Wednesday, 12 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 13 November 1985, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.01) —Madam Speaker, firstly, may I congratulate you on your election to this very high office. Would you also convey my congratulations to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) on his election to the position of Deputy Speaker. The purpose of the Federal Airports Corporation Bill is to establish the Federal Airports Corporation, a Commonwealth statutory authority, or quango, to manage 17 of the major airports in Australia. These airports are the capital city airports at Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra, plus Launceston and Coolangatta, and the general aviation airports at Bankstown, Essendon, Hoxton Park, Camden, Moorabbin, Archerfield, Jandakot, Cambridge and Parafield. Therefore, out of the 300-plus licensed aerodromes in Australia, 12 will remain joint user airports between Aviation and Defence, 39 will initially remain with Aviation and the remainder are in the aerodrome local ownership plan. To this end the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) is encouraging as many aerodromes as possible which are still with the Department to transfer to local ownership. The Opposition supports this policy. In general terms, the Corporation will manage the 17 airports already mentioned and the Department of Aviation will retain air control safety and national airport planning powers. It is stated that the Corporation will be more commercially innovative, efficiency oriented, publicly accountable and more decisive in making decisions than is presently the case. I understand that approximately 1,600 departmental employees will be offered the opportunity to transfer to the Corporation. They will be guaranteed employment conditions at least equal to those which they enjoy at the present time, including superannuation. New employees will presumably enjoy similar employment conditions, with the exception of superannuation which will be provided in a more commercial form than that offered by the Public Service. Although the Corporation will not be subject to the Public Service Board, the precedent for employment standards will be set by those transferring from the Department when the Corporation is established. The Corporation will also be free of other departmental restrictions, including the requirement to utilise the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The transfer of these airports from the Department should be advantageous for both airport management and, hopefully, the Department itself. I therefore commend the Minister for this development, which follows from Australian Labor Party policy rather than independent investigations. The report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery, the Bosch report, goes further in its recommendations than those implemented in this Bill. One recommendation of particular relevance is: Consideration should be given to placing all Commonwealth airports and airway facilities and services under the responsibility of a statutory authority or several authorities if, after the FAC has been operating for a reasonable period of time, it can be demonstrated that a statutory authority can operate them efficiently. In other words, more separate and individual airport management than that envisaged by this legislation. It therefore may seen strange that, although there is recognition that a corporation should be better than a division of the Department and the aviation industry in general terms supports the move, the Opposition will be opposing the legislation. Mr Keogh —Why? Mr LLOYD —I am coming to that. The coalition's opposition is partly in principle; there are already too many quangos or statutory authorities in Australia. The structural limitations and restrictions of such authorities make them an inappropriate structure for a commercial business enterprise. So there is the honourable member's answer. The Opposition would have more favourably considered an airport company; that is, a company with all of the shares owned by the Commonwealth, as with Qantas Airways Ltd. This would provide genuine separation from ministerial direction, and from the Public Service, and would allow complete commercial freedom. There are deficiencies of this Corporation which will further restrict its management ability and which are causing considerable concern in the aviation industry, to the extent that some are now questioning whether the change will achieve anything like what they had hoped for. Bosch also recommended far greater freedom and powers than this legislation allows. For example, he recommended: Firstly, the Corporation should be given as much commercial freedom as possible in undertaking its operations; secondly, consideration should be given to the Corporation meeting the cost of airway services provided by the Department of Aviation at Corporation airports and recovering those costs by industry charges; thirdly, favourable consideration should be given to transferring the rescue and fire fighting services provided to Corporation airports from the Department of Aviation to the Corporation. None of those recommendations have been accepted or incorporated. In other words, there are better options than a statutory corporation and, in particular, this restricted Corporation. I will refer later to the Opposition's preferred position of separate boards of management. The industry is also disappointed and critical that the frequent and beneficial consultation which was entered into with the National Airports Authority Task Force, and through the National Airports Consultative Council until the presentation of the first task force report to the Minister for Aviation in April 1984, has virtually ceased since that time. The second report, which forms the basis of the legislation, was presented to the Minister in May of last year. However, it was only made available for public scrutiny in September and, therefore, this legislation really has no input from industry. Furthermore, the National Airports Consultative Council has not met since 7 March last year and this has added to the feeling in the industry of being ignored when the real decisions were being made. I have been told that there was a meeting within the last couple of weeks between the industry and the