in all our interests to make sure that the Institute is properly administered. The report of the auditors which was tabled today is a damning indictment of what is happening at the Institute. However, the Minister made a statement which seeks to ignore everything. There should be no reflection on the job done by the auditor, Price Waterhouse, which did what it could in a few days. The fact is that the auditor should never have been put in the position of having to audit, check and report on its own work. It is the auditor to the Institute. On two occasions the auditor has informed the Institute that all is not well but the Minister failed to act. On 19 and 20 November 1985, a series of allegations were made in the Daily Telegraph. All of those allegations have been sustained. Let us look in some detail at the allegations and what in fact the auditor's report says, not what the Minister comes in here and tells us the auditor's report says. The report said that hospitality expenditure was not adequately documented and that there was excessive entertaining of staff. The Minister managed to forget to mention these matters. The auditor also made the ironic point that there were too many working lunches in restaurants. Mr Young —There won't be in future. Mr WHITE —No one is more qualified to talk about that subject than the Special Minister of State. The auditor said that there were too many working lunches in restaurants and that there was excessive entertainment of staff. The whole process is not adequately documented. None of these matters gets a mention by the Minister. The Minister comes in and says that the auditor's report says that everything is going well. What a nonsense! I think it is ironic that the auditor says that there are too many working lunches in restaurants at the time when the Government is trying to clamp down on that very thing. The Institute which is the direct responsibility of the Minister is accused by the auditor of spending too much public money, taxpayers' money, on working lunches in restaurants. No wonder the Minister is having trouble getting his proposal for tax deductibility for the Sports Aid Foundation through the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Mr John Brown —Do you think so? Mr WHITE —I would think so. We will look forward to its coming in here. The auditors said that money under the Minister's control is being wasted in restaurants. Let us turn to the entertainment during the Tax Summit. Another allegation is that $3,700 was spent on a party by the Institute to entertain some people who were attending the Tax Summit. This is all in the report; it is just that the Minister chose not to mention it. An amount of $3,700 of taxpayers' money was spent by the Institute of Sport entertaining I do not know who-it does not matter. That is not the best of the matter. That was not an initiative of the Institute of Sport. Guess who directed that the money be spent? It was none other than the Minister. That is clearly documented in the auditors' report. Yet the Minister comes into the House and chooses to ignore the matter. It is no wonder that he has a reputation as a big spender when he can say, with a flick of the finger, to the Institute: `Yes, blow $4,000 on a party for the Tax Summit'. The Tax Summit was called for the purpose of trying to get some sense into the tax system in this country and to reduce the burden of taxation on Australian taxpayers. Yet the Minister blows $3,700 on some party at the Institute. This action is certainly in line with his big-spending trips. Let us turn to the travel to Melbourne by the Executive Director, the Sports Co-ordinator and the Marketing Manager of the Institute. The Executive Director, in a travel requisition, according to the auditors, said that he went to Melbourne-again, this was not mentioned by the Minister-to address the Sportsman Club and the Carbine Club. It is known for a fact, and I understand that the Executive Director has since admitted it, that he did not speak to the Carbine Club. As far as I know, he did not have an invitation to speak to the Carbine Club. Yet he put in a travel requisition saying that he had to go to Melbourne to speak to the Carbine Club. The auditors' report states that they are not prepared to comment on whether the travel was necessary. I am more than prepared to comment that the travel was certainly not necessary and that there was a deliberate falsification of travel documents. Let us turn to the reduction of coaching bud- gets so that more money could be given to the Illawarra Institute of Sport. In the end no money was given but, again, the report makes it clear that it was intended to take money from the coaching budgets and to give it to that Institute. We did not get that from the Minister when he talked about the report. I now turn to the furniture for the office of the Executive Director. The Executive Director-again this is contained in the auditors' report tabled today-bought himself a chair and a table. For the table he paid not $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 but $7,000. He paid $1,000 for a chair and he outfitted his office for $19,000 on top of that. I fail to understand why sheer jealousy would not make the Minister take his Executive Director to task. It is typical of the Department that more and more money is being spent on salaries and equipment and less and less on the delivery of facilities to sport. I do not know how the Minister can approve or support that sort of expenditure when people in this House do not have enough rooms or offices to put their secretaries in. When I first came to the Parliament I had to take the door off a cupboard to put a chair in so that my secretary could come in. Yet the Executive Director of the Institute of Sport can spend over $20,000 of public money on his own office. I now turn to the question of higher duties allowances. The Institute spent $14m of public money. It does not accept the Public Service guidelines on higher duties allowances; the Executive Director changes the system. We have to ask why the Public Service guidelines are not good enough. The report tabled today says that the system should be changed; the Institute should adopt an acceptable system that abides by the rules. We did not hear anything of that from the Minister when he came into the House to make a statement on the audit. The list of things that are clearly documented, but which failed to get a mention by the Minister, goes on and on. The spot merit scheme was set up to recognise special achievements by the Institute's employees. What did the Executive Director do? Firstly, he gave $1,500 of public money to the wife of one of the employees to go to Japan. That was not enough so he gave her another $1,300 so that she would not be out of pocket. We are not talking about one of the employees being rewarded for an achievement; we are talking about a wife being sent to Japan. Yet the maximum amount of money that should be taken out of the spot merit scheme is $1,000. The report stated that the scheme is decisive. It should be abandoned and it is a damning condemnation of the management. Mr Blunt —Did the Minister tell us this? Mr WHITE —Of course not. He brought in the goodies. I now turn to the employment of the Executive Director's family. It is not illegal, of course, to employ members of his family at the Institute but we have to ask why, in one newspaper interview, he said that only one member of his family had been employed when he now says that two members were employed at some time. Were the positions advertised and were the beneficiaries qualified? It is up to the Executive Director to use his judgment and I believe that his judgment has been in error. He was the man who had to approve payments to members of his own family. The report stated that it is not appropriate that they be employed. I heartily agree with that. I come, finally, to what is probably one of the most serious allegations. Unfortunately, it was not addressed by the investigation, through lack of time. I refer to the purchase of rowing boats by the Institute. A statement was never made that tenders were required to be called. Honourable members opposite should listen and make a judgment as to whether this sort of financial management is fair. I would have thought that it was in the interests of the Minister, the Institute and everyone in the sporting world to make sure that the rowing boats were seen to be purchased on a fair and equitable basis. I think all honourable members would agree. Only two companies were involved. One was given every assistance by some members of the Institute. The other one heard about it by accident when there is fair evidence to indicate that the tenders, so called, had already been closed and only one had been consulted. So Sargent and Burton, the other company that had been ignored, went to Canberra to see Dr Cheffers and pleaded with him to be allowed to tender. Eventually it was allowed to tender, although when it went to get the documents it was told by an official of the Institute that the order had already been placed with the other company. It was allowed to tender eventually, the tender was considered, and Sargent and Burton were written to, to say that its tender was not up to scratch because the boats were experimental. The boats have been in use since 1978; they have won numerous world championships. Yet the Institute wrote back to the firm, having denied it the opportunity to tender, and said `your boats are experimental', even though they had been in use for eight years. The Executive Director had the grace to admit that he had been wrong, but no attempt was made to redress that wrong. It is important, even if tenders do not have to be called for by regulation, that justice is seen to be done. I hope that Government members who are defending their Minister will at least have the grace to admit that when public moneys are involved justice must be seen to be done. That is a serious allegation that has not been answered by this report. What is more, I quote finally what the report says-again this has been ignored by the Minister-about that particular episode: Clumsy attempts to set the record straight by having Sykes produce a second quotation letter at a different price were in the circumstances totally unnecessary. My time has run out. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.27) —It is my pleasure to second the motion of censure against the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). We have brought this motion forward in the House this evening because one of the basic principles upon which this parliamentary system is meant to operate is that Ministers must always tell the truth to the House. If we are to assume that the Minister who is currently subject to this censure motion has told the full truth, as no doubt he will claim he has, the only other reasonable conclusion we can draw is that he is incompetent. If he is incompetent, surely he is unfit to carry out the ministerial responsibilities which have been placed upon him by the Prime Minister. We are aware of the fact that this Government is well known for its incompetence in so many areas. We have been told, for example, by the Minister in this particular situation that there is no act of impropriety. We have seen other examples in recent months involving the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and his act of impropriety in both the Combe affair and various other matters related to his activities. I will now go to the substance of this matter. The essence of the censure motion is that the Minister has misled the House by the statements he made here on 19 November and on subsequent dates, when he said: I am not aware of any financial shortcoming at the Australian Institute of Sport. I have not been made aware of any in the past. The only accusations, imputations or rumours that I have detected at any stage are in that rather grubby little article in the Daily Telegraph this morning. In addition, he has failed to act on audit reports dated as early as 16 August and 7 November this year. It is worth noting for the benefit of the House that the latter report on 7 November drew attention to a number of weaknesses in the following areas of the Australian Institute of Sport-travel and subsistence, cash handling procedures and the payments system. In addition to that, the Minister has failed to exercise proper ministerial control of expenditure of taxpayers' money by the officers of the Australian Institute of Sport. As has already been mentioned in this debate, some $14m this year alone is the budget of that organisation. The Minister has accused the Opposition of being disloyal and unsportsmanlike when we seek to bring back to the Minister's attention his primary responsibility, which is to look after the public funds of Australian taxpayers. How is the Minister able to stand up and explain this matter to the people and this House on this occasion when two internal audit reports have been brought forward in recent months on the activities of this Institute? In addition to that, the Minister has had evidence from one of the companies that put forward proposals to build boats for the Institute. The Minister ignored that correspondence. He came into the House and told honourable members that he knew nothing about these matters. How otherwise can we conclude that the Minister has failed to conduct a proper public inquiry into all aspects of financial administration in the Australian Institute of Sport? Let us examine exactly what the Minister did. Under criticism he decided, very much on the spur of the moment as a result of questions on the 19th of this month, that he would get the internal auditors to do yet another inquiry. But when one reads the report of the internal auditors, which is very different from what the Minister has claimed in his statement in this House, one very important point comes out. Firstly, the auditors say they had only a week to do the job. Clearly, therefore there are limitations on the product which has been tabled here tonight. Secondly-and this is the most important thing of all-it was also said that a subsequent report would be made. Those words did not appear in the Minister's statement. He has told this Parliament and the Australian people that somehow or other this initial report is the beginning and end of the matter. I assure the Minister that that is not so. The Opposition will not allow the Minister to get away with this sort of thing. We demand nothing less than a much higher level of accountability, a level of accountability which the Minister accepted when he became one. The Minister admitted on 19 November that he as Minister would accept responsibility for the activities of the Australian Institute of Sport. Was there any doubt therefore that the Opposition should ask the Minister on that occasion to conduct a full and proper public inquiry into all aspects of the financial adminstration of this Institute, and the Minister refused to do so. I emphasise a point which again the Minister has ignored, or perhaps it is another example, like the Prime Minister with the ABA, of selective amnesia. These are the words of the Minister's internal auditors who gave him the report, which was tabled in this House tonight. I quote: Internal audit work carried out both prior to and during the current exercise causes us to be concerned as to the financial management and financial well-being generally- not in the particular but generally- of the Institute. They are damning words, and we wait to see how the Minister will explain it. The Minister has misled the House. On 19 November he said: I am very confident that, when I come back with the report from the internal auditors, everything will be found to be- and I use those delicate words- in apple-pie order. I think the Minister will find that his apple pie is laced with arsenic, because he will have to live with and eat the words he has spoken in this House. How can this Minister make such an assertion when, clearly, if he had an ounce of ministerial responsibility he would have known and obtained knowledge about those auditors' reports of February and November this year which showed so clearly inadequate procedures in storeroom control, a lack of adherence to basic control mechanisms, weaknesses in travel and subsistence, hiring procedures, cash handling and overall payments? Yet we are told even before they carried out this third report-I emphasise that it was the third report-that everything was in `apple-pie order'. The Minister's continual assertion is that the Daily Telegraph's allegations were nothing more than a `a mere beat-up', and I quote those words. He went on to say: `I am not aware of any financial shortcomings'. Clearly, as I have said, he should have been aware of these financial shortcomings. If he was not, it demonstrates what we in the Opposition have suspected for the last three years of the Minister's period in office-that he has skated over most of his administrative duties. The Minister likes a good headline, he likes everybody to love him, but what he does not like-and he likes good holidays-is to do his job. That is what he is here for. He is not here to come into this place and say: `I have received an award for ``my sportsmanship'' '. My sportsmanship! He admitted that he had to give the award to the Institute and of course the Institute should have had it. He likes going round the world getting awards. How about his staying here and doing some work? Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr CONNOLLY —Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was emphasising for the benefit of the House the reasons why the Opposition has moved this censure motion on the Minister responsible for the Australian Institute of Sport. It was based on two basic principles. Firstly, it is the responsibility of Ministers to administer authorities within their responsibility, in a competent and far-sighted manner; secondly, at all times they must tell the full truth to the Parliament. I concluded by making the observation that as the Minister had not told the full truth to the Parliament, we can only deduce that he has simply failed in his duties and therefore should not be a Minister. As everybody knows he harbours the ambition of one day being Minister for Defence, one can only say that if he cannot administer $14m he would be hard pressed to administer billions of dollars which would be the case if he administered the Department of Defence. Nevertheless, the unfortunate fact is that people tend to follow the example set for them by their leaders. The Minister has, over the years, set some excellent examples of extravagance. For example, he is the third most expensively travelled Minister of any portfolio in the present Government and that includes both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). He is even reputed to have spent some $900 on a briefcase for his private secretary. Again this was all taxpayers' money. No wonder senior staff at the Institute of Sport have decided to follow the redoubtable leader who has set such a splendid example of munificence and extravagance in using taxpayers' money. I go back to the point made by the Minister and why he misled the House on 19 November when he said: I am very confident that, when I come back with the report from the internal auditors, everything will befound to be in apple pie order. As I said before dinner, this was not the first report; it was the third report that had been brought forward in recent months. This Minister denied to the House that he knew anything about the other two reports. As I have said, we can only conclude from that, that even if his denial is accurate it demonstrates gross incompetence for which this House has no other course but to hold him responsible. Going on from that, I conclude he should have known about the reports-that is, the reports of February and November-which showed inadequate procedures in storeroom control accounting, lack of adherence to basic control mechanisms, weaknesses in travel and subsistence arrangements, hiring procedures, cash handling, payments and so forth. Yet the Minister saw all of this as nothing more than a `beat-up' by the Sydney Daily Telegraph. Let us take the detailed claims of the Minister and see how they can be effectively disproved. He claimed that the Institute's finances were in `apple pie order'. Clearly, from the conclusion which is in the audit report, that cannot be the interpretation of any reasonable person. I repeat the quotation for the second time: Internal audit work carried out both prior to and during the current exercise causes us to be concerned as to the financial management and financial well-being generally of the Institute. That is the final observation in this report and it is only an interim report; it is not the final report by any means. The Minister went on to suggest that Dr Cheffers, the Chairman, and members of the executive authority are all splendid people. The Opposition does not doubt that but one has to say in all honesty that whether one can use the words `complete confidence', as the Minister has, is something about which the Australian electorate and this Parliament must make their own judgment. Again it is quite clear from the internal audit report that the auditor does not have complete confidence in the manner in which the administration has been carried out; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not clear up the issue of tendering. It merely claimed that all available documents at the time had been released under the Freedom of Information Act. Again we have to gather from the comments made by the Minister in this House at Question Time on the 19th of this month that he did not know about the FOI requests for information. If he did not know about them he should have. That is something I have no doubt the Minister will be telling us more about later. In addition the Auditor-General's Office has informed me that on a number of occasions it would have liked to have conducted an efficiency audit on the affairs of the Australian Institute of Sport. However, an efficiency audit under the Audit Act can be carried out only with the specific approval of the Minister. In other words he has to give signed approval for an efficiency audit to be carried out. The Minister has failed to do that. In other words he has not appropriately utilised his responsibilities to ensure that areas under his jurisdiction are subject to the most rigorous investigations. Instead, he hides behind the argument that this is not a statutory authority; it is a private company. It is all the Opposition's and Mr Ellicott's fault because it happened during the previous Administration. We do not deny that. However, let us look at the facts. For three years the Minister has been in this portfolio. He did nothing about the matter until the day before this issue became public. I find it difficult to believe that he could go to Cabinet to get clearance for a statutory authority one day before a major public scandal is released in the newspapers concerning the incompetence and inefficiency of this administration and the Minister's incompetence as the responsible Minister. In addition, previous inquiries by Price Waterhouse, the internal auditors, have been only on specific matters. Price Waterhouse has never conducted a general internal audit. That is contained in the analysis which has been tabled by the Minister tonight. I turn to the details mentioned by my colleague earlier about increased Institute spending on hospitality. The auditor said that there was excessive entertaining of staff and they were not convinced as to the need for working lunches in restaurants. In terms of travel to Melbourne and Sydney for grand finals the auditors said: We do not believe it is appropriate for us to comment on whether the travel was necessary. They said it was up to the Board to make a decision. It is certainly up to the Minister to have the courage to give us the facts about the situation. Regarding the purchase of expensive office equipment the auditor said that the `same effect could have been achieved at less expense'. The auditor called for re-examination of the possibility of abandoning altogether higher duties allowances in relation to existing Public Service regulations. The auditor seriously suggested that spot merit funding and the travel of the General Manager's wife were potentially divisive. There was some doubt as to why the lady had travelled in the first place and she exceeded the limit by $1,500. Yet this was designed as recognition of special and meritorious achievements by an Institute employee. Since when was the employee's wife a member of the staff of the Institute? I can continue. There are cases of the director employing his family-both the son and daughter. While it is true that there are no regulations specifically stating that that cannot be done, one has to say-this comes out in the report-that the judgment of the senior officer of the Institute is subject to considerable doubt. But we were told in the House on 19 November and on later occasions by the Minister: `Everything is in apple pie order; don't worry. I have the fullest confidence in these people. They can do what they like, just like me. I travel the world spending taxpayers' money. I expect nothing less from them'. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(8.10) —I rise to answer this censure motion more in pity than in anger. I think that it is a well-known custom-- Mr White —Don't patronise the Speaker. Mr JOHN BROWN —I heard you in silence, you oaf. Could you give me the honour? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Bradfield were given the courtesy of being heard in silence. The Minister deserves the same silence. Mr Carlton —I take a point of order. It is just not acceptable for Ministers to use a word such as `oaf'. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member finds the word offensive, I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Mr JOHN BROWN —I withdraw. As I said earlier, before I was so rudely interrupted, I answer this censure motion more in sorrow than in anger. The dictates of this House and the customs of the parliamentary system are that a censure motion is moved in the gravest of circumstances and is usually moved by a leader-not usually by the newly arrived No. 27 in the batting order. Mr Beale —Hang on! I resent that. Mr JOHN BROWN —Out of respect for the honourable member I withdraw that and substitute No. 28 in the batting order. The motion is seconded by Smiles Cunningly, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I am well-- Mr Connolly —I take a point of order. I take exception to the use of so-called nicknames of that nature. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield finds the term offensive. I suggest that the Minister withdraw. Mr JOHN BROWN —I withdraw. This censure motion is so ludicrous as to be almost laughable. However, out of respect for this institution, I will answer it. I am as conscious as any member of this House of the requirement of all members of this House to tell the truth, especially Ministers. The first item in the censure motion suggests that I misled the House when I said that I was not aware of any financial shortcomings at the Australian Institute of Sport, et cetera. This charge is based on the fact that the Opposition has two stolen documents. I emphasise the word `stolen'. They are internal audit documents dated 16 August 1985 and 7 November 1985. Mr Sinclair —So we should not know what is going on. Mr JOHN BROWN —Do not talk to me about knowing what is going on in business. The right honourable member should not tell me that, in view of his record. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the National Party. I have already reminded honourable members that the previous two speakers were heard and given a fair go. I think that the Minister should be allowed that courtesy. Mr Carlton —They were not being abusive. Mr SPEAKER —I do not like answering back from the honourable member for Mackellar. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —The two documents on which this statement about misleading the House is based are stolen documents. Mr Blunt —I take a point of order. The docu- ments to which the Minister refers were referred to in the audit report which was tabled by the Minister this afternoon in making his statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —Of course the documents are referred to in the report; they exist. But they should not exist in the hands of the Opposition. Given the lack of honesty, a quality which is not inordinately displayed by these characters, I am not surprised to find that they have them. They are two working documents. Mr Blunt —I take a point of order. The Minister has impugned the honesty of all members of the Opposition. Unless the Minister can prove that we have those documents, I ask him to withdraw his remark. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Richmond will resume his seat. Mr JOHN BROWN —The two documents are internal working documents addressed by the internal auditor, Price Waterhouse, the accounting firm which the honourable member also seemed to impugn, to the Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Sport on one hand and Mr Paul Brettell, the General Manager of the Australian Institute of Sport, on the other. Can the honourable member please explain to me how he got them, if he did not steal them or someone else did not steal them? I did not mislead the House. When I said that I knew of no financial shortcomings at the Australian Institute of Sport, I was doing what I normally do-that is, telling the absolute truth. I had not seen these documents. Why should I have seen them? The honourable member for Bradfield, the former Chairman of the august Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, should know what internal documents of an auditor are; they are the ordinary documents that come by rote from the auditor to the General Manager of the Institute pointing out some shortcomings in the auditing system. They come quite regularly to every department, every company and every statutory authority that exists in Australia. I see nothing sinister about the fact that the Institute had them and did not show them to me. Why should it? It shows them to the Board, not to me. If the honourable member knew anything about the company structure that I inherited, he would know that the Institute of Sport responds to the Board, which responds to me. So by impugning my honesty the honourable member is also impugning the honesty of a very distinguished bunch of Australians. There is no point in the honourable member for Bradfield seeking to dismiss that charge and saying: `We didn't really mean to insult them; we were just doing our duty'. He would not know what duty was. Honourable members opposite are a leaderless, talentless and inefficient bunch, searching around on the second last sitting day of this Parliament to find some dirt to put on this Government. What a puny excuse for a censure motion, coming in here to tell me that the Institute of Sport manager has spent $7,000 on a desk. He did spend too much money on the desk and he has been censured. The big $7,000 desk scandal! How does that line up with the scandals which members of the former Government managed to achieve in their term in government? If we had moved a censure motion on all of their scandals we would have done nothing else. Their ministerial improprieties were: Garland, allegations of bribery; Fraser in 1978; Withers in 1978; Sinclair in 1978-79; Newman in 1979; Webster in 1979; Newman in 1979; Sinclair in 1980; Staley in 1980; Sinclair in 1980-81; Nixon in 1981; Moore, MacKellar, Durack and Howard. Do honourable members opposite want to hear any more? They were absolute scandals involving the personal honesty of Ministers and members and involving their shortcomings as Ministers. They involved scandals of hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet the Opposition comes in here and moves a censure motion on me because the Executive Director of the Institute of Sport bought a $7,000 desk. It is a great big scandal! Into the bargain, I have a list of the 22 resignations and sackings that occurred in the 6 1/2 years of the Fraser Government. It is a wonderful record of honesty! Members of the Opposition have the hide to come in here on the second last day of this parliamentary sitting and impugn my honesty, impugn the honesty of members of the Board and try to censure this Government on this puny set of allegations that have been refuted by the most credible accounting firm in the world-Price Waterhouse. If honourable members opposite had read the report-if they had half a brain they could read it-they would have seen that every allegation was refuted. There are certain weaknesses in the company structure that I inherited when I inherited the Institute of Sport. I have been at pains through this shabby little affair not to impugn the Hon. Bob Ellicott and I now refuse to do so. Bob Ellicott set up this organisation with a company structure because he had no other choice. He knows now, as well as I know, that the company structure is not suitable. Early in this year I moved to have this company changed to a stat- utory authority basis. For the honourable member for Bradfield to come in here and suggest that I went to Cabinet the day before these allegations were made and got the Cabinet to agree to a statutory authority basis is an absolute lie. The negotiations about this have been going on since early in the year. Mr Connolly —I take a point of order- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister knows that the expression he has used is unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw. Mr JOHN BROWN —I withdraw. It was misleading. Mr Connolly —Mr Speaker, I find that equally offensive. He told this House that he went to the Cabinet the day before, which was Monday, the 18th. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The suggestion that matters have been misleading are scarcely unparliamentary. Mr JOHN BROWN —Let me get to a couple of the specific charges that have been made. Most of them I will forget. There was a claim that Dr Cheffers went to Melbourne excessively and went to the Aussie rules football grand final. The honourable member for Bradfield also made a very strong imputation that he had misled the auditors because he did not go to the Carbine Club, he had never intended to go there and that he had filled in a false document. I have in my hand his invitation to the Carbine Club. It is very interesting. It begins: `Our patron, Sir Brian Murray'. One of the other honourable guests who would be present was the Hon. Jeff Kennett. He subjected himself to the indignity of putting up with Kennett in order to go to the club. But he did go there. I can rest assured, knowing the enthusiasm- Mr White —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I said he was going to address the Carbine Club. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —So that was dismissed- Mr Connolly —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I regret to take up the time of the House, but the Minister did say that I referred to the Carbine Club. If he checks my greens he will see that I did not do so. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr JOHN BROWN —Let us forget the Carbine Club. That is obviously a sore point with the Opposition. Let us turn to the rowing boats. The AIS is a private company. It does not call tenders. It wanted to buy boats for the rowing team that were compatible with the boats that it had inherited from the Australian Rowing Council when we took rowing into the Institute. The boats were made by Sykes. They happened to be the best boats in Australia. Despite the bleatings of the Opposition about how successful the other boats were in world competition, the other boats have not won a medal-and I will not name the manufacturer-since the Olympic Games of 1968. It has been a fair while in the wilderness. Meanwhile, the boats that we bought from Sykes won a silver medal and a gold medal at the recently completed world rowing championship. In regard to the other boats, two of them competed at the world championship and came eighth and ninth. I think our decision was correct. The offer was made by Sykes at a certain price and the boats were accepted. The AIS, as is normal company practice-I am sure the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) will suggest that this is the case-said: `Good, we have decided to buy your boats. They are the best and most suitable. Can you do something better with the price'. He reduced the price by $3,000. What a terrible thing the AIS did with public funds! It got the best boats available at the cheapest possible price. I would have thought that that was something to be applauded. Mr White —It was an unfair tender. Mr JOHN BROWN —It was not an unfair tender. That charge was made by Sargent and Burton. All the documents sought under the freedom of information legislation were granted to it. It did not believe that anybody could be honest. It then went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and had its appeal thrown out. The offer was fair. The Opposition knows that it was fair. The decision was made by the rowing coaches, the Chairman of the Australian Rowing Council and two members of the Board. If honourable members opposite say it is not fair, they are impugning many good, decent people, which is pretty well their form. The rest of the charges are hardly worth answering. Let me say this: The Opposition-talentless, leaderless, without any policies, without any shred of respect in the Australian community-has been dredging around, trying to find some dirt. It even encouraged Warden in the gallery this week to write this little article entitled `Opposition gropes around for dirt'. Let us look at how much it found. It found that the Institute of Sport may have bought a desk that was too expensive. That is the only charge that has not been answered.The article reads: The strain of trying to find something, anything with which to stain the Government sometimes shows in the Opposition's more frantic attempts at scandal-detection and in recent days it has fallen to poor Mr White . . . to pursue what looks like a particularly elusive wild goose around the chamber. It has fallen to Mr White to do his personal best to get the Minister for Sport Recreation and Tourism . . . to admit that there have been extravagant spendings at the Australian Institute of Sport on junkets, jewel-encrusted javelins, swimming pools filled with asses milk, mink-covered tennis balls . . . I tell honourable members that they do not exist, any more than these alleged scandals exist. I totally reject any notion that I misled this House. I have never misled this House; I never will. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. G.Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr White's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Aldred, K. G. Humphreys, B. C.Coleman, W. P. Punch, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPEAKER —Before the suspension of Standing Orders, there was before the House the motion: `That the House take note of the papers'. The question is: That the motion be agreed to. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.41) —We have just had a debate in which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) had the opportunity to explain to the House exactly what his reasons were for not telling the full story as to why he has failed in Question Time in this House and on other occasions to explain to the House the full background to the extraordinary events concerning the financial affairs of the Australian Institute of Sport. It is a matter of great regret that although he had 20 minutes today to explain himself in the motion of censure before the House, he demonstrated a total inability or unwillingness to do so. One can only conclude from this that the Minister is guilty of the charges which we brought against him. Those charges, put quite succinctly, involved the fact that he did not tell the full truth to Parliament. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, LBilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C..Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Slipper, P. N.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. 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 assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention 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 Convention 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 Chynoweth,Mr Halverson and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Dobie,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Chynoweth,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh and Mr Allan Morris. 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 Hawker,Mr McArthur,Mr Reith and Mr Shipton. 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 fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of 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 the honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens 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 members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, repsectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independance of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn and handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, 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 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 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 Representative 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 every pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 iniquitious 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 in Parliament 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''. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, and 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 we being persons connected with and employed in the building industry within Australia deplore the attempts to enforce compulsory unionisation within the architectural profession and in particular do oppose all attempts at compulsory unionisation, particularly by the Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees and base such opposition on the conflict with the essence of a professional standing, a conflict with the Architects Acts and a conflict with basic Common Law interests, particularly in respect of the Architect being independent in supporting the interests of his client, and further that if an Architect is directly involved with a Building Industry Union that this would be a conflict of interest in the role of the Architect as a Quasi-Arbitrator between Proprietor and Builder. Any such proposal to require compulsory unionisation of Architects discriminates against and inhibits progress within the profession and the building industry and curtails employment throughout the Nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled reject proposals for compulsory unionisation within the architectural profession and support the profession and the building industry in its independence and standing for the promotion of independent and high standards within the profession and the building industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Government has abolished the one hundred per cent tax deductability status previously applicable in respect of cost incurred by businesses in entertainment expenses, the actions of the Government in this regard will have significant and negative impact on business and employment in the restaurant industry. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not proceed with the taxation measures announced on 19 September 1985 affecting the tax deductability status of these entertainment expenses. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Miles. The Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraph, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. 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-voilent 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 environmental 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 improverished 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 every pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils. (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. 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. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils. (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. 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,Mr Downer,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Porter and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully 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 (i.e., 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 Australians 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 Petition of certain Citizens of Australia, residents of the Electorate of Isaacs and adjacent areas respectfully draweth to the attention of the House that: There is no day centre facility offering paramedical services to the aged in the area despite the demonstrated need for such services. Your petitioners therefore request that the Australian Government provide funding as soon as practicable to establish such a centre within the area. by Mr Charles Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Amendment Bill 1985 Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985 Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact on Australia's future prosperity of the Government's taxes, charges and high interest rate policies. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That Government Business be called on. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Miles, C. G.Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Downer, J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I, McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. G.Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise I present the report of the Committee incorporating a dissenting report, together with copies of minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Order that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-The report, which has just been tabled, is the result of three years work by the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation of the Thirty-second and Thirty-third Parliaments and the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise which was appointed in this Parliament. The elections of 1983 and 1984 and the resulting changes in membership of the committees seriously hampered the inquiry's progress. Notwithstanding these frustrations, I believe the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise has produced a well reasoned and considered report. The Committee visited all major capital city airports, some of the larger secondary and light aircraft airports and three Royal Australian Air Force bases in the course of the inquiry. Because of the constraints and cost factors, it was not possible to visit and take evidence at all airports in Australia which suffer noise or noise related problems. However, I consider that as a broad cross section of aviation facilities was inspected and information was supplied by a large variety of sources, sufficient information has been obtained to formulate meaningful recommendations. While a minority report is included on two matters, the Committee was able to reach unanimous agreement on most issues. People who regard the only solution to the noise problem as relocating all airports away from residential areas will be disappointed with our report. Of course, there is one possible solution but Commonwealth funds are limited. It would have been naive of the Committee to expect the Government to accept recommendations which would result in the expenditure of many billions of dollars when other priorities such as health, housing and schooling need to be taken into account in allocating limited resources. In my view, however, if the recommendations are implemented they will effectively resolve many of the problems, or, at the very least, ensure that problems related to aircraft operations do not worsen. I also believe that the recommendations will ensure that airports operate as far as possible in a manner compatible with the surrounding communities. I now turn to some of the major issues in the report. Technological advances in engine design since the introduction of the first jets in Australia have resulted in significant reductions in aircraft noise. As the noisier jets are replaced by quieter new generation jets, the noise environment around airports will continue to improve for approximately 15 years. However, following completion of the fleet replacement of noisy types, no further substantial noise reductions can be expected. Solutions to the noise problems in the long term lie, therefore, in the way airports and aircraft are operated and in land use planning and control. The Committee took considerable evidence on the effects of aircraft operations on the domestic life of the community. Overseas studies suggest that aircraft operations can lead to a decrease in mental and physical health and increased mortality rates. However, the Commonwealth Department of Health argued that most of these studies can be criticised on methodological grounds and no State government was able to provide evidence to the Committee which suggested a link between health and aircraft fly- over. It is apparent that the Department of Health has serious doubts about the extent of the relationship between aircraft noise and health and believes that the only way to allay anxieties or, perhaps, to confirm apprehensions is to provide objective data by conducting a better series of studies in Australia. The Committee has recommended that such studies be undertaken. Despite many individual and community submissions claiming that aircraft operations contribute to pollution and property damage, an examination by the Committee of available technical documents and an analysis of pollution samples suggest that pollution from aircraft sources is insignificant and that vibrations from aircraft noise are unlikely to cause damage. Accordingly, the Committee made no recommendations relating to pollution other than that State governments include airports in their general pollution monitoring programs. Whilst it is unlikely that aircraft noise causes property damage, it appears that turbulence from aircraft wing tips may cause damage. The Committee has, accordingly, recommended that in cases where it can be proven that damage to property from turbulence has occurred the Commonwealth should pay for the cost of restoration. Many witnesses suggested that the solution to the aircraft noise problem is to insulate buildings. Insulation has been adopted by a number of countries as a partial solution to the problem but we were unable to obtain information relating to the effectiveness of these schemes as they relate to homes. Our inspections of schools in New South Wales where noise attenuation measures have been undertaken indicate that at least for some institutions it is an effective measure. We have recommended that the Commonwealth Government assist the States to provide noise attenuation measures in schools and other institutions. More data will be needed, however, before a large scale home insulation scheme can be introduced. The evidence received on the effect of aircraft and airport operations on property values is confusing and conflicting. The most detailed information relating to the Australian situation was presented by the Queensland Government, which concluded that property values in area studies in Brisbane are diminished because of noise factors with the areas most adversely affected showing the greatest reduction in value-some up to 15 per cent. The Committee believes that the Department of Aviation is too definite in its view that, in the long run, an airport does not have a net depreciative effect on neighbouring house values. We have recommended that further work be undertaken, particularly with the assistance of the Queensland Government. The question of compensation was given serious consideration by the Committee. The Committee agrees in principle with the Law Reform Commission's report on lands acquisition and compensation. This report argued that there ought to be a general right for owners to recover compensation when the value of their land is diminished resulting from the use of facilities on adjacent Commonwealth land. We also agree with the qualification to that view that compensation should not be retrospective and should relate only to new developments. I turn now to aircraft operations. By far the greatest number of complaints received by the Committee, in written and oral evidence, related to the number of and variability in flight paths. It is a generally held belief that pilots and air traffic controllers have far too much discretion and that planes fly on routes which have little regard for the effect on airport communities. Many considered that pilots considered only economic factors, such as the saving of fuel. The Department of Aviation advised that pilots fly only where they are directed by air traffic controllers. Whilst the Department is conscious of the economic aspects of aircraft operations, it advised that the primary consideration is the safety of the operations, and in no circumstances are flights varied in a manner which causes adverse noise effects purely for a reduction in costs. The Committee concludes that whilst most flight paths are devised primarily for operational reasons, with noise abatement considerations being secondary, it noted a number of flight paths which, with minor modifications involving no loss of safety and little additional cost, could enable aircraft to avoid built up areas. We have, accordingly, recommended that the Department of Aviation review arrival and departure routes for noise sensitive airports and devise procedures based on noise considerations and modified only to the extent to make them operationally acceptable. We also believe that it may be possible for aircraft to avoid noise sensitive areas if navigational aids and radar are upgraded. We have recommended that the Department of Aviation investigate the feasibility of installing such additional equipment. Other operational matters considered in the report concerned ground running, training flights and helicopter operations. I do not have time to discuss these matters but refer honourable members to the relevant sections of the report. I now come to what many people will consider the most sensitive aspect of our report-the existing curfews. Local government and community groups are particularly concerned about night time operations. Many consider that curfew provisions are breached while others express the view that operations which are allowed under the curfew provisions are inappropriate. Mrs Darling —What did the committee think? Mr MILTON —I will explain that to the honourable member. Major curfews operate at Brisbane, Sydney, Essendon and Adelaide. The curfew restrictions generally apply to jet aircraft operated between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. There is no restriction on the operations of propeller driven aircraft. The aviation industry argued that the present curfew was irrational in that it banned the operation of most jet aircraft while there was no restriction on propeller driven aircraft which are often noiser than modern low noise jets. The industry argued that runways, rather than airports, should be curfew operated and engine noise, rather than engine type, should be the basis of the curfew. The Committee concludes that whilst it might be desirable that a total curfew be placed on flying during sleeping hours it accepts that such a proposal would be unacceptable to the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and also to some local councils as well as to the aviation industry. Accordingly, the Committee gives its qualified support to a revised curfew, provided that special flight paths are designed based on noise considerations, irrespective of economic consequences; that only the quietest aircraft be allowed to operate; that special runways only be used except in cases of emergency; and that the curfew be embodied in regulations under the Air Navigation Act. I emphasise here, particularly in view of the irresponsible comments which, I understand, appeared in Sydney newspapers today, that our recommendations will not cause any increase in aircraft noise. On the contrary, there should be a substantial decrease. Many witnesses have requested the installation of noise and flight path monitoring equipment. It was the general view that such equipment systems were essential to check the variability of flight paths and the perceived non-compliance with noise abatement procedures and to police the curfew. In addition, the equipment could be used for land use planning purposes as it could check existing noise contours and provide data for revised contours which more accurately reflect actual noise levels and aircraft approach and departure routes. The Committee agrees and has recommended that noise and flight path monitoring systems be installed at major Australian airports. The United States noise exposure forecast system was adopted in Australia in 1970. The noise exposure forecast system, NEF, is a scientific measure which takes account of the noise of aircraft, the frequency of aircraft types and movements on various flight paths and the average daily distribution of aircraft. The index is used in assessing average community response to aircraft noise and for land use planning around airports. The system was criticised by some councils and community groups on the basis that it is a very poor indicator of the response of any one person to aircraft noise and that it is complex and insensitive to changing aircraft patterns and noise levels. Notwithstanding these criticisms the system has been generally accepted by both State and Commonwealth authorities as the best available. The National Acoustic Laboratories tested some 20 systems and concluded that it was the best system available. The Committee concludes that on the evidence presented to it and despite its limitations the Australian noise exposure forecast system is the most appropriate system for use in Australia. The previous Select Committee on Aircraft Noise concluded that land use zoning is the key to resolving the conflict between rquirements of modern air transport and the occupiers of nearby land. We agree with that conclusion. With the exception of Tullamarine all major airports were located at their present sites by the mid 1950s. Urban growth has occurred around airports and under flight paths without regard to aircraft movements. Most unsuitable development has taken place in accordance with policies and principles which were compatible with airports at the time of the development. The Committee noted, however, that a considerable number of inappropriate developments were proceeding in many areas it visited. The Committee notes attempts by state and local government authorities to ensure proper land use. However, restrictions can lead to claims for compensation and the decisions of planning authorities are too easily subject to appeal in the courts. At the beginning of the inquiry the Department of Aviation advised that the Commonwealth had no powers to control land use in areas surrounding airports. Advice given by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department indicates otherwise. The Attorney-General's Department advised that the Commonwealth could prohibit uses of adjoining land which are incompatible with the use of the airport even on land which is not owned by the Commonwealth. The majority of the Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth Government make it clear to the States that if relevant State and local government authorities do not prohibit inappropriate land use in areas surrounding Commonwealth airports the Commonwealth government should legislate to do so. Furthermore, we believe that Commonwealth Government departments and instrumentalities should be bound by the land use compatibility advice which is provided by the departments of Aviation and Defence and which specifies the types of development which should occur within certain noise zones. This would not only include Commonwealth works proposals but would include State grants and special purpose funding such as the funding of child care centres in inappropriate noise zones. The Committee notes the confusion which arose concerning land use in areas surrounding Tullamarine airport and has recommended that the Commonwealth Government, when acquiring land for new airports, purchase all land necessary to provide an effective noise buffer zone. The Committee believes that a limited acquisition scheme for the worst affected residential areas should be introduced in Australia. Acquisition should be on a voluntary basis and at fair market value. Relocation and re-establishment expenses should be met by the Commonwealth. It is clear that many people move into an area with no knowledge that it is located under a flight path or is noise affected. While there is substantial information available from the Department of Aviation and other sources relating to aircraft noise, the problem is ensuring that this information is made available to persons proposing to live in areas which may be affected by aircraft noise. The Committee believes that this information should be provided during the conveyancing process; we have recommended that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services seek the agreement of his State counterparts for documents relating to property transfer within noise affected areas to specify that inquiries be made on behalf of prospective home purchasers concerning aircraft noise. Many requests were received from State and local governments and airport communities for the relocation of airports and the construction of new airports or the realignment of existing runways to assist in the alleviation of noise. It is clear that many of the proposed works suggested to the Committee will have noise abatement benefits but at huge costs. The Committee was placed in the difficult position of allocating a priority to various capital works programs. Sydney is the only airport where major capital works can be justified on capacity grounds. The Committee believes, after considerable deliberation, that should a capital works program be developed based on noise criteria, the highest priority should be given to those airports where the noise intrusion is greatest as determined by the number of persons within relevant noise contours. The Committee is also conscious that it has examined the problems associated with airports and aircraft operations quite apart from other government responsibilities. The adverse effects of aircraft operations is just one of the problems faced by urban communities. The Committee is not in a position to determine the priority which should be given to alleviating aircraft noise effects compared with other government priorities such as education, health, housing and other social welfare problems. We do note, however, that aircraft noise and its effects do not figure highly in the Department of Aviation's capital works decision-making process. Noise considerations must be given a higher priority. While we are not suggesting that there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead the community it is our view that ministers for aviation and the Department have not always provided information which fully informs the community. Electoral expediency has sometimes played its part in arousing community expectations which have subsequently been frustrated. The Committee believes that the Minister and his Department should exercise caution when talking about airport developments. We have examined statements which perhaps unintentionally could lead to all sorts of inappropriate conclusions. Careless statements have led to problems particularly with regard to Sydney, Adelaide and Perth Airports. We support the proposal by the Minister that a broad based committee system be established for each major airport. We note the Government's proposal to establish the Federal Airports Corporation to manage major capital city airports. There is no doubt that there is a built-in conflict between the objectives of the FAC to run airports on a sound commercial basis and to make airports better neighbours to the communities they serve. We believe that an environmental policy and assessment branch should be established within the Department of Aviation to develop and monitor noise abatement procedures, assess capital works programs and develop environmental policy guidelines. We further believe that the Air Navigation Act should be amended to include environmental matters and that the legislation establishing the Federal Airports Corporation specify consideration of environmental matters in the functioning of the corporation. Our report is critical of some of the attitudes and approaches of the Department of Aviation and in fact my colleague the honourable for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) is quoted in the report as saying: Public servants have all the technical expertise to come and argue against what any single citizen puts up, and they have the force and numbers of vast departments to put them down. It would be remiss of me, however, if I did not place on record the Committee's appreciation for the assistance given by the Department during the course of the inquiry. All information requested was provided promptly, and in some instances information was volunteered which was not complimentary to the Department and could have been withheld. I have been Chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation for two-and-a-half years and the assistance given by the Department of Aviation was beyond that given by any other Department. I wish to place on record the Committee's appreciation for the assistance provided by the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. A normal requirement of Hansard is that venues be quiet and suitable for sound recording. The Committee's deliberations involved conducting some of its hearings in buildings under flight paths. Even in these difficult circumstances Hansard staff were able cheerfully to produce accurate records of the hearing. My thanks also go to the staff members of the Committee Secretariat-to Mr John Cummins, Mr Ian Dundas, Mr Ron Kropp and Ms Judy Parkinson. Often at a moment's notice they provided their assistance cheerfully and enthusiastically. To John Cummins I owe particular thanks in view of the highly technical nature of this particular report. His grasp of the technical data involved, and his patience in ensuring that I, too, understood the intricacies of aircraft operations, has resulted in what I consider to be a most excellent report, which I commend to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons) —by leave-The report just tabled is the conclusion of a long and protracted inquiry which began in June 1982, when the then Minister for Aviation requested the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to conduct an inquiry into matters relating to aircraft noise. I have been a member of the investigating committee throughout the course of the inquiry. Evidence has been collected from throughout Australia and overseas. At all times the Committee made every endeavour to ensure that members of the public had the opportunity to express their point of view. To that end, numerous public meetings and discussions with community groups were held. The report should be an invaluable tool for airport planning and for many other matters of inter-relationship between the aviation industry and the general community. During the inquiry the Aviation Department and other Commonwealth departments, together with the aviation industry, provided invaluable assistance, particularly on technical matters. Local government bodies were also more than willing to assist. However, some State governments, and their departments, were not as helpful as they might have been. While the Department of Aviation was always available to offer assistance, I felt some officers assumed an arrogant and aloof attitude, and their responses provided only the minimum information required. Such attitudes are not helpful to a parliamentary inquiry, and those officers should remember that the taxpayers who pay their wages have a right to expect value for money. I do not extend that comment to the officers of the Aviation Department at Morabbin Airport, who went out of their way to be courteous and helpful. I was also not impressed by some actions of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council. The Council can play a useful role in co-ordinating advice, services and planning that will relieve noise pollution in their local communities. However, I am of the view that many of the actions of individual mayors are designed to pursue their own political objectives and assist their re-election prospects, rather than provide relief for the local community. All this is done at substantial cost to the ratepayers, with little benefit being derived. Land use planning, particularly for residential subdivisions near airports, is a major problem. Local and State governments must be held equally at fault. There is much buck passing between the two levels of government, and neither seems prepared to accept responsibility for some of the reckless approvals for subdivisions