Department to overcome some of the reservations the aviation industry has about the legislation, but I have also been told that there are no substantial amendments being moved to the legislation. Therefore, the industry claim of really not being listened to still stands. Mr Cadman —They have been too busy trying to work out the departure tax. Mr LLOYD —That is a fair comment. This lack of consultation has been discussed with the industry representatives and most have reacted positively to the suggestion for the creation of a Senate committee to allow a more complete consideration of the proposal. One could suggest that the departure tax falls into that area. Before I list these particular points of concern or criticism, I point out that there is a general feeling of uneasiness over including both the major commercial or regular public transport airports with the general aviation or secondary airports. Each side is suspicious that it will be disadvantaged. On the one hand, the General Aviation Association of Australia group believes that its costs will increase and it will receive low priority in expenditure and general management and, on the other side, the major airline operators believe that they will be forced to cross-subsidise these secondary aerodromes. I understand that the latest proposal is for a cross-subsidy of about $2 1/2m from the major to the secondary airports or aerodromes. However, I believe that the inclusion of both groups in the Corporation is worth trying as it does help to simplify the overall ownership and management of airports in Australia. The capital base of the Corporation, together with the potential requirement to repay that capital to government, the payment of `reasonable' dividends, et cetera, is of critical importance to the ability of the Corporation to operate commercially and to the users as to the level of charges. However, as yet no one knows what the figures or requirements will be and they will not be known until the Corporation is established. Therefore, in aviation jargon, everyone is flying blind on this most important matter and is in the uncertain hands of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who has the final power to determine these matters. Two particularly uncertain aspects of the total asset value to be determined by the Ministers for Finance and Aviation are whether the estimated $500m capital cost of the new Brisbane Airport and the guesstimated $1,200m for the second Sydney airport are included. Obviously, their inclusion or exclusion alters dramatically the total capital upon which a dividend will be required to be paid. Bosch recommended that Brisbane should not be included, and his argument, by extension, would also exclude the second Sydney airport. The industry is also concerned that the combination of corporation charges and the now being revealed airways charges, as recommended by Bosch, will in total be higher than at present and thus possibly force increased air fares. This is a matter of critical concern to all those in Australia who use airline services. It is critical in relation to broadening the total percentage of Australians who use air services at least once a year. We are told that on a percentage basis over twice as many people in the United States of America fly because in general the cost of air services in the United States is cheaper than in Australia. If one looks at the potential implementation cost of the Corporation, one has to be worried as to what it will mean in this country. The Minister can also at any time require repayment of the capital to which I have referred. He can overrule the Corporation's provision of what it considers to be a reasonable dividend to the Government. He can overrule the Corporation's level of charges and vary the Corporation's financial plan. That says a lot for the complete independence of the Corporation. The Corporation is also required to accept other directions from the Minister, that is, `in accordance with the general policy of the Government'. In such a situation no compensation is payable by the Government even though it may affect the financial operation of the Corporation. On the one hand we are told that there is going to be an autonomous statutory corporation; on the other hand, we are told that where the Minister, because of the general policy of the Government, determines that certain action has to be taken, he can do so unilaterally and no compensation need be paid. Compensation in other matters subject to ministerial direction will also be determined by the Minister rather than by an independent arbitrator which would guarantee full compensation. These are very serious areas of concern in respect of the Corporation's structure and should be subject to Senate committee scrutiny. I have been advised that many of these ministerial powers are incorporated in the Trans Australia Airlines and Australian National Line legislation. That does not alter the argument that the degree of autonomy of this Corporation is inadequate. Rather, it supports the general argument of the Opposition about the basic weakness of the statutory authority structure in relation to the management of a business enterprise. The reasonable dividend requirement is another specific example of the point I am making. The battle that the Minister for Aviation and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) are having with Cabinet, particularly the Minister for Finance, over establishing dividend payments from Commonwealth enterprises is one aspect of the uncertainty facing the Corporation. Another is the track record of all governments in regard to a somewhat similar authority-the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The Chairman of OTC has complained on several occasions about the Government taking so much of its profit in dividends that insufficient is retained for capital expenditure. This in turn requires greater borrowing, with a consequent worsening of the gearing ratio. This Government, when in opposition, constantly criticised the coalition Government for this treatment of OTC. However, on reading this year's Budget Papers it is evident that this Government engages in the same activity, and probably does it even better. For example, the Government determined in 1983 that a 10 per cent dividend from OTC was reasonable, but it has now increased that dividend requirement to 12 1/2 per cent. When one asks Telecom Australia about what the Government requires from it one gets a similar sort of answer-reference to the $100m-plus requirement that the Government has suddenly popped on it. Clause 68 of the Bill, which states that nothing in the Bill creates a duty enforceable at law, also makes the industry vulnerable if the Government continues to renege on its responsibility and requirement to consult the industry. In other words, the industry has no fall-back position of recourse to using the law against the Government if the Government does not do what it said it would do. Mr McVeigh —That happens pretty often. Mr LLOYD —With this Government it certainly does; hence the great concern of the industry representatives that all of these unknowns be revealed ahead of the final passage of the legislation. Now that it is obvious that this will not be so, the value of a Senate committee becomes more obvious because it is the only place where all of this very important information on the future operation of the Corporation can be made known. In addition to the concern over the opportunity for the Corporation to be managed efficiently and on a stable commercial basis there is the parallel problem of both allowing and forcing the Corporation to do so. By `allowing' I mean the requirement that the 1,500 to 1,600 staff who will be encouraged to transfer to the Corporation are guaranteed similar employment conditions to those which they currently enjoy. On the one hand, those employees who transfer cannot easily be offered more commercially realistic employment conditions; on the other hand, there is the dilemma that by precedent they will automatically set a standard which is inappropriate for a commercial organisation. Also there is the threat from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the staff associations, as reported in the National Airports Authority's second report, of industrial action if general aviation or secondary airports are included. Of course, they have been included. We would like to hear from the Minister what is the currency of that threat and what modifications to the commercial operations of the Corporation already have been required in order to pacify the unions. Also there is the question of employer contributions for those who retain their Commonwealth superannuation on transfer. Will the Government pay the difference between the new commercial superannuation level and the Commonwealth level, as I understand is the situation with Trans Australia Airlines? Will it be the Corporation or the Government which bears the full cost? The Minister has a duty to answer this question in his reply. The Minister has stated that there is to be no net increase in staff for the Corporation and the Department over the present total of the Department. However, this statement, laudable though it may be, overlooks two more important parameters. The first parameter is from Bosch: In the planning for the FAC, greater emphasis should be given to the total costs-departmental and corporation-which will be attributed to the industry; and steps should be taken to ensure that airport costs and the central and regional office costs of the Department of Aviation do not increase in total as a result of the establishment of the FAC. This raises the question of how the cost of upgrading positions and salaries in the transfer to the Corporation, the cost of moving to the Sydney headquarters et cetera, can be contained in that total limit. This also ignores the overall 2 per cent per annum reduction in cost to which the Department of Aviation is committed. By the end of this financial year, 1985-86, departmental costs should be 2 per cent less than they were last July and by June 1987, when the Corporation is in operation, the total should be 2 per cent less again in real terms. I certainly would like an emphatic reassurance that that commitment will be met and met in total by the Corporation and the Department. Bosch also recommended that, on the basis of a 28 per cent increase in aircraft movements over the 10-year period, the Department should be allowed only a 5 per cent increase in real terms. It will be interesting to see how the two organisations manage to contain their costs. The Minister has stated that the Corporation will have to provide indicators of its performance each year, but this will not necessarily result in efficiency standards similar to those required of the British Airports Authority. I urge the Minister to commit himself to those standards. They are: Firstly, a 6 per cent return on assets should be achieved through a reasonable dividend requirement; secondly, the number of passengers handled per employee should increase by 3 per cent a year for three years and, thirdly, costs per passenger should be reduced by 2.5 per cent a year over the three-year period. Several other deficiencies are also worth noting. First, there is no guarantee that the pre-existing lease arrangements will be honoured and thus allowed to complete their contractual period. This uncertainty alone has caused considerable concern, and a clear statement is necessary from the Minister to the effect that the existing contracts will be honoured. I acknowledge that this situation exists now; it is not new. I acknowledge that certain assurances have been made to the industry by the Minister, but they, in themselves, are not an excuse for not correcting an anomalous situation and are not sufficient to replace the need for a definite and clear statement here in this Parliament. The second deficiency lies in the Corporation's relationship with the local government authorities adjacent to the airports. On one hand we have the clear statement that, as a Federal authority, the Corporation is not liable to local or State taxes. This is the standard Commonwealth attitude. On the other hand, the Minister's second reading speech stated that where the Corporation engages `in competition with private enterprise it will be required to do so through a subsidiary and thereby in respect of those activities be liable to taxation'. What does this mean? Is the provision of parking at an airport or the running of a service station, or competing in any way with an outside commercial activity liable to Federal, State and local taxes? Furthermore, as ministerial approval is required