that have been granted. On advice from the Attorney-General's Department, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth assume responsibility from the States for certain land use planning. In a minority report the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fischer), the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) and I do not accept that conclusion. It is clear that the States have failed badly to enact adequate land use planning legislation that provides clear and distinct authority for both local government and State departments. However, I am of the firm view that the failure of the States is not reason enough in itself for the Commonwealth to usurp such a fundamental responsibility from the States. Land use planning has always been a State responsibility. It was inherent in the 1890 Constitutional Conventions that that responsibility should remain with the States. For the Commonwealth to use, or attempt to use, an uncertain head of power to overturn a fundamental tenet of the Constitution must bring into question the future of the Australian Federation. The more obvious solution is for the States to lift their game. The minority report also recommends the construction of a parallel runway at Mascot Airport. A widely held view in the community is that the construction of a new airport at Sydney will relieve the noise problem at Mascot Airport. The Department of Aviation and the aviation industry point out that even if a new airport is built at Sydeny, there will be very little change to the traffic volume or type of aircraft using Mascot. It follows that noise adjacent to Mascot will not be alleviated by simply building a new airport. The cost of a new airport could be of the order of $600m, while a new runway could be built for something less than $50m and provide adequate capacity for well into the next century. While it has not been included as part of the minority report, I must oppose the construction of a new runway at Perth Airport. The Department points out that for operational reasons, a new runway is not required and the present runway capacity will be adequate until at least the middle of the next century. The only reason for a new runway is environmental consideration. However, the cost of between $30m and $50m is not justified because a new runway would simply move the noise problem from one group of residents to another. Local government should do far more in providing information to residents. I cannot recall any evidence from a local council that can provide information on sound insulation or other materials or building techniques designed to minimise noise penetration into homes. Such information is essential to residents and building contractors and should be freely available at all council offices where aircraft noise is a problem. While aircraft movements will continue to increase, much can be done to alleviate the distrubance to people living close to airports. The report makes many such recommendations and should be actioned by the responsible officials. I would like to congratulate the Committee Chairman, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), for the enthusiastic and dedicated way in which he has led this inquiry. It has been a pleasure to work with him and the other members of the Committee. I would also like to thank Mr John Cummins and other members of the secretariat staff. Their professionalism and dedication are exemplary and set a high standard for other parliamentary officers to emulate. Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave not granted. Mr Tim Fischer —I seek leave to make a very short statement in relation to the report. Leave not granted. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the Committee's sixteenth report for 1985 relating to the construction of the Canberra Mail Centre, Fyshwick. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the 240th report of the Committee relating to the report of the Auditor-General for March 1984. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr PRICE —Honourable members will be aware that each year the Committee examines recently published reports of the Auditor-General. Following the tabling of the report of the Auditor-General for March 1984, the Committee sought written submissions from 16 departments in respect of 19 items. The Committee took public evidence on two items-National Biological Standards Laboratory-NBSL-and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The National Biological Standards Laboratory has the responsibility, together with the Therapeutic Division of the Department of Health, for ensuring that safe and effective theraputic goods for both human and veterinary use are available in Australia. The provision of standards for goods and the testing for their compliance with those specifications has traditionally been the method used to regulate their quality. However, there are a number of practical drawbacks in relying entirely on the standards mechanism. The preparation of standards has been a slow process. The Department of Health stated that so far 11 standards had statutory status and another seven were ready for ministerial approval. The Department elaborated on other mechanisms to supplement the inadequacies of the standards mechanism and these are outlined in the Report. The Committee was concerned at the progress in implementing the national Register of Therapeutic Goods since the legislation had been amended in 1981 to make the supply of the information by companies obligatory. On testing of therapeutical goods, the Department states that in general, products listed as pharmaceutical benefits are accorded a high priority for testing. For example, antibiotic products are tested at least once a year and other benefit items from yearly to every four years. This is not the case with veterinary antibiotic products where there is no effective regulatory action available to the Commonwealth under the present Act as in the case of pharmaceutical products. Proposals have been made to the States to establish a national system for the regulation of the quality of therapeutic goods for veterinary use. The Department advised the Committee that inspection at manufacture of pharmaceutical goods is probably the most cost-effective of the mechanisms for the regulation of quality and Australia has suffered because there were not enough inspectors. Additionally, the Department has amalgamated the Therapeutics Division of the Department of Health with the National Biological Standards Laboratory to form a unitary structure organisation. This now parallels agencies which occur in other countries, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America and the Food and Drug Directorate in Canada. The Committee was advised that NBSL's major problem is inadequate physical resources. As there is no central laboratory, facilities are in buildings scattered in different suburbs of Canberra and Melbourne. The bacteriology laboratory and the animal house facilities are totally inadequate and the sterility testing is performed in what used to be the kitchen of a restaurant. The Committee is aware that the report of the inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories-November 1983-noted that the NBSL was working in accommodation which was quite inadequate. The report's recommendations were made on the understanding that the project for a new building to accommodate all Laboratory sections, which was given approval in the 1983-84 Budget, would proceed, approval which was subsequently revoked. The Committee is very concerned that NBSL's facilities are so inadequate, below standard and scattered that it cannot effectively peform its functions. The Committee concluded that the appropriate legislative or policy changes needed to be implemented and, at the same time, the lack of resources needed to be addressed urgently. The Committee will be monitoring this situation closely. An audit was conducted in Queensland on the hiring of aircraft within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Certain aspects concerning the piloting of hired aircraft by a staff member were pursued with the ABC. The Committee was particularly concerned about this item in view of the death of an ABC regional program manager and his three passengers in an aircraft crash in Queensland on 24 October 1983. It would appear to the Committee that the administrative procedures of the ABC for the chartering of aircraft, except in the situation where a member of the Corporation's staff piloted the aircraft, were appropriate. The Committee notes that in the case of chartering and using its own staff as pilots the ABC has refined its procedures and laid down minimum standards. In its examination of the Department of Social Security's unemployment benefit administration, the Committee was very concerned with weaknesses in the administrative arrangements between the DSS and the Commonwealth Employment Service, and in the associated procedures and controls in operation at the CES. The Committee notes that revised arrangements for the review of unemployment benefit recipients have been on trial and the DSS is currently assessing the results of those trials. The introduction of new proof of identity guidelines by the DSS was noted in the Committee's 232nd and 233rd reports tabled in May 1985. As stated then, the Committee is most concerned that beneficiaries are properly identified prior to becoming entitled to, or receiving, benefits. The Committee is pleased to note that early indications are that the system is efficient and effective in meeting its objectives of deterring fraud while improving the service provided to genuine needy clients and that it is reducing client-staff tension during the POI procedure. In his examination of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Auditor-General noted evidence that deficiencies existed in the controls over the charging of trainee salary payments to appropriations of DEIR. The Department of Finance carried out a national survey of salaries charged to the appropriations of DEIR manpower, training programs in late 1982. The survey disclosed that salaries being paid to a significant number of persons were being charged incorrectly to DEIR appropriations, although they were no longer in a training program or had been appointed to a permanent Public Service position. The survey indicated a lack of oversight by DEIR of the charging of salary payments to appropriations under its control. The Committee does not accept that any overpayment of Commonwealth funds is merely a matter of miscoding. All cases detected must be investigated and recovery action instituted. The Committee examined the Australian Development Assistance Bureau's project of the desiccated coconut factory in Tonga. The Committee concluded that some responsibility for the failure of the factory must be borne by the consultants whom ADAB engaged to design a factory that would achieve the desired level of output, and to supervise its construction. The consultants did not adhere to the original specifications and some of the modifications implemented only exacerbated problem areas. In its examination of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Committee was concerned that the formal agreements on the adult migrant education program with all States and the Northern Territory had not been concluded more than two years after the Minister sought formal agreement. One State still has to accept the agreement. The Committee sees the finalisation of regulations for the payment of allowances as being necessary and urgent. Many reports of the Auditor-General-the latest being the April 1985 report-have referred to the potential for overpayments and administrative difficulties and the need for review of the continuing eligibility of pensioners in receipt of telephone rental concessions. The telephone rental concession was introduced on 1 October 1964. The Department of Communications is now co-ordinating the discussions regarding the administration of the telephone rental concessions. The Committee is concerned that this matter continues to be unresolved. In its examination of the Commonwealth Department of Transport, the Committee is concerned at the serious deficiencies in the Australian National Railways Commission's acquisition and development of computer based systems. The Committee will continue to monitor this item in subsequent Auditor-General's reports and in the response to this report. I commend this report to honourable members. Mr FREE(Lindsay) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the European parliamentary institutions and the German Democratic Republic. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr FREE —The delegation visited Strasbourg for meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. The delegation also spent seven days in the German Democratic Republic. The report which I have tabled draws attention to the activities of the delegation and makes a number of recommendations regarding future delegations and for Australia's relations with Europe. The delegation was able to meet with the European parliamentary delegation which visited Australia last week. We had discussions with that delegation on a range of issues but, as we note in the report, two issues continue to dominate the discussions; that is, the common agricultural policy and kangaroo culling. I understand that the discussion on these issues continued during the delegation's visit to Australia. In the report the delegation suggests that it may now be the time to widen the issues for discussion to matters of common interest, such as youth unemployment and the new technologies, rather than to continue to let matters on which we disagree dominate the discussions. This is not to suggest that the representations regarding the common agricultural policy or the concern over kangaroos should be neglected; rather they should be put in perspective. The delegation was regarded by the German Democratic Republic officials as the first Australian delegation to visit that country. The pride of the citizens of the German Democratic Republic in their achievements was obvious to the members of the delegation, as was their concern about peace and disarmament. The delegation was indeed fortunate in being able to meet with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the German Democratic Republic, as well as members of their Volkskammer, or People's Chamber. It also had discussions with the Burgermeisters of the towns of Erfurt, Leipzig and Weimar. In addition to these discussions, it was able to attend the opera and a symphony orchestra performance. The report gives details of the places visited by the delegation and of the discussions held. It is noted that the format for discussions is rather different from that we are use to in Australia. Commemorative wreaths were laid at the Buchenwald Camp and Stahndorf Cemetery where some 24 Australian World War I soldiers are buried. Statements made by members of the delegation at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are included as appendices to the report. I would thank our hosts for the hospitality extended to the delegation during the visit. I would also pay tribute to the representatives of the Australian Government who assisted the delegation. Ambassador and Mrs Witheford in Berlin were unstinting in their efforts to ensure the success of the delegation's visit. They were ably assisted by Carol Watson. Mr Tony Verner and Mr Andre Morony from the Paris Embassy, together with Mr Geoff Wiseman and David Hawes of the Australian Embassy in Brussels, were of great assistance to the delegation. On behalf of the delegation I would also like to express our gratitude to the staff of the Parliamentary Relations Office and in particular to Mr Kerin Schneemann for their care, often during trying times, in making arrangements for the delegation, and also to the staff of the Parliamentary Library for their preparation of a most comprehensive brief for use by members of the delegation. In particular, I pay tribute to the secretary to the delegation, Mr Phil Bergin. His patience, enthusiasm and quiet efficiency were vital ingredients in the delegation's success. Finally, I express my personal thanks to all members of the delegation for their friendship and forbearance, especially to Senator Robert Ray, who took over as leader on my premature departure and return to this country, and also the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) who served as deputy leader of the delegation during its period overseas. This was a very large delegation. It represented a wide spectrum of political beliefs from all parties from both Houses of the Parliament. The fact that members of the delegation were able to present a united Australian position on each and every question as it arose is evidence not only of their fine personnal qualities as parliamentarians, but also of the wisdom that their respective parties displayed in selecting them to serve on the delegation. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.53) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without it having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Construction of National Maritime Museum, Sydney. The Government has decided to provide $30m to the New South Wales Government for construction and fitout of stage one of the proposed National Maritime Museum. The museum will be constructed on a site at the entrance to Darling Harbour and will be an integral part of the 1988 bicentennial celebrations. It will provide a focus for the visit to Sydney in 1988 by the tall ships as part of the bicentennial. The museum will exhibit a collection of historic ships, maritime objects, documents and photographs and will provide workshop type facilities which will demonstrate many of the seafarers' skills. The project includes provision of wharves, sea walls, site works and a number of historic vessels relocated to berths at these wharves and at a wharf to be provided by the New South Wales Government under Pyrmont Bridge. Honourable members will be aware that a major redevelopment of Darling Harbour has been commenced by the New South Wales Government, and I believe the National Maritime Museum will be a major attraction for visitors to the area. The integration of the museum into the Darling Harbour redevelopment is a complex task and the time remaining for construction of the building is very short. It was therefore decided that construction and fitout could be best carried out by using the services of the New South Wales Government and its Darling Harbour Construction Authority. New South Wales has accepted responsibility for all construction and fitout and completion of stage one by January 1988, in time for opening by March 1988. A Commonwealth statutory authority is to be established to control and operate the Commonwealth owned museum. The Commonwealth is to provide the functional brief and a consultant architect, nominated by the Commonwealth, is to be engaged by the Darling Harbour Authority to design the facility. Timing is so critical that there is insufficient time for the proposal to be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report. The construction program requires the Commonwealth to provide its final briefing by mid-December 1985 and for formal commissions to be entered into by the Darling Harbour Authority. Construction will be undertaken by the `fast track' method, where the design and construction phases overlap, and construction is arranged progressively rather than the traditional method of following full design and documentation. The Public Works Committee has been informed of these decisions and has requested that its formal viewpoint be placed on record. It is as follows: The proposition for the National Maritime Museum was brought to the attention of the Public Works Committee last September by officers of the Department of Housing and Construction. The Committee was informed that the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government had been involved in discussions on the matter and that it was likely that a final decision would not be reached until close to the end of the year. The Committee was also aware that the project was running to an extremely tight timetable, with a view to making stage one of the development operational by 1 January 1988. The Committee was able to visit the site of the National Maritime Museum in Darling Harbour on the afternoon of 1 October following its public hearing into the GPO facade earlier that day. For the visit the Committee was provided with copies of an architectural appreciation of the National Maritime Museum which covered such matters as the concept, location, relationship with Sydney Maritime Museum, staging and timing, commercial aspects, planning controls, pedestrian promenades, site coverage and other planning factors as well as a drawing of the complete Darling Harbour development project. Prior to the visit to the site itself, the Committee was provided with a full briefing on the proposed development, including a slide presentation by the Design Director of the Darling Harbour Authority. Following a tour of the entire site development area, the Committee then inspected in detail the site for the National Maritime Museum. This comprises 3.3 hectares of land and water areas offered to the Commonwealth by the New South Wales Government. The site, which will be leased by the Commonwealth, is on the western foreshore of Darling Harbour, immediately north of the western end of Pyrmont Bridge. The Committee recognises the reasons for the urgent nature of the proposed work. In acknowledging this, the Committee is not in a position to state that it agrees with what exactly is proposed as the functional brief has not yet been finalised. Had it been given the opportunity to conduct a public hearing into the proposal and take evidence from all those involved with the proposed National Maritime Museum, the Committee would have been able to respond in a more meaningful way. The situation would, therefore, be best served by permitting the House the opportunity to resolve the issue. I can understand the view of the Public Works Committee that it would have been desirable to undertake the full consideration and report procedure in the conventional manner. However, my best advice was that if this procedure had been adhered to, there was little or no possibility of the museum opening by early 1988. I have undertaken to provide as much information as possible to the Public Works Committee as the project proceeds. Before asking the House to support the motion, I emphasise to honourable members that the Commonwealth will be retaining full control of the design and construction to its own brief. The museum will be Commonwealth owned and operated. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning and construction can proceed in accordance with the timetable I have outlined. I commend this motion to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak briefly, as Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Works, to the motion. I am mindful that the Committee-notwithstanding the fact that, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) quite correctly said, the Committee recognises the circumstances with which the Minister and the Government is confronted-is sensitive to one or two points. I am quite sure that in turn the Minister is sensitive to the attitude of the Committee. I am bound to say on behalf of the Committee that it rather senses that there are no problems with work of a routine nature such as post offices and telephone exchanges being referred to the Committee for inquiry and report. However, it also seems that all too frequently, when the work is of a contentious or challenging nature, such as the proposed National Maritime Museum, the Committee seems to be excluded from the opportunity to pursue its ordinary address to the question. In effect the Committee asks to what extent it has a meaningful role to play. The National Maritime Museum is just such a project that should demand the attention of the Committee. The Committee urges the Government not to treat it with contempt. We do not allege that that is the attitude of the Government, but it is an attitude into which one might fall without an appreciation of the full significance of so doing. As a consequence, the taking of such action could damage the reputation of the Public Works Committee. I reiterate that the Public Works Committee is responsible to Parliament. The Committee has a responsibility in regard to work funded by the Commonwealth. It resists in the strongest terms any deliberate act by any government to bypass the Committee. The Committee does not deny that the National Maritime Museum project has been a matter for both the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments and that it may be a special case being a Bicentennial project. Nevertheless, questions arise. The Bicentennial program has been around a long time. Why has it been left virtually to the last minute for a decision to be made, even when the functional brief has not yet been finalised? The National Maritime Museum type of project is one that could be fairly described as one that should be watched very closely indeed. The phrase `hasten slowly' certainly would be most appropriate. Some members of the Committee have expressed the point of view that it is virtually impossible to fit such a project into the timetable announced. Also, the Committee, in the course of a public inquiry on the National Maritime Museum, would have sought assurances as to the prudence of fast-track methods which are to be adopted for the project. The Committee, lacking such assurances, is generally uneasy about the whole project. The Committee, mindful of all these circumstances, is not prompted seriously to challenge the right of the House to resolve the question now before it. The Committee will accept the outcome as an ordinary consequence of the role of the House. I emphasise that the points I have made with regard to the motion to declare the work proposed for the National Maritime Museum an urgent work is the unanimous view of the Public Works Committee. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction (10.04) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fitout of office space at Canberra National Convention Centre, Canberra City, for Commonwealth use. The proposal involves a fitout of 42,000 square metres of general office space accommodation in five Commonwealth leased buildings of the Canberra National Convention Centre complex which is currently under construction in the Civic area of Canberra. The office space will be occupied by the Australian Customs Service, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Department of Territories. The fitout will involve partitions for offices, conference rooms, interview rooms et cetera; alterations to mechanical light and power, telephone, fire and other services to suit specific office layouts, minor alterations to ceilings, walls and floor finishes, joinery to public counters and reception areas; appropriate finishes to executive and staff amenities areas, including necessary services, guard posts, building perimeter security and other security measures and curtain tracks. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $12.3m at August 1985 prices. I thank the Standing Committee on Public Works for its prompt consideration of this proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.06) —The Opposition does not object to this motion. I remind the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) of my response to his motion to refer this project to the Standing Committee on Public Works on 9 October this year when the Opposition requested, firstly, that he ensure the maximum involvement of the private sector in the project, secondly, that he recognise the need to contain costs associated with the project and, thirdly, that he request his colleagues who are involved in the consolidation of office facilities to take advantage of the move to streamline and rationalise their departments' operations. Once again we ask the Minister to interest his Department to take notice of our requests. In talking to this motion for the fitout of office space at the Canberra National Convention Centre it seems appropriate to refer the Minister to a report issued today entitled `Report of the Auditor-General on an Efficiency Audit: Department of Housing and Construction-Construction Project Management: The National Acoustics Laboratory and Ultrasonics Institute, The Australian Defence Force Academy'. One of the reasons that we seek to ensure, in the case of the Canberra National Convention Centre, that maximum involvement of the private sector arises relates to some of the recommendations of the Auditor-General in the report to which I have referred. I will refer to these. The Auditor-General stated: . . . Audit did not find on record any assessment of the financial risks associated with the decision taken. This is in regard to the National Acoustics Laboratory and Ultrasonics Institute. Furthermore, the Auditor-General stated: Audit could find no authoritative material in the Department that could be used as a reference for officers making decisions in these cases. Furthermore, in discussing the Canberra National Convention Centre-again dealing with the National Acoustics Laboratory and Ultrasonics Institute-audit suggested: . . . tighter accountability and more formalised controls over variations should be introduced in the interests of the Department. The Auditor-General continued: Audit would prefer to see the judgment of these professional offices being exercised within a framework of authoritative guidelines set by the Department's Central Office. One of the reasons we reiterate the need for maximum involvement of the private sector in the Canberra National Convention Centre is that the Auditor-General gives a shocking report on the performance of the Department of Housing and Construction. Furthermore, the Auditor-General stated: . . . considers that improvement and rectification may have been effected more quickly if portion of progress payments had been earlier withheld. Prompt action along these lines is recommended- The Auditor-General continued: The Department agreed that there were problems- This is not the only project on which the Auditor-General had something to say about the performance of the Department of Housing and Construction. If I may reiterate, that is again why we are interested in seeing that the Canberra National Convention Centre has the maximum involvement of the private sector. In regard to the Australian Defence Force Academy the Auditor-General said: The. . . financial statement to 30 November 1984 showed the then current cost . . . at $65,037,159 with the total forecast cost to completion as $74,267,159. This compares with $49,036,228 when the contract was let in February 1983. Audit noted that 37 per cent of variations (40 per cent by value) were due to errors and omissions in original design specifications. Audit was unable to find evidence of the Department having produced guidelines or standards in this regard . . . the Department acknowledged that it does not itself perform a specific check of . . . work completed. Audit does not accept the Department's contention that the construction manager's staff can be regarded as an extension service to the Department. These continual reiterations of the Auditor-General on the performance of the Department of Housing and Construction lead us to have great concern about the refurbishment of the Canberra National Convention Centre. The Auditor-General goes on to say in regard to the Australian Defence Force Academy: Audit recommends that the Department arrange its priorities so as to ensure that work required for the application of proper financial controls is undertaken in a timely manner . . . Audit recommended that the Department develop guidelines for the administration of construction management agreements, basing the material on experience gained to date. In view of the Department's performance in respect of expenditure control, Audit reiterates that recommendation and suggests the Department give it high task priority. The Department does not accept that expenditure control has been inadequate. We have the extraordinary situation that the Auditor-General is telling the Department that its expenditure control has been inadequate and the Department denies it. To continue: Audit also recommends that before approving tenders, the Department should itself assess and document the technical and financial capacity of the tenderer. . . These continued shortfalls in the performance of the Department of Housing and Construction as evidenced by the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit in regard to the National Acoustics Laboratory and Ultrasonics Institute and the Australian Defence Force Academy lead us to conclude that it is imperative that the Minister direct his Department in such a way as to ensure the maximum involvement of the private sector in the refurbishment of the Canberra National Convention Centre. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.14) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Telecom Australia-Construction of new accommodation at Resources Management Centre, Clayton, Victoria. The proposal is for the construction of the three buildings at the Resources Management Centre, Clayton, to accommodate sophisticated equipment essential to Telecom's operations. The buildings comprise the following: An operations building to house data processing equipment, associated engineering services, staff facilities and amenities; an engineering services building which will accommodate emergency generators, supervisory systems, associated staff amenities, office, store, and workshop facilities; and a support building which will provide general office space for programming and administrative staff and provide appropriate amenities for all staff on site. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $18.3m at July 1985 prices. It is proposed to invite tenders as soon as approval is given with a view to completion of construction to enable the installation of equipment by the third quarter of 1987. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Works for its prompt consideration of this proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.15) —I remind the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) that in my response on 9 October to his motion to refer this project to the Standing Committee on Public Works I requested that he keep in mind, firstly, the need to contain capital costs and in passing to note that the Opposition is reviewing its attitude to the privatisation of Telecom Australia which may well have resulted in the taxpayer not having to shoulder the burden of this $18m expenditure; and, secondly, the need to ensure the maximum involvement of the private sector in the project. On almost every occasion that I have responded to motions by the Minister for Housing and Construction to refer work to the Public Works Committee or to move for approval of work I have requested him to ensure maximum involvement of the private sector. The report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit into the National Acoustics Laboratory and Ultrasonics Institute and the Australian Defence Force Academy demonstrates very vividly the inadequacies of the Department. The Opposition believes that a portion of certain of the functions now being carried out by the Minister's Department, such functions as architecture, design, engineering, planning, co-ordination, maintenance and supervision, could be carried out equally well by the private sector. Indeed, all these functions are currently being duplicated by the private sector. When a new project arises the Department decides whether it will use the private sector or its own internal resources. While we in the Opposition recognise that it would be quite inappropriate to ask the private sector to perform all these functions-for example, in matters of national security and maintenance in outback areas-we believe that the Department should be making an effort to reduce its internal work load by selectively transferring the functions mentioned to the private sector. The Opposition does not object to this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the National Party moving that the House do now adjourn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The right honourable member will give me the motion in writing. Mr SINCLAIR —I tender in writing the motion to suspend Standing Orders. It is a fact that the hour is now quarter past ten. The House is sitting merely because the Government has not been able to get its act together and the Senate has not passed the legislation. We believe it appropriate that the House should adjourn according to the sessional order which was that the House should adjourn at 10.15. In those circumstances I believe it appropriate that we should suspend so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent me moving a motion to that effect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Beale —I second the motion. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.20) —The Government opposes this motion. The Government has before the House substantial legislation and it is seeking to give an opportunity to honourable members to debate the legislation which is before the Parliament. It may be a source of amusement to the Opposition-having wasted a considerable amount of time with censure motions and other diversions-to seek the adjournment of the House at this particular point, but it is not the Government's intention to support this motion. We oppose the motion. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp. J.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Humphreys, B. C.Coleman, W. P. Punch, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.31) —I rise to address the House on the Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill 1985. I support what was said by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who, as the House is aware, has already put the Opposition's point of view on this Bill. In my opening remarks I must take up some of the comments made by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) who is, in fact, the only Government member at this stage to have addressed the Government's point of view. I was rather surprised to hear the honourable member say that the Opposition was guilty of simply dreaming up issues and running around looking for homes for them. Rarely has there been a Bill before the House on which the Opposition has had to do so little looking for an issue. This Bill simply highlights a gross administrative error on the part of the Government. Over 12 months ago, this Parliament approved a Bill to amend the Quarantine Act. The Minister responsible, then the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), failed to notify the Parliament of changes to the regulations. In spite of that failure the Department of Primary Industry has continued not only to collect but also to impose fees over that period. When we consider the enormity of this administrative bungle; and this lack of administrative skill on the part of the Minister for Health, it is no wonder that he has been relieved of his responsibility for animal and plant quarantine; it is no wonder that he has been relieved of his responsibility for old people's homes; and, given the present state of hospitals in Canberra, we might reasonably expect him shortly to be relieved of his responsibility of Medicare as well. Today, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) comes into this House carrying the unwanted child of the Minister for Health because in fact the fees are still being collected illegally by the Department of Primary Industry, thanks to an error on the part of the Minister of Health. What is quite evident from the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry is that responsibility for this administrative bungle rests with the Minister for Health. The point that I make to the House this evening is that the whole issue of quarantine, quarantine fees and the way in which we administer quarantine in Australia is one of paramount importance. I refer to the 1979 report on quarantine by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. The Committee acknowledged that animal, plant and human quarantine was important and pointed out that we are also endeavouring to keep out of Australia diseases, which do not attract attention. The Committee said this: Diseases of economic importance to Australia's pastoral industries need not be exotic diseases which cause death and destruction. Diseases which reduce output, increase costs and restrict access to markets are becoming more significant as competition in world markets increases. If our quarantine facilities and branches are being ineffectively administered, we might well ask ourselves what is happening to the policing of quarantine in Australia. There are few questions as important to Australia's primary producers, many of whom are represented by members on this side of the House. It is significant that Australia is a unique island free from exotic diseases. An area in my own State of South Australia is in fact free from fruit-fly, and ought to remain so, only because of the way in which quarantine regulations are policed. There is a need for proper policing not only of the fruit and vegetable industries but also of the enormous Australian livestock industries. The fact that Australia is free from endemic livestock diseases has allowed us to exploit markets that would otherwise be denied to us. There are plenty of countries to which we sell our agricultural produce which would gladly, and do gladly, erect non-tariff barriers simply on the grounds of quarantine. There is not a primary producer who is not acutely conscious of the demands that those non-tariff barriers have on his marketing skills. We ought to do all we can to keep livestock areas or plant areas free from diseases so that we can maintain the few markets that are open to us. The way in which we police quarantine is of paramount importance in this day and age when air travel is regarded by a great number of people as a way of life. In a previous debate in this House today the efficiency of the Australian Customs Service was praised by members on both sides of the House. However, members from both sides of the House should be concerned about the administrative bungling that we are currently addressing ourselves to. We can be satisfied that with nothing short of a 100 per cent effort in regard to the quarantine aspects of animal, plant and human health. Only last week my attention was drawn to a case in New South Wales where plant quarantine had been much less than adequate. In this instance a passenger arriving from Israel attempted to import a citrus tree. That tree was rightly confiscated. However, astonishingly, it was later released and had to be tracked down and subsequently destroyed by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. When we talk about quarantine we do not talk simply about diseases that are painfully evident even to the untrained eye. We are talking about viruses that may take weeks, months or even years to evolve. The rest of the world watches the way in which we administer and police our quarantine service and markets are opened and closed to us on the efficiency or inefficiency of that service. What we have before us tonight is a case of gross administrative inefficiency. If we are not prepared to demand 100 per cent efficiency from our quarantine services, we cannot expect people to stop importing to Australia things that we find less than desirable. I must digress for a moment and point to the threat to the Australian wine industry and Australian health from polluted wines that come into this country from time to time. I conclude my participation in this debate by referring with a touch of irony to an article in the Canberra Times on 15 November 1985 which said that the Minister for Primary Industry had announced a $75,000 campaign that was being developed by the public relations section of the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service. The article went on to state: This year the Commonwealth will spend $205,000 on promoting interstate plant quarantine, financing the publicity dollar-for-dollar with the States. The campaign centres on a cartoon-type character called Border Bandit, patched together out of fruit and vegetables and wearing a hat with dangling imitation fruit flies. We must ask ourselves, in view of the administrative bungle that has occurred, whether in fact the Minister for Health ought to be known as the Blewett border bandit. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.40) —I commend the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the introduction of the Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill which is yet further evidence of the Government's persistent concern regarding the need for an effective and efficient quarantine service. I also commend the past work of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and his Department in quarantine legislation. The purpose of this Bill is to validate the collection of human, animal and plant quarantine fees. It will also deal with the fee charged for the removal and disposal of waste from overseas aircraft. For a long time a fee was charged for this service which was performed by quarantine authorities but recent examination of the process has shown that there is no legal backing for the charging of such fees and this Bill will validate their collection. Travellers who arrive from overseas and food waste on overseas aircraft present a potentially dangerous reservoir of exotic disease. The introduction of, for instance, foot and mouth disease into this country would spell disaster, not only for primary producers but for all Australians. There would be an immediate halt to Australia's export of meat and other animal products such as skins and this would result in the loss of many millions of dollars in export income. It would cause a severe blowout in our trade balance and reduce living standards in rural and even urban areas. For instance, the cost of the recent outbreak of fowl plague in Victoria, which was confined to a small area and eradicated quickly, ran into millions of dollars. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease would be far costlier. It would affect our primary export industries and, if it spread to feral animals, it would be extremely costly to control. Controlling feral animals is likely to be a major obstacle to eradicating some outbreaks of exotic disease. Present plans and techniques are inadequate and co-ordination between agencies responsible for fauna, vertebrate pests and animal health can be greatly improved. Developing feral animal management strategies has the dual advantages of not only improving exotic disease preparedness but also reducing agricultural and environmental damage by feral animals. It was only when the Hawke Labor Government came to office that recognition was given to the threat of exotic disease spread through feral animal populations. This Government provided Federal funding for the first time for feral animal control in the 1984-85 Budget and increased this by 25 per cent in the 1985-86 Budget. It also took a Labor Government, with its Minister for Primary Industry, to act upon a report presented in the early 1980s by a working party on wildlife and exotic diseases, which recommended the appointment of an officer in the Department of Primary Industry to be specifically responsible for feral animals. This Government has appointed two officers. The appointment in 1984 of Dr George Wilson as senior officer in the new feral animal control section of the Australian agricultural health and quarantine service was very fortunate appointment. Dr Wilson has, in conjunction with the States, drawn up guidelines for a national contingency plan for feral animal control in the event of an exotic disease outbreak. This is part of exotic disease preparedness program. The animal Health Committee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture has prime responsibility for drafting exotic disease contingency plans. The first drafts of the plan to control feral animals are being prepared by officers of vertebrate pest authorities in collaboration with animal health authorities. The Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, CONCOM, has nominated a contact officer to ensure that native fauna matters are fully considered. Dr Wilson is also very capably co-ordinating State feral animal control exercises that aim to test the plans. It is clearly necessary to get feral animal numbers down before an outbreak of exotic disease and to restrict their movements in key areas, such as Cape York. Foot and mouth disease and rabies are only as far away as Indonesia. Foot and mouth disease virus is known to persist in some products for a very long time-for example, for up to 250 days in sausage casings. Activities on the ground are being developed by the Minister for Primary Industry, Dr Wilson and State governments to achieve a reduction in feral animal numbers and restriction of their movement. The Commonwealth-State feral animal control program is providing funds for these exercises and projects to obtain information for effective control to be incorporated in the plans. Effective quarantine measures are absolutely essential to the well-being of Australia. The disastrous economic consequences of diseases such as foot and mouth are well known. Rabies would be equally disastrous. In Europe, 23,618 cases of animal rabies were reported in 1984, the highest number since 1977. In Australia, where large areas are sparsely populated and disease carriers, such as foxes, are abundant, rabies would be difficult, if not impossible to control. Current freedom and enjoyment in bush walking and wilderness trekking would be spoilt by the presence of rabies. The importance of a vigilant quarantine service cannot be overemphasised. It delights me that this Government has given so much attention to the prevention and spread of exotic disease outbreak and I congratulate the Minister. The feral animal control program addresses operational questions and aims to develop practical techniques for controlling potential vectors to exotic diseases. Exercises which have been conducted in Queensland and New South Wales under the program have shown that many areas of control need improving. These include the need for better techniques for contolling feral animals in thick bush, better communications, particularly air-using a helicopter-to ground and improvements in the liaison between veterinary surgeons and vertebrate pest authorities. Mapping of the results of broad scale feral animal surveys is also urgently needed in order to establish key risk areas. These problems will be addressed by the Government. In addition to funds already provided, workers under the Government's community development program will soon begin to incorporate feral animal data into computerised databased networks developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Not long before I came into the House I had notice from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that a community employment program, under the Commonwealth component, entitled `Feral Animal and Wildlife Management' has been adopted by the Government. This will involve three people being employed in the production of maps, computerised data and library work for use in managing wildlife and feral animals. They will collect and publish information on wildlife and feral animal control strategies. A feral animal control task force has been set up in the electorate of Eden-Monaro by community and government interests with two CEP workers to help co-ordinate and develop feral animal control efforts. The taskforce may be the basis-I hope it will be-for a national network of community based feral animal control organisations. For a long time I have advocated the development of a large national community employment program to reduce numbers and restrict the movement of feral animals in key areas. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.49) —In beginning my comments tonight on the Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill 1985 I endorse some of the words of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). What he said about feral animals is true. They are an enormous problem, one that most Australians are totally unaware of. They would be the major cause of not being able to contain foot and mouth disease if it ever got into this country. The honourable member may have had a slight problem at the beginning of his speech with his reference to foot and mouth. He nearly had his foot in his mouth when he praised the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for continuing a practice of collecting fees illegally. I cannot see how the honourable member could praise the Minister when he has been neglecting his duty. The primary reason why this Bill comes before the Parliament tonight is to rectify past omissions and oversights by the Minister for Health. Furthermore, when responsibility for plant and animal quarantine was transferred to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in 1984, defective determinations for fees payable for quarantine services continued to be made. The successive failures of two Ministers effectively to discharge their responsibilities under the Quarantine Act must be very embarrassing for this Government. Although complicated legislation may sometimes give rise to defects which remain undetected for some time, there can be no excuses in this case. The Government had already been given notice that there were deficiencies in the Quarantine Act, and that its operation needed to be carefully examined. In fact, the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources into the adequacy of quarantine in Australia gave clear warning of this as early as 1979. I quote from the report: The effectiveness of Australia's quarantine service depends on its legislative backing. The Quarantine Act is an old Act which has not been updated regularly and there are many deficiencies in the existing legislation. In fact, the report referred specifically to problems with costing and fees under the Act, and expressed doubts as to the appropriateness of fees charged for quarantine services. Clearly, the Minister should have been put on his guard. Given this, his failure to take care when setting out requirements for determining fees is inexcusable. The Minister's subsequent failure to meet his own requirements is a disgrace. The warnings were there for all to see. One would think that those warnings would have been heeded long before now. One would think they would be of particular interest to Government Ministers with responsibility for overseeing the operation of the legislation. Yet in his second reading speech on this Bill, the Minister for Primary Industry suggested that the Government only recently became aware of defects in the Quarantine Act and of the need for close scrutiny of it, and the Senate report was published in 1979! Why was this? Why did not either Minister-the Minister for Health or the Minister for Primary Industry-heed the warnings and tread carefully when dealing with quarantine regulations? Was it because they had not even bothered to read the Senate Committee's major report on the subject? Was it because neither of them considered quarantine legislation to be very important? I wish to impress on the Ministers concerned how very important effective quarantine legislation is to this country. Mr Andrew —Hear, hear! Mr HAWKER —As my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) reminds me, it is probably one of the most paramount matters of importance for all the livestock industries in this country. As has been pointed out in the debate tonight, quarantine in Australia has to date been relatively successful. We have not suffered the traumas and economic devastation associated with major outbreaks of pests or diseases. But this does not mean that we can afford to pay scant attention to quarantine legislation. On the contrary, with jet travel commonplace in the modern world Australia has lost any quarantine advantage it once had by virtue of being a relatively isolated continent. Over two and a half million people flew into Australia from overseas countries in 1984 alone. When we consider the massive cost to this country caused by the arrival of the aphid to our shores, the value of vigilantly enforced and regularly updated quarantine laws is brought home even more sharply. The spotted alfalfa aphid was first identified in Australia in March 1977. The bluegreen aphid was detected soon after. Between them these two pests cost Australian primary industry some $200m in just two years. This is chickenfeed compared with the potential damage which could be caused if an outbreak of foot and mouth disease should occur in Australia. The meat export industry alone would stand to lose some $1.7 billion a year in exports if such a disease slipped through our quarantine barriers, and that takes no account of the disastrous effects on domestic stock prices. For how many years could export markets remain closed if there were an outbreak of foot and mouth? Obviously, effective quarantine legislation is vital to Australia. Although determination of fees may be a relatively small part of the overall operation of the Quarantine Act, the slack attitudes of the relevant Ministers in relation to this matter is cause for grave concern. If they are so slack about a simple piece of legislation, what about the administration of the Quarantine Act itself? Finally, it is to be hoped that in the light of this debacle the Minister for Primary Industry will take notice of the reports of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits which have just been released and which call for a complete and thorough examination of animal and plant quarantine fees and costs. With those few words, I will conclude by saying that both Ministers have something to answer for. Now that the oversight has been rectified, I wish to support the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). It is a commonsense amendment and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.56) —The Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill which the House is in the process of considering has become necessary simply to correct some unintended effects that flowed from the operation and the application of the amendments contained in the quarantine legislation of last year. I have been surprised at some of the statements made by Opposition spokesmen, particularly the position they have adopted on the ridiculous amendment, as I will indicate later, notice of which has been given by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). There is no great deal about this question. Put simply, what happened was that notices made under the Act as a result of those amendments last year had the effect of revoking the basis on which fees for some quarantine services are charged. Those fees quite correctly have continued to be charged without legislative support. This Bill simply validates those fees. There is nothing exceptional about that. The fees were correctly collected. No one complained about paying them. The people who paid the fees realised that they were paying for a service which they had obtained, which they had sought and which they support. Yet we have heard some ridiculous arguments and claims from Opposition members. There is no argument at all about the legitimacy of these fees or about the legitimacy of having those fees imposed. In addition, the second thing the Bill does is to validate charges levied on airline operators under the legislation to offset expenses incurred in the removal and disposal of airline waste. I mentioned some of the ridiculous statements that were made by Opposition members. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, in leading for the Opposition, went so far as to refer to the matter in these rather exaggerated terms-and I am sure he will recall these words as obviously they were prepared with great care: `the multi-million dollar bureaucratic blunder'. It rolls from the tongue very well. it obviously took a great deal of time to prepare it, but it is a statement without any substance. As I said, it is no great deal. The important thing about this legislation is the fact that the Commonwealth now, is taking steps to validate fees which had been charged quite correctly, which have been paid quite freely, and which were designed to offset the cost of services which had been received. It has been mentioned that the total amount involved was $2.5m. That was for the animal and plant quarantine requirements and the human quarantine element of it as well. I think some $630,000 had been collected from the airlines as a result of that arrangement made for the removal of airline waste. I think it was the Deputy Leader of the National Party who also said that the money had been collected illegally. I see the honourable member is nodding his head which means he confirms that. Precisely what that ridiculous statement means escapes me. Because the Deputy Leader of the National Party knows what these issues are all about, I bet the meaning of that statement escapes him as well. It escapes me. I do not know what he means by that. The Deputy Leader of the National Party looked down when I said that. He does not know what it means and he does not know what it means because it does not mean anything. Of course it was legal to collect the fees. Do honourable members think that people would have paid them illegally? Do honourable memers think that the Commonwealth received the money illegally? What we are doing now is going through a simple administrative procedure to validate, in terms of Commonwealth law, those fees which were correctly and legally received. We should maintain some sort of perspective when we are looking at questions like these. The Opposition has referred to this legislation as some sort of blunder, but some of the newer members on the other side might not know that when their parties were in Government they became notorious for their degree of administrative sloppiness and their managerial incompetence. The number of times we had to come into this Parliament in order to legitimise some shocking examples of administrative incompetence and sloppiness really became legend in Australia. The fact that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), together with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), has with great vigilance, identified this deficiency and moved immediately and effectively to overcome those simple administrative deficiencies, speaks very well for his vigilance, the vigilance of his officers, the vigilance of the Minister for Health and the officers of the Minister for Health. I consider it a great privilege to have the opportunity to participate in a debate about primary industries, rural industries, with the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). What a great advocate. Mr Beale —He is so good he has gone to the party. Mr ROBERT BROWN —He is listening. He assured me before he went that he would listen closely to my contribution and I am absolutely convinced that he is doing precisely that. It is a great privilege for a member of the Government to participate in a debate about rural questions, primary industries and the major issues that confront our great rural industries with a man who is so experienced, so informed, so concerned and a man who is such an outstanding and brilliant advocate for our primary industries, as the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I said that I would draw attention to the very serious deficiencies in the amendment notice of which has been given by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. Those amendments will have the effect of encouraging protests about the payment of legitimate fees where no protests have been made in the past. Why would honourable members want to encourage that sort of thing? The Deputy Leader of the National Party knows that in order to cover some of the expenses of quarantine services it is necessary to impose a fee. The people who paid the fees paid them because they accepted the fees were legitimate. They had received a service. I hope the Opposition withdraws the amendment; it is quite nonsensical and the Deputy Leader of the National Party knows it. If he could get the National Party fellows in their corner and the Liberal Party members to support that amendment what in fact- Mr McGauran —Honourable gentlemen, sir; honourable gentlemen! Mr ROBERT BROWN —Indeed all honourable members opposite are honourable gentlemen except the honourable woman member of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) pointed out that the proposed amendments would defeat the purpose of the Bill because they would allow a person who has already received a service to avoid payment simply by alleging that the payment had been made under protest. The Deputy Leader of the National Party knows that that would be the effect of the amendments; so how he got it endorsed from members of the National Party I do not know. If it was endorsed in one of its Party meetings honourable members should re-examine the nature of the amendments, their significance and their possible effect and then decide whether they want to persist in the way they apparently do to sabotage very sensible legislation which this Government is introducing at present. I ask the Deputy Leader of the National Party in all seriousness to withdraw the nonsense. He should not persist because people are very concerned. Some National Party members have expressed concern. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) referred to the enormous danger which exists for our great rural industries as a result of the possible outbreak of exotic diseases of various kinds. All honourable members know that this matter has always been a bipartisan issue. This is as it should be and it should continue into the future. Honourable members opposite do not have any monopoly-as they know-of concern about our rural industries. Traditionally, they are great industries and this Government, more than any other government including coalition governments, has shown itself to be more than responsive to the particular needs of our rural industries, to encourage their development and to acknowledge openly and willingly the great contribution that they have made to Australia in the past and will continue to make. The Opposition has no monopoly of concern about those things. As I have said, the question of effective quarantine legislation to establish suitable procedures, regulations and penalties has always been a bipartisan matter. An example of the importance of our rural industries should be seen by the following figures and I am sure they are well known to a number of members of the Opposition. For example, rural commodities of animal and plant origin accounted for over $11,000m of our commodity exports last year-1984-85. That is an amount of very great substance and of very great importance to Australia's trading position as a major trading nation. That figure represented 36 per cent of our total commodity exports. Of course even our manufactured products contained a significant element of rural products as well. So they are extremely important and that fact is acknowledged. Opposition members interjecting- Mr ROBERT BROWN —Honourable members opposite should listen to what I tell them. They would not have believed that I know anything about this matter. Mr McGauran —You don't know anything about rural industries. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I have made a more effective contribution on rural industries in 10 minutes than the honourable member has made in six months and he is supposed to represent rural people. The betrayal by the people who masqueraded as representatives of the rural industry in Australia started when they first changed their name from Country Party to National Country Party. The final betrayal occurred when they chopped out the word `Country' altogether. It is now the National Party. It has completely repudiated any responsibility that it had to the great rural industries of Australia. It became embarrassed to call itself the Country Party. We have never been embarrassed to call ourselves the Australian Labor Party and nor should we. The Labor Party has great traditions; it is the Party with the longest continuing existence and the proudest traditions of any political party in Australia. Some exotic diseases that we have to make sure- Mr McGauran —ACTU domination. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I was about to talk about foot and mouth disease. The honourable member is suffering from it. He should just settle down and I will tell him something about rural industries that would have never occurred to him before. Some of the better known diseases about which we are concerned- Mr Kerin —He certainly hasn't got laryngotracheitis Mr ROBERT BROWN —He has not got virulent Newcastle disease either. I bet he has not got African swine fever or the screw worm fly or swine vesicular disease or rinderpest. Those diseases are equally devastating. Some of the better known ones are blue tongue and the one to which I have just referred-foot and mouth disease. The responsibility of the Commonwealth over quarantine regulations is provided for in the Constitution. Placitum (ix) of section 51 gives the Commonwealth, quite clearly, the exclusive responsibility in connection with quarantine. All successive governments in Australia have accepted that responsibility. It is a tribute to them all that we have been able to maintain Australia as free as we have from all of those exotic diseases which would devastate and ravish Australia's primary industries if the diseases were to get a hold of any of our industries. What is the cost of providing the quarantine service in Australia in the current year, 1985-86? The Budget provides for $19m to be expended for human quarantine services and provides $26.4m for plant and animal health and quarantine services. The amount of revenue that we receive in return for these services is relatively minor. No one takes exception to that. No one opposes it. We all support it. I have never heard any parliament in Australia or any person in Australia who is involved in any political party offer any opposition to the amount of money that is spent on quarantine services. I hope that there will never be any opposition. Mr O'Keefe —By gee, you know about this stuff. You are right on the ball. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Much more than members of the National Party. I sometimes despair at those members of the National Party, which Party purports to represent the rural industries in Australia, when they know so very little about those industries. Mr McGauran —His own Whip has told him to wind up. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Whip realises that my contribution has been so devastating that I do not need to go on any longer. I have floored them. Australia has a coastline of 36,700 kilometres. Australia has $30 billion worth of imports every year. Over two million people come into Australia each year either returning from short term trips overseas or coming to Australia. That gives some idea of the dimensions of the problems that we face in introduction, applying and maintaining effective quarantine provisions and defence in Australia. It is a matter of great importance. No one underestimates it. If the Opposition were serious and if it were prepared to continue the bipartisan approach it has had before, I repeat that the Deputy Leader of the National Party would take advantage of the opporunity that I offer him now to withdraw his proposed amendments. The amendments are a nonsense and he knows it. They are destructive and damage everything the quarantine service in Australia stands for. They do neither him nor his Party nor this Parliament any credit. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.15) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 2, at the end of the clause add ``unless the recipient of a service has paid an amount under protest or has taken legal proceedings to challenge or resist any payment''. (2) Clause 6, page 3, at the end of the clause add ``unless the amount paid has been paid under protest or complaint''. (3) Clause 7, page 3, at the end of the clause add ``unless the owner, master or agent of the aircraft has paid the expense under protest or complaint''. The Opposition is concerned to legitimise the illegitimate actions of the Government. It is necessary for the Quarantine (Validation of Fees) Bill to provide some immunity to those people who may have initiated legal proceedings to challenge or resist payment of these fees since the trouble began last year. It would apply only to people who may have paid their fees under protest. I emphasise that I am not aware of any such proceedings, nor do I suggest that the way the Act has been administered may have provoked such legal action. Yet it would seem grossly unjust to terminate prematurely any legitimate action which could already have been initiated. Amendments to clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill are designed to protect the interests of any quarantine service users who may have paid fees under protest or initiated legal action. I remind the Committee that fee collections for services covered by this Bill amounted to more than $3m in the past year. The Committee will be setting a precedent if it chooses to correct retrospectively an oversight in administration of the Act and in so doing shut out any recourse to complaint or normal legal action. I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is of the opinion-I hope that it is based on legal advice that he may have obtained-that the rights of individuals are incorporated in the original Act. Despite this, the Opposition opines that safeguards, as moved, should be incorporated into this Bill to clarify the matter. There is no case for governments to be given preferential treatment at the expense of those using government services. I strongly urge the Committee and the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) to accept these reasonable amendments and to remove any precedent of retrospective action against legal processes. The Opposition is not opposing the Bill. All we are attempting to do in this Bill to legitimise actions that were taken without proper legal procedures is to ensure that the basic principle which I have outlined is respected and adhered to. I believe that the Parliament has to set some standard. It is here to serve the will and the wishes of the people. It must be immaculate in its handling of laws to ensure that people are not disadvantaged by one Act or another. We have initiated the moving of these amendments not out of any spite but out of respect for precedent. It would be a dreadful state of affairs if governments, through this precedent, felt that they could at some future date act or introduce legislation retrospectively to legalise illegitimate actions that it may have taken. That is the basis of our concern. Every action that we take in this Parliament ultimately makes a precedent if that action has not been taken before. I do not believe that the Government has attempted to cover up in any way. I believe the Government has been very open about this matter. There has been a bureaucratic bungle or blunder. These sorts of things do happen. All governments have their problems from time to time, particularly when there is a transfer of administrative responsibility from one department to another. A fundamental principle of human rights is involved here. I would have thought that the honourable member for Charlton, who is a great defender of human rights- Mr O'Keefe —He is a top member, one of the best in the chamber. Mr HUNT —He is not a bad old soak really. I thought that he would have seen the justice of what we are endeavouring to do. I appeal to him to have another little think before he throws overboard what is a thoroughly good idea-protecting the rights of the individual. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.20) —First of all I would like to say that I am glad that the Government did not go along with the motion by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) that the House should adjourn. It has been a very stimulating debate. We have all enjoyed it immensely. Members of the Opposition have typified this Bill as being akin to the onset of World War III or something of that ilk. I must point out the nature of the Bill. It all goes back to an issue of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 1 October 1984. Luckily, I did not become the responsible Minister until 13 December 1984, so I escape on this matter. What I failed to do, of course, once I took over responsibility, was to read all of the back issues of the Commonwealth Gazette. I know that when the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), was Minister for Health he read all of the Commonwealth Gazettes assiduously at night. That is why he did not make any mistakes. But I am told that in regard to the second part of this Bill during the period when the Deputy Leader of the National Party was Minister for Health he was illegally charging for aircraft waste. Not only has the present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) a bit of a problem; so did the previous Minister for Health. I can understand the Opposition being mortally upset about this. Really, both of them are in the poo and that is what we are trying to fix up. Mr Beale —Find another word for that. Mr KERIN —In the muck. Mr Hunt —It is a legitimate word-Winnie The Pooh! Mr KERIN —It is. You have a chicken on your side; anything can happen. The purpose of this Bill is to validate the Commonwealth's right to charge fees for the provision of services that it has provided in the performance of its quarantine responsibilities. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) set it out beautifully clearly. These fees are designed to offset costs which the Commonwealth has incurred in the provision of those services. The fees which have been collected are for services which have been provided. The Bill is not attempting to raise fees which are additional to those already paid. We have got the dough. The effect of the legislation would not be to impose a levy, charge or fee retrospectively, nor would it remove the rights of aggrieved parties to challenge the fees paid during the relevant periods. Indeed, if the amendments were to be incorporated in the Bill they would defeat its very purpose by providing an exemption from payment of fees for services which have been provided simply by alleging payment under protest. The effect of the legislation is simply to validate those charges which have in effect been levied. That is why the Government cannot accept the Opposition amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments and requests. Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's requested amendments- Schedule A Requests by the Senate for amendments No. 1-Page 40, sub-clause 35 (1), definition of ``allied veteran'', line 22, leave out ``, before 1 September 1957,''. No. 2-Page 87, sub-clause 68 (1), definition of ``defence service'', sub-paragraph (a) (i), lines 35 and 36, leave out ``and before the commencement of this Act; or''. No. 3-Page 87, sub-clause 68 (1), definition of ``defence service'', sub-paragraph (a) (ii), lines 37 to 39, leave out the sub-paragraph. No. 4-Page 90, paragraph 69 (1) (a), lines 37 and 38, leave out ``and before the commencement of this Act; or''. No. 5-Page 91, paragraph 69 (1) (b), lines 1 and 2, leave out the paragraph. No. 6-Page 92, sub-clause 69 (2), lines 1 to 8, leave out the sub-clause. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.26) —I move: That the requested amendments be not made. It is with some regret that I find that I again stand before you tonight to deal with the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. As honourable members are well aware, the House has already considered this Bill and passed it without amendment, on Wednesday 13 November 1985. Today the Bill has been before the Senate. Despite assurances to the contrary, the Liberal- National Party Opposition reneged on Opposition undertakings and sided with the Australian Democrats to impose some 16 amendments or requests for amendments on a Bill which has the basic agreement of the major organisations within the veteran community. These 16 changes would add scores of millions of dollars to the appropriation made by this Bill. Mr Tim Fischer —How many? Mr HOLDING —I suggest that the shadow Minister who has been disgraced and repudiated by the actions of his colleague in the Senate, would do best in honouring his position by remaining silent. If he had any regard for the feelings of the ex-service community, he would resign. Today the Opposition and the Australian Democrats engaged in one of the greatest exercises in political hypocrisy ever seen in this Parliament. In the guise of a purported concern for the interests of the veterans and the defence community, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats have now brought this Bill to the brink of disaster. Let me outline-the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) knows the implications of this-the consequences if this Parliament fails to pass the Veterans' Entitlements Bill in time to seek royal assent before 5 December 1985; that is, next Thursday, one week from today. Honourable members will be aware that changes to the repatriation legislation following the May economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) were amended in the Senate to insert a sunset clause which allowed a modified standard of proof to operate for a limited period of six months. That sunset clause will take effect from 6 December; that is, next Friday. This would lead to the reimposition of the old standard of proof provisions which, under the O'Brien interpretation, would lead to the automatic acceptance of virtually all claims for disability pension or war widow's pension. The veteran community has acknowledged that the O'Brien decision went too far in respect of the standard of proof to be applied to a claim for a repatriation pension. The veteran community, after a great deal of consultation-and I do not beleive any piece of legislation concerning veterans' entitlements has involved so much detailed consideration and so much input from the veteran community-generally supports the changes made to the standard of proof in clause 119 of the Bill. The ex-service community advised the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) that the revised clause 119 was considered to be generally satisfactory, subject to its possible eventual testing in courts of law. Since the Government will not accept the amendments the effect of the attitude taken by the Senate to this Bill is to restore the old standard of proof-a situation regarded as totally unacceptable by the Government, by most of the veteran community and, in fact, if one reads the speech of the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer, by the Opposition. The records are there. Clearly, the Government cannot allow claims to be determined on the old section 47 of the Repatriation Act. That would be the height of economic irresponsibility. The Government would be forced to bring the repatriation determining system to a halt until this Bill could be passed. I think the Opposition in this House and the shadow Minister appreciate the effect that that would have. Currently there are around 50,000 claims and applications for review in the repatriation system. These would be suspended. The recent long overdue improvements in reducing times to process claims and applications for pensions would be lost. This will result in widespread discontent anxiety and distress within the ex-service community. Let honourable members make no mistake, veterans will know exactly who to blame for this course of events. I emphasise that the VEB makes many improvements on existing entitlements. That was recognised during the course of the debate in this House. The Senate is prepared to jeopardise those improvements. In fact, the effect of some of the Opposition sponsored amendments will be to take away pension entitlements already granted. Let me just list for honourable members some of the improvements in repatriation benefits that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are prepared to withhold from eligible veterans and war widows. The Government has announced that it is prepared to provide that all Australian service personnel who served on full time duty in a declared Vietnam war zone will have access to benefits under the VEB and defence service home loans. As my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced in this House, he had arranged for all those people not allotted to duty in Vietnam to be deemed to be for the puposes of the VEB. The Government finds itself unable to act in this regard until this legislation is in place. Under the VEB the guide to the assessment of rates of veterans' pensions will ensure consistency in the assessment of the rate of pensions payable. It will give veterans the opportunity to understand how the rate of pensions is assessed. This guide will not be able to be introduced if the VEB is not passed. Under the VEB eligibility for repatriation benefits is extended to Australians who served during World War II with the forces of an allied country if they were domiciled in Australia immediately before the war. Without the VEB there will be no such extension. Under the VEB the domestic allowances, that is $12 a week pension supplement, will be payable to all war widows. Under the present legislation specific criteria for eligibility apply and not all war widows receive the allowance. Under the VEB war widows' pension entitlement is not to cease on remarriage and those widows who have remarried since 29 May 1984 will have their pensions restored. Not to proceed with this proposal will cause distress to a considerable number of war widows. Those widows who had planned to remarry before Christmas and keep their pensions will now find themselves in the heart-rendering position of having to postpone their weddings. Under the VEB a de facto wife of a veteran will be recognised for the purposes of pension eligibility on more liberal terms than those which apply under the present legislation. The de facto wives can thank the Opposition if the VEB is not passed. Under the VEB a child who is dependent on a veteran at the time of the veteran's death will be eligible for an orphan's pension, even where he or she is not the natural or adopted child of the veteran. Orphans can thank the Senate and thank the irresponsibility of members of the Australian Democrats, the National Party of Australia and the Opposition if this legislation is not passed. Under the VEB service pension eligibility is to be extended to those who served immediately after World War II in mine clearance and bomb disposal work and who were awarded a British General Service medal with appropriate clasp. These veterans as a result of the political mendacity which has operated in another place are now to be denied their legitimate entitlements. Under the VEB service pension eligibility is to be extended to veterans who served with the Far East Strategic Reserve in Malaya and who were awarded a British General Service medal with the Malaya clasp. Again, repatriation recognition of this group is not a priority for the Opposition. Under the VEB members of Commonwealth and allied forces will not have to be resident in Australia for 10 years in order to qualify for a service pension if they become permanently incapacitated for work while in Australia or during a temporary absence from Australia. The Opposition seems prepared to leave any veterans in this unfortunate position without repatriation entitlements. Frankly I find it hard to believe that that is genuinely a position that members of the Opposition would want to adopt and support. The VEB incorporates a broadened definition of treatment encompassing the capacity to provide various forms of social or domestic assistance that may be required by a frail aged veteran or war widow. Without the VEB there will not be the capacity to provide the broad range of treatment our frail aged require. Will that be a matter of pride for honourable members opposite? I am not surprised that the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest), who has some sensitivity, is leaving the chamber. Under the VEB, treatment for any condition whether war caused or not will extend to all veterans in receipt of a service pension and a disability pension and will be equivalent to not less than 50 per cent of the general rate. Without the VEB, only veterans who served in World War II will qualify. The VEB will authorise the continuation of treatment outside a Repatriation Commission hospital when treatment has commenced in such an institution. Presumably the Opposition is prepared to accept that those patients on renal dialysis should not be able to be treated in their homes. I do not believe that that represents a genuine position of this Opposition. Under the VEB, a document known as the `Treatment Principles' will set out the circumstances in which and the conditions subject to which the Commission will accept responsibility for the provision of treatment. Let us move to the question of allowances. Under the VEB, eligibility for the funeral benefits entitlement will be extended in respect of the death of a veteran who, with the approval of the Commission, was being cared for at home for a terminal illness rather than being admitted to an institution. Are we seriously asked to believe that members of the Opposition do not believe that a terminally ill veteran in that situation has a right to die in his home? I do not believe that is a position which many members of the Opposition could bear to live with for more than a few minutes. Under the VEB the funeral benefit for service pensions will be extended to all those who receive a service pension, and that is presently not available to Commonwealth and allied veterans. The effect of the Opposition's amendent is to continue the dual entitlement of members of the peacetime defence service to repatriation coverage and Commonwealth employees compensation coverage for personal injury connected with the member's peacetime service. The Government's position is quite clear. It is proposed in the VEB that for new enlistees to the forces repatriation should be limited to periods when they are undertaking hazardous service or peacekeeping service. In other circumstances the new enlistee will attract Commonwealth employees compensation benefits if injured or killed in circumstances connected with service. The Government's proposal does not take away existing benefits for members of the forces. Present members will continue to have dual repatriation and compensation coverage. The proposal applies only in respect of new enlistees to the defence forces. As a result of representations from veteran and regular Defence Force communities the Government has undertaken to investigate the feasibility of a separate military compensation scheme for peacetime defence service. This is not an empty promise. The Minister for Defence has indicated that he will report back to the Parliament on the Government's study of the proposal as soon as possible and no later than the autumn sittings in 1987. The Opposition suggests that new enlistees should not be deprived of repatriation cover while this investigation is being undertaken. That was the significant amendment moved by the Opposition in this chamber. All the other amendments which have emerged in the Senate seem to cast a reflection upon the attitude that was expressed in this chamber by the spokesman for the Opposition. This Opposition is in such disarray that I can understand the sense of shame that permeates it. I can understand the honourable gentleman's position. He is entitled when he speaks in this chamber on behalf of the Opposition to put the position of the Opposition. Mr Nehl —And he does it very well. Mr HOLDING —I believe he did it very well. What I find appalling is that having addressed his mind to it with a sincerity, dedication and involvement which understood the attitude of the veteran community, he finds, as a result of the sordid back room deals that are done in the Senate, the positions that he put in this chamber have now been overruled and he is left to carry the bag here for amendments, many of