for a subsidiary to be established to conduct a business, there is the suspicion of ministerial interference with competitive businesses and leases, et cetera. So much for the arm's length commercial freedom for the Corporation! In between, there are the more general aspects associated with an airport, excluding the runways, Department of Aviation facilities, air control, safety facilities, et cetera. The Minister has stated that ex gratia payments in lieu of rates will be made to local government authorities for these activities. I understand that this is the present arrangement, but there are differences, contradictions and lack of enforcement provisions at present with, I am told, considerable payments outstanding at certain airports. I am told that the common arrangement is 80 per cent of agreed rates. If this is the case, why not clearly say so in this legislation. We can remove the uncertainty by having this stated in the legislation so everyone will know exactly where one is in the future. Local government is concerned that there is no requirement to abide by planning requirements in relation to greater commercial development at these airports. The principle of commercial development is commendable, but industrial-commercial zoning, roads and other service problems must be dealt with in co-operation with local government and not in isolation. Local government is also concerned that there should be a requirement for the Corporation to take into account environmental matters in relation to airports. The provision of the overriding power of the Corporation to establish a gambling facility is unfortunate. The Bill requires any such gambling activity to be in accordance with State or Territory legislation, including that relating to trading hours. The fact is that the States have carefully rationed casino licences and the addition of Federal facilities is both unwarranted and, I believe, wrong. The clause in the Bill requiring the Corporation to prevent people from entering an airport solely or principally for the purpose of gambling is incapable of enforcement. A Senate committee should closely investigate this provision. One of the stated aims of the Corporation is to remove the decision on airports from the political process, to stop the pork barrelling which has left Australia with too many international airports and unnecessarily expensive terminal facilities. Mr Gear —Who made the decision? Mr LLOYD —However-and just wait for this-I fail to see how this legislation alters the situation because overall planning for airports remains with the Department and therefore remains in the political pork barrelling process. I acknowledge the virtual impossibility or desirability of totally excluding the political process, but a requirement such as the Corporation first publicly reporting on the desirability of any new Federal airports would be worthwhile and would restrict the pork barrelling which is still able to continue to the same degree as it has in the past and of which both sides of the House have been equally guilty. I have referred previously to the British Airports Authority, a statutory corporation which for many years has controlled seven out of the eight major airports in the United Kingdom, the locally owned Manchester airport being the exception. The United Kingdom Government has announced its intention of selling these airports to individual or more local ownership such as companies established for that purpose. This is similar to ownership and management arrangements in the United States and some other countries. This brings me back to the original statement that although the Corporation should be an improvement on the present arrangement, it is not the best option. As the United Kingdom Government has found, statutory corporations have limitations as business-enterprises, and the Corporation has additional and very serious deficiencies, many of which I have already detailed. These in total make it a less than satisfactory arrangement for the management of our major airports. The coalition's 1984 election policy stated: We will ensure that all major airports seek to recover their costs from operational income and, whenever possible derive a profit for future works programs. We will set up management boards for each major airport. These boards will have wide powers of management and will be instructed, whenever possible, to operate on commercial principals. Their membership will include business leaders and other qualified persons. These boards, subject to Commonwealth Government approval, will have the power to borrow on the commercial markets for the purposes of financing airport works. The Opposition believes that this policy of separate, accountable airport management is superior and therefore the Opposition opposes this Bill. Senator Archer will move for its referral to a Senate committee to subject the Bill to greater scrutiny which the points I have made show that it obviously requires. The Minister when replying could perhaps tell us a little about what has happened in regard to the Darwin airport terminal. It is now 12 months since work ceased. It is almost six months since the Government promised that it would have a report on an alternative terminal facility for Darwin. In the meantime the people of the Northern Territory are left with the worst terminal facility of any major airport in Australia. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.28) —At the outset I would like to place on record my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, on achieving the high office that you now hold. I think that your election does the House of Representatives justice. In rising to support the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1985 which is before the House today I would like to refer to a few points that have been made by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). He had the gall to talk about the cost of air travel within Australia and the ways in which we should bring down those costs. He knows full well that the Party of which he is a member brought in the two-airline policy, the one policy that has been attributed with keeping up the cost of travel within Australia. Not only did his Party implement that policy, but also it prevented Qantas Airways Ltd from carrying international passengers within Australia by enforcing the two-airline policy. That has had an impact not only on the cost of travel for those passengers but also on tourism within Australia. He also did not mention the inconvenience caused by the two-airline policy to the users of air travel within Australia. Coming from Perth, I know that the only time one can get out of Perth Airport is either midday or midnight. That is a direct result of the two-airline policy. It has been left to this Government to have a look at ways in which we can change that policy so that we can have not only cheaper air travel within Australia but also more con-venient air travel. Mr White —Well, why are you making life uncomfortable for East West? Mr GEAR —That is not our policy; that is the Opposition's policy. Mr White —That is what you are doing. Mr GEAR —No, we are not. Madam SPEAKER —I invite the honourable member to ignore the interjections. Mr GEAR —One of the major aspects of the Bill before us today is that it changes the administrative structure from the present department of state to an independent statutory authority. One of the benefits will be that airports will be able to operate on a more commercial basis. They are major business enterprises. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport has five million people going through it a year; Perth has around one million. The Federal Airports Corporation will be able to monitor more accurately the financial performance and efficiency of the major airports within Australia, which will allow better planning. I am told that around $1,000m is to be spent in the next decade. We need better information if we are to make sure that that money is spent in the best possible way. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Murray, talked about pork barrelling, which is something that the Opposition parties know plenty about. He also spoke about Darwin Airport, where $100m is to be spent on an airport that ranks about sixth in Australia on the 1984 figures. This amount of money should not be spent on Darwin Airport-not so much anyway-when we consider that nothing has been done about the second Sydney airport. The previous Government talked about a second Sydney airport for years. Once again, it is left to this Government to make the decision. The previous Government was in power for 30 years and now, in opposition, it still cannot make a decision because, in its view, it might cost a marginal seat or two. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, has put a lot of time into making sure that the second Sydney airport is sited at the best possible location. A speaker to follow me on this side of the House will have a bit more to say about that. Brisbane Airport is a scandalous waste of money when we consider that the need in Sydney is very much greater. So is Cairns Airport. I was staggered when I got off an aeroplane in Cairns to find that there are air bridges in the middle of nowhere. Cairns does not even rate in the top 12 airports in Australia. If that is not pork barrelling, I do not know what is. Adelaide is the same. Anybody who travels in and out of Adelaide Airport can have a look at the international terminal there. There is never any activity and one never sees any planes, but it has an international terminal mainly because the previous Government parties thought they might pick a few seats in South Australia by giving Adelaide an international airport. The legislation before us today sets up consultative committees at the local level which will comprise people such as nearby residents, the users of airports, consumers and people in the tourist and travel industries. One of the major benefits of that is that it will help the airports in their aim of being a good neighbour. I served on the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, and one of the complaints we had at our public hearings around Australia was that the airports never consulted with people adjacent to them on the ways in which policy changes affected the local residents. A good example of that was when the international terminal for Perth was to be built. Members of the local councils that adjoined Perth airport were invited to have a look at the proposals for the international terminal. When they turned up they were aghast to see that the international terminal was to be placed adjacent to the existing domestic terminal. As a result of pressures from those councils, the new international terminal of Perth is in its present position. It just goes to show that when the previous Government made decisions that affected local residents it never consulted with them. One thing I can say about this legislation is that the consultative committees that will be established when this legislation is passed will make sure that local residents have a forum where their voice can be heard. My previous point about the councils not being consulted has led to the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council being formed. They were forced to group together because of decisions being made that affected them directly, and there was no way they could make their voices heard. They now have AMAC up and running and it has made a significant contribution to the Committee on Aircraft Noise. AMAC in its future considerations now can go also to the consultative committee. We cannot rule out the possibility that one of its delegates may be a member of the consultative committee but, if not, it still can go to that consultative committee to put its point of view. I attended recently a meeting in Perth, called by representatives of AMAC because Perth does not look like getting the second parallel runway that was promised to it in a number of nebulous claims made by previous governments. I pointed out at that meeting that this Government has a needs based policy. As I have indicated before, there is a pressing need to spend money in the Sydney area because Sydney Airport is getting to the point where it is overloaded. Sydney Airport with its five million passengers, compared with Perth with its one million does not have a parallel runway. I was able to point out to the meeting that this Government's policy of a needs based program means that the question of a second parallel runway in Perth will not be addressed until the worse problem of aircraft noise in Sydney and Adelaide has been addressed. I will not take up much more time of the House. Other speakers on this side will point out different aspects of the Government's policy. One thing that surprises me is that it has taken a term in opposition for the Opposition, which was in government for 30 years, to come up with some proposals to change the system they had for all that time. The Minister at the table is to be congratulated for moving as fast as he has-we have been in government for only 3 years now-in coming up with proposals which will mean that airports in Australia will be operated on a more commercial basis, and, in the long term, decisions that affect those airports will be made on a more rational basis. That can only be good for the travelling public of Australia. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.38) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your recent elevation. This legislation is the Federal Airports Corporation Bill. I suppose that the fundamental question is: What is the reason for the legislation? Primarily it is designed to get the Commonwealth out of running airports and gives effect to the platform of the Australian Labor Party. As the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) pointed out, we would do it somewhat differently. Then the question arises: Why have a Corporation such as this? If one goes through the second reading speech of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), it can be summarised in three points-autonomy in finance, autonomy in staffing and autonomy in decision making, with the ultimate aim being greater efficiency of operation. They are all commendable aims, but does the Bill do that? As Mr Bosch pointed out at page 50 of the report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery: . . . there is a clear danger that trading statutory authorities will not necessarily attempt to minimise costs or refrain from over-provision of facilities and services. The benefit of any statutory authority is that it operates the functions more efficiently than does the Government department. Many people in the industry would agree in principle that the move to break the nexus between the provision of airway infrastructure services and the Department of Aviation is a very good thing. However, there is a real risk that this Bill will cause increased costs which will be borne ultimately by fare paying users of airlines. The Bill is a failure. The honourable member for Murray has outlined many points. One interesting point is that rescue and fire fighting services will be excluded from the proposed Corporation. The Bosch Inquiry recommended that they be included. The Estimates disclose a 27.3 per cent increase in the cost of such services, which are now at over $1.5m. That amount does not include any major capital expenditure for the services. On past records the employees of those services could well benefit from the strictures of a private enterprise orientated management. One wonders why they have been excluded from the ambit of the Bill. Other major points that arise include matters such as clause 46 of the Bill on the payments of dividends. The Corporation is required to make a recommendation to the Minister as to the amount of dividend, but under clause 46 (3) (a) (ii), the Minister may direct the Corporation to pay a dividend of a different amount. This clause must be read in conjunction with clause 39 which concerns the financial targets and performance indicators. Under clause 39 (1) (e), the Corporation is required to pay a reasonable dividend on the capital of the Corporation. This means that we are requiring this Corporation to pay a reasonable commercial dividend, but if the Minister thinks otherwise he can vary that decision without giving any reason. This is the classic trap in setting up such quangos. A Minister sees the good return, decides that the dividend is not high enough, directs that a higher dividend be paid, perhaps to meet short term budgetary deficit problems, and in so doing, takes up the reserves of the quango and in time it will be capital starved. The avenue for ministerial abuse is all too apparent. The money in the hollow log can, in effect, be got at whenever the Government so decides. This is not efficiency; clearly this is deceit at its worst. The Government sets up an arm's-length operation, directs it to make a profit, tells it to act commercially, yet, it gives itself the power to override all these laudable sentiments in order to get the cash if the Corporation does well. To top it off the Minister has the gall to say that this Corporation will be given financial autonomy. Other examples are plentiful. Part VI of the finance section relating to the capital structure of the Corporation provides to the Minister for Aviation and the Minister for Finance extremely broad discretions in determining that capital structure, thus giving rise to uncertainties over the financial base and capital repayment requirements, and thus, the level of charges that ultimately will be made. Clause 56 (5) is another example-the Minister can override the Corporation's determinations regarding the level of aeronautical charges. Another example is clause 44 (2), in which the Minister can give directions that the capital of the Corporation be repaid to the Commonwealth. The clause is broad and it states: . . . the capital is repayable at such times, and in such amounts, as the Minister determines. How then can the Corporation plan its future? One can well imagine a scenario in which a government-a big spending, profligate government such as this-seizes on the idea to clean out the capital of the Corporation to meet national budgetary targets. There are also other areas of concern. Clause 12 is headed `consultation'. In the age of consensus one would expect to find such a clause but I wonder whether the full ramifications have been thought through. This is a clause that has, to my knowledge, never appeared in such legislation before. It reads: In the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers the Corporation shall, where appropiate, consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer and other relevant bodies and organisations. What does `where appropriate' mean? I know there is the protection from litigation in clause 68, although I wonder about that also, but I can envisage the Corporation being tied down in consulting everyone and doing