which, quite frankly, I do not think he was even consulted about. Mr Robert Brown —But did he collaborate? Mr HOLDING —I do not believe he did and I do not believe that he would. Let me say that of the honourable gentleman. Mr Tim Fischer —You called for my resignat- ion 10 minutes ago. This is a change. Mr HOLDING —That would be a matter for the honourable member's feelings. But given the state of shambles that exists in the Opposition, I can understand why he would not want to do it. But with extraordinary bloody-mindedness the Opposition is prepared to sacrifice the real benefits flowing to veterans and their dependants under the VEB for the sake of some facesaving political exercise in the Senate. That is what it comes down to. The Opposition purported to insert the sunset clause into the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill to enable full consultation to take place with the veteran community. Nobody from either side of the House could deny that the fullest consultation that has ever taken place with the veteran community has occurred with this Veterans' Entitlements Bill. Indeed, from the statements made by the Opposition shadow Minister, he was prepared to concede that it was fruitful and positive consultation because agreement was reached on the crucial elements of the Bill, notably on the standard of proof clauses. When he spoke in this House on behalf of the Opposition, time and again he stressed, and properly so, that this was legislation about which there could be a large measure of consensus because both sides of the Parliament had been fully involved in discussions with the veteran community. That was the spirit in which this legislation came into this Parliament. Now, the Opposition and the Democrats in the Senate want to throw away the results of the very consultation they pretended to promote. Indeed there are parts of the amendments the main ex-service organisations have never sought, have never considered, and certainly never approved. Mr Nehl —Which ones? Mr HOLDING —They are there in detail. What is more, there is the sheer hypocrisy of the Opposition. Opposition members purport to be the great exponents of cutting government expenditure. Hardly a day goes by in the Parliament when we are not told by the Opposition that there have to be cuts in public expenditure. But what happens when the Government, indeed the House, adopt measures to cut future government expenditure? The Opposition in the Senate puts forward amendments which have exactly the opposite effect. That is exactly what the Opposition has done in adopting the amendment to continue eligibility for the service pension for allied veterans who served after September 1957. Where is the hard-headed responsible approach of the economic rationalists? Where is the acceptance of the economic rigor of setting priorities and allocating funds accordingly? When the hard decisions have to be taken, the economic Rambos of the Opposition turn into political wimps. The Government has consulted fully and successfully with the ex-service community. We have been generous in extending a wide range of benefits and entitlements. No single piece of legislation has previously come before this Parliament concerning the rights of veterans in which the veteran community was so deeply involved and on which it could be truthfully said, and was said by both sides of the Parliament, that the legislation represented the hopes and the aspirations of the ex-service community. That was the spirit that dominated the debate in this House. What we now see is a series of ill thought through politically contrived amendments which put this legislation in jeopardy. It is time for the Opposition seriously to think through its position because the thoughtless political extravaganza in which it has been involved in the Senate now poses a very real threat to the rights and the entitlements of the veteran community and to the legitimate process of consultation in which the ex-service community was involved and from which it was entitled to expect, as a result of those consultations and deliberations, the speedy passage through the Parliament of legislation which represented their desires. That has not taken place because of the divisions that exist within the Opposition. It has not taken place because of the political manoeuvring which is a result of those divisions which have been expressed in the Senate. Therefore, the Government rejects all of the requests for amendment made by the Senate and we refer the Bill back to the Senate. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(11.50) —I make it very clear to the Committee at the start that it is upon the head of the Government what happens ultimately to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985. The Government is elected to govern. The amendments that the Opposition and others have supported in the Senate go to certain aspects of the Bill. However, let us look at this matter in perspective. The centrepiece of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is clause 119-standard of proof. I think honourable members on both sides of the chamber would agree with that. Clause 119, in all its substantial provisions, is exactly as the Government wants it passed by the Parliament. However, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has the hide to come into the chamber at this late hour and with bluster, bravado and brinkmanship say that the Opposition has been anything but responsible on this very important Bill. We have been very responsible. At every fundamental stage of the Bill we have done the same thing in this place as we have done in the Senate, with the exception of the provisions associated with Standing Orders, which I am sure the Minister would realise preclude the moving of any specific amendments in the lower House to a denoted money Bill. This was a denoted money Bill. We moved an in-principle amendment which picked up allied veterans, which picked up retrospectivity and which picked up a number of the other matters which were then the subject of further scrutiny in the Senate in accordance with the strategy laid down by the Opposition. I repeat that it is upon the head of the Government whether it foregoes its perfectly drafted standard of proof clause. That is the provision the Government wants from the Parliament. Clause 119 has now passed the lower House and the upper House and the main thrust of the Bill is available to the Government if it reverses its attitude to these amendments tonight. It would have clause 119 in place, admittedly, with some of the amendments. Those amendments do not affect the substantial provisions of clause 119. There has been no deal done on this Bill. There has been no double-cross on this Bill. The Minister has decided to take a very negative attitude and reject all amendments out of hand. I must say to the Minister and to his colleague in the upper House that I signified at the very outset, as a matter of courtesy, that there would be a specific in-principle amendment. However, the Government has decided to reject all amendments. The real reason is the legislative time-table. Who is responsible for the time-table of legislation? The Government has left it to the last eight days to look at this Veterans' Entitlements Bill-after a period of six months. The Government decided that time-table. The Minister is back here tonight on bended knee screaming for this Bill because there is only a week to go before the expiry of the sunset clause. I make it very clear that it was that sunset clause that brought about the tremendous breakthroughs and improvements which have been made to the original draft exposure Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I would like to take the Committee through these maligned amendments which have come back from the Senate. I think the Minister might be embarrassed if he looks at some of the details. Firstly, there is a group of amendments associated with the retention of repatriation cover for new enlistees-that was well and truly signified-until we have a military compensation Act in place or at least a few more details in relation to such an Act. Some legislation took years to develop. The trade practices legislation took years to unfold. We are being promised that, somehow, we can be assured that there will be a report in 1986 and legislation in 1987, so that by the expiry of the three years-I accept that that is a relevant period-a military compensation Act will be in place to pick up new enlistees, who, in the meantime, will be plucked out of repatriation cover. We have taken a very responsible and consistent attitude in both Houses about the retention of repatriation cover. Let us turn to the amendments which come under the group associated with allied veterans. The Minister would have us believe that they represent, somehow, some new benefit. It is no new benefit. The legislation was passed through this Parliament in the 1970s to provide service pensions for allied veterans if they served in certain conflicts, including Vietnam, as progressively more would have qualified. In this Bill the Government is cutting out Vietnamese, Koreans, Thais and Americans who have moved to Australia since the Vietnam conflict. It is a very arbitrary line when one considers that New Zealanders, under another provision of the Bill, are still in concerning allied veterans' assistance. So now the Government is creating a racist division between New Zealanders, as one lot of allied veterans who served with us in Vietnam, and Koreans, Thais, Vietnamese and Americans. What a hide the Minister has to play God on the race of people who served in Vietnam. Mr Holding —Why didn't you raise this in the House? You didn't know about it until it was raised elsewhere. Mr TIM FISCHER —I knew about it and I put it in the in-principle amendment in the lower House. Go back and read the Hansard report for Tuesday, 12 November. The third group of amendments relate to retrospectivity. They were the subject of some comment before the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. They are to make sure that no one will be the subject of the more stringent provisions which have existed since May, when, without consultation, the Government put so much of this Bill into mini-Budget legislation, without proper consultation with the Returned Services League, and slapped it through on to the statute book. The wording of the retrospective amendment ought to be looked at very closely. The aim and objective are there. I accept that there is provision for review, but nevertheless, this area has to be fleshed out further, because there is genuine concern on the part of the RSL, which, in fact, requested an amendment at this stage of the proceedings in relation to the matter of retrospectivity. The Minister suggested that these amendments are somehow out of kilter with the attitude of the veterans' communities and all their organisations-in particular, the RSL. I can now tell the Committee that two of those groups of amendments were requested by the RSL-confirmed physically in the presence of the National President of the RSL, Sir William Keys, in King's Hall yesterday. The Opposition was reflecting the concern of the RSL on the matter of repatriation cover for new enlistees after December and reflecting its concern on the matter of retrospectivity. So I would not be too sure about the Minister saying that somehow it is now our of kilter. Sure, we all want the central thrust of the Bill. Sure, the Bill confers a lot of benefits. But that does not preclude the right of the Senate or the lower House, the House of Representatives to look closely at this legislation. The legislation that we are asked to pass tonight is defective on the Government's admission, because it contains drafting errors in respect of hazardous service. The Minister has admitted that. So this august national Parliament is about to pass defective legislation, if the Government has its way. It is a great pity that the amendments necessary to rectify those drafting errors were not ready for the deliberations of both Houses in these closing stages of the Budget session. But I note, accept and appreciate the assurance given now in both Houses that those amendments will be dealt with again in the Senate. I would now like to deal with the amendments to the Bill that were dealt with by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. For the information of members on both sides of the Committee, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has a Government member as its chairman and a Government majority. The Committee produced a report which, much to the embarrassment of the Government, reflected on a large number of the provisions of the Bill. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. There being no other member rising, I again call the honourable member for Farrer. Friday, 29 November 1985 Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(12.02 a.m.) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee eventually got it right in respect of one aspect of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The Committee tabled in the Senate a report which raised a large number of objections to the Bill. The amendments referred to in the Committee's report related mainly to Parliament's right to review certain allowances which are provided for under the Bill and to the very important principle of accountability. There always are administrative difficulties associated with these sorts of considerations. However, the Parliament is elected to review and to play some proper role in these matters. Of course it suits the conveniences of the Repatriation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to reduce the travel allowance administratively to 11.6c per kilometre on 1 July. Admittedly this is being proposed to pick up some anomalies in some circumstances. However, disadvantages will be created if this proposal is applied across the board to all veterans. I turn to the amendments which relate to acquired immune deficiency syndrome and refer to the indemnity clauses of the Bill. I remind the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) that earlier tonight the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) actually accepted the AIDS amendments moved by the Opposition because he realised that they reflected the approach of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which, again, has a Government majority. So the truth of the matter is that a number of our amendments are the result of the recommendations of Senate committees which have Government majorities and whose proper role is to review legislation. The Government has now rejected all of the amendments which have been moved in one lot. Of course, the Government will say that additional amendments will be brought forward in the autumn session. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Farrer might bear in mind that the Committee is addressing the requested amendments exclusively. Mr TIM FISCHER —I accept that, Mr Chairman. I make passing reference only to the fact that the amendments in the AIDS category flowed from the recommendations of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee and were accepted by the Minister. We are now considering a request to which the Opposition is opposed. I will not delay the Committee by dealing at length with a number of other minor amendments which relate to costing and do not exacerbate greatly the budgetary situation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member still seems to be a little confused. The Committee is addressing the request that the amendments be taken into consideration. We are essentially debating the request, not the amendments. The motion is that the requested amendments be taken into consideration of the Committee of the Whole forthwith. Mr TIM FISCHER —I thought we had dealt with that question. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The question was put and passed. The question now before the Committee of the Whole is that the requested amendments be not made. Mr TIM FISCHER —That is correct. We are now debating that those amendments- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with Schedule A, not Schedule B. Mr TIM FISCHER —As I understand it, we are very much debating at this point in time that the requests go back to the other chamber as far as Schedule A is concerned, which is a more acceptable clarification. In any event, having tracked through the amendments under both Schedule A and Schedule B because they do lend themselves to some concurrent treatment, I will revert to the general principles associated with this aspect of the debate and say that the final outcome in respect of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is very much upon the head of this Government. The Minister has adopted a very negative attitude in respect of the amendments in Schedule A, as he has in respect of those in Schedule B, but I will not deal with that in further detail. The Returned Services League and the veteran community specifically requested amendment Nos 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Schedule A. Our attitude is a very responsible one and it is linked to the latest position of the RSL on that matter. In general terms, the Opposition's commitment to veterans' affairs and those who served their country in time of war is to afford the greatest generosity to the veterans that responsible government will allow. We recognise the massive disruption which occurred to their lives and we recognise the need for proper assistance and provisions to be in place. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill which is before the Parliament again at this time, goes a long way towards making those provisions law in Australia. We recognise that the Veterans' Entitlements Bill as passed by the House of Representatives on 13 November and as passed by the Senate today has embraced and adopted the Government's exact position on clause 119, dealing with the standard of proof as far as the substantial provisions are concerned. So it is that we appeal to the Government to think again in relation to what it is throwing away and the benefits it will deny to veterans if it adopts an absolutely negative attitude to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The timetable is part of the problem associated with this Bill. If there were a great deal more time before the expiry of the sunset clause-there is still one full sitting day for both Houses and five working days before that expiry date-the Government might be of a mind to look more closely at some of these amendments because the Minister for Veterans' Affairs did pick up in the Senate and agree to one of those amendments in any case. But because we have this short timetable the Government would have us believe that the Senate ought to be totally denied the right to look at, to review and to deliberate in a proper manner on this legislation. The Opposition will not buy that very negative approach by the Government. At no stage will we accept that there has been a variation of our proper and responsible treatment of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I feel most strongly that our course of action and the amendments that have now emerged from the Senate reflect that further responsible approach by the Opposition in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. In conclusion as it is a matter of Schedule A as opposed to Schedule B, having dealt with both as it has turned out, we stand very much by amendment No. 1 in Schedule A. Unfortunately and very sadly it might become known as the racist amendment because it is injecting an artifical provision into the categories of allied veterans to differentiate between the Thais, Koreans, Americans and Vietnamese who moved to Australia and the New Zealanders. Under the terms of this legislation, New Zealanders will be allowed certain benefits and Americans, Thais, Koreans and Vietnamese will be disallowed certain benefits. That is what amendment No. 1 in Schedule A deals with precisely, and that is what this Government is sending back to the Senate. If this motion is carried, it will be the law of the land from this day forward. I reiterate that the other amendments in respect of Schedule A relate to repatriation cover. We have taken an absolutely responsible stand on them. The coalition will represent the veteran in a very comprehensive manner. Its sunset clause brought about the benefits which flow from and are embraced in the revised Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It is now a matter for the Government whether it will throw out those benefits or throw out clause 119, relating to the standard of proof, which it wants to be passed in both Houses of Parliament. Question put: That the requested amendments be not made. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Wite, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Punch, G. F. Coleman, W. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The question is: That I report a resolution to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Hodgman —I wish to speak to the motion that you report. THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The question had been put to the Committee and was carried on the voices. The Chair acknowledges the fact that in the general confusion that normally follows a division the member rising to address the question may have been denied, but the inescapable fact is that the question has been put and resolved. I cannot recognise the honourable member. Mr Hodgman —Mr Millar, I accept your ruling. I will speak on the next motion that will be put to the House. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the report be adopted. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be not put. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I sought the call-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House has already decided that the question be now put. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —I ask to be heard on a point of order-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question `That the question be now put' has been put and it has been carried. I am obliged to put the question. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.23 a.m.) —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.24 a.m. (Friday) The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 November 1985: Act Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-National Library of Australia, report for 1984-85. Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 314. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 9-Supreme Court (Amendment). Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 2-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment). Fisheries Act-Notice, No. 117C. Members of Parliament (Staff) Act-Report on consultants engaged under section 4 of the Act, for 1984-85. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 317, 318. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 316. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 313. Sales Tax Procedure Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 319. Therapeutic Goods Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 312.