nothing. The clause may well be the subject of testing in the courts-for example, by a class action by airport noise abatement groups. My point is that consultation has a price; it is commendable in degree. I question whether this clause may lead in time to burdening an authority that is supposed to be efficient. I turn to clause 61 which concerns staffing. Under the Bill no staff will lose entitlements, but the Corporation will have the right to employ its own people and set up its own superannuation scheme. However, I suspect that the savings envisaged will not be readily realised and that all that will be achieved will be that the staff will be out of the Public Service quagmire, which is good, but that will be all. Therefore, the staffing autonomy aim is questionable. Also, I am sure that many staff will be concerned about the effect of a transfer to the Corporation. What happens if they wish to transfer to other areas of the Public Service? What happens to seniority? These issues need greater clarification. I know that the Launceston airport employees group in my own electorate, formed recently to protect the employees' future employment position, would wish to have further clarification in addition to the briefings that have already come from deputy secretary level. Obviously clear statements from the Minister are necessary. Let us have a look at clause 62 which relates to the Corporation as an employer. This section is another of the broad brush variety. It reads: The Corporation shall endeavour to achieve and maintain high standards as an employer in relation to terms and conditions of employment, occupational health, industrial safety, industrial democracy, non-discriminatory employment practices and other matters. To me, the most startling words are `other matters'. When did we pass laws in this place with such loose and unspecific language? Who is to interpret that phrase? Does `other matters' mean whatever the Australian Council of Trade Unions says? Is not that the let-out clause? Does it not give the Government-ACTU axis the ability to use the Corporation as the pacesetter for employment conditions? Private industry ought to be alarmed at this clause, if any. The major cost in business today is the employment cost. This Corporation could become the pacesetter and create unrealistic employment goals that could flow through the economy. Also, what does industrial democracy really mean? The Bill is a disappointment. If we must have another quango, please let us have one that is going to work the way that the Minister's second reading speech indicates he wants, with autonomy in management, efficiency and profitability. In my view the Bill is inadequate. We have in this Parliament a House of review which could usefully look in detail at the Bill. It ought to be referred to the Senate Committee on Finance and Government Operations. It can be reviewed and can benefit from all the accumulated knowledge we have in the Senate on the shortcomings of quangos. There is nothing to lose by such a move, but much to gain. It is certainly worthy of the Minister's consideration. Industry groups have expressed surprise that more time for consultation has not been given. I wonder why. I think, however, the answer is clear. In the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 25 November, an article entitled `Walsh set to tighten spending controls' reveals all. This article by Gregory Hywood says: Senator Peter Walsh is close to winning a two-year ministerial/bureaucratic battle to establish the option of imposing fixed dividends on the authorities and for their corporate plan to be overseen by his department. I do not know whether the battle has been won or lost, but if it has the Federal Airports Corporation will also come under the control of the Department of Finance, and wherein lies the autonomy. The Bill does not fit the arguments that Senator Walsh is putting, does it? There are no fixed dividend proposals in this Bill and there have been no amendments proposed. I am inclined to the view that a Senate committee will get to see this Bill on either our motion or even that of the Minister's colleague Senator Walsh. I wish to refer to the Schedule to the Bill. Apart from the observations that general aviation airports should not be included, as in the British Airports Corporation upon which this FAC is modelled, I would like to talk about Launceston airport, the third largest airfreight terminal in Australia and the natural gateway to Tasmania. Mr Lloyd —What was that figure again? Mr SMITH —Launceston is the third largest airfreight terminal in Australia. Launceston airport has suffered over the term of this Government and has been badly neglected to the point where yesterday Ansett Airlines of Australia announced that airfreight growth into Launceston is in jeopardy. This is on top of recent announcements about meteorological service cutbacks, the proposed night fire fighting service cutbacks-this is absolutely amazing for the third largest airfreight terminal where the freight moves in and out of the airport primarily at night-and there has been no relaxation of capacity requirements on passengers to permit East-West Airlines Ltd to operate on the Launceston-Sydney service for which it has a licence. The Department told me in writing as early as last August that there could be no development plan for Launceston until Launceston's fate under the FAC was determined. I question why the Department has been controlling the airport since the year dot. Because we have no plan we have the situation where Ansett, which carries over 80 per cent of airfreight into and out of Tasmania, primarily through Launceston, operates out of an inefficient, 1932 freight building, and has been told no, it cannot relocate and erect a new $3m freight terminal. We had to wait two years for an upgraded freight apron which has since been patched three times and upon which Ansett cannot park its 727 freight jets in the manner it wishes due to the Department's inability to relocate general aviation craft. Finally, yesterday, Ansett announced its proposed 707 freight service to South East Asia, to carry out of Launceston fresh meat, seafood, cut flowers, berry fruits, essential oils and other items, is all off because no decision on extending the strip at Launceston has been made. In Launceston, we want what we have been asking for for so long; that is, an extension of the tarmac to unrestricted 727 standard and 707 standard. Mere ongoing maintenance is not enough. Launceston needs an airport plan to permit the necessary freight service extensions. The whole economy of northern Tasmania depends on the continued expansion of this most important community infrastructure. No less a person than Mr Justice Everett said in his Tasmanian freight inquiry: Airfreight is the most rapidly expanding of the transport modes- That is into and out of Tasmania. Why then are the Minister and his Department deliberately hampering the growth of Launceston airport? Finally, if Launceston is to be forced into the FAC without an independent study to see whether it might not be better run under local ownership, will the Minister undertake to attend immediately to ensure all upgrading is done prior to Launceston airport becoming part of the FAC? Also under this Bill there is no provision of an FAC airport to be sought by a local community to be part of the Australian local ownership program. Why not? It is a major deficiency which ought to be rectified. Also, any studies to be undertaken by communities as to whether it would be desirable that airports within the FAC come under the ALOP ought also be funded by the Government, and the Bill ought to say so. I clearly reject this Bill and call for it to be referred to a Senate committee as suggested by the honourable member for Murray, which will be proposed by Senator Archer, my Tasmanian colleague and spokesman in the upper House on aviation matters. In particular, and of more local concern, I ask for the Minister's immediate attention on the problems that Launceston airport faces which have been put clearly to him over a number of months by me and other members of the local community. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.51) —It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on the Federal Airports Corporation Bill today. It emphasises the concern this Government has for the careful, planned and considered response to allegations that we as a government, in economic matters and matters concerning statutory authorities, do not know what we are doing. Quite obviously it is only this Government that clearly has plans for the future. In terms of the Federal Airports Corporation this typifies those concerns and the ability that this Government, particularly the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris), has in grappling with the problems that we inherited from former governments. It enables us to come up with solutions that are most desirable. It is important that we look at the explanatory memorandum to this Bill to consider what we are endeavouring to do by proposing this Corporation's establishment. I quote from the memorandum: The primary function of the Corporation is to develop, maintain and operate selected aerodromes and aerodrome facilities with emphasis on maximising commercial revenues from those airports and reducing the overall cost of the aviation system to the industry and the taxpayer. This is a most laudable aim and I believe that it is being achieved through the passage of this Bill. I believe that it is further evidence of the ability of this Government to venture into the hitherto sacrosanct realms of private enterprise while still retaining the ownership by the people of Australia. What that means in simple terms is that we are going to ensure that there is a better deal for air travellers, a better service provided to those people who use that service and many of the problems that we have heard mentioned here today quite properly can be directed to those opposite when they had the treasury bench. I was interested to hear some of the comments made, particularly by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), that pork barrelling has gone on by this Government in the provision of airport facilities and other things. It is quite interesting when one looks back and finds that $500m was allocated for the improvement to Brisbane airport by those opposite-none for Darwin. The honourable member made some reference to Darwin. There was none for Canberra, and yet he is charging this side of the House with pork barrelling. Quite obviously that is far from the correct position. The FAC is a recognition that the commercial operation of airports would be better managed by a Commonwealth business enterprise. Already, the Government has shown that it has the ability to do that through the improved performance of both Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines in recent years. There has been an incredible increase in profitability without dominating controls stemming from the Government. To say that this is just the creation of another quango over which the Government will have total domineering control is abject nonsense. The FAC is an important part of the Government's overall strategy to improve the efficiency of the aviation industry and the levels of service to the consumer. The Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery clearly demonstrated something which those on the other side of the House have long espoused; that is, that cost recovery in the aviation industry is desirable and is something to which we should all work towards. This Government has balanced the need for autonomy and entrepreneurial management with the need for public accountability to maximise the public benefit. After all, that is why we are here. We are here to maximise that public benefit-the benefit to those people who wish to use the airports-and to ensure that the facilities that are provided at airports are the best. The functions prescribed for the Corporation are outlined in Part II of the Bill. Essentially it talks about efficiency and cost effectiveness of the FAC. Quite obviously, and quite correctly, the Department of Aviation retains the responsibility for safety and security, overall national airport planning and, through the aircraft traffic control system, the safe operation of aircraft. There is no walking away by this Government from responsibility for those matters. Quite clearly, we concede that whilst we can have a corporation dealing with efficiency in an economic sense in terms of overall planning and safety requirements the Department of Aviation can continue to play a dominant role. I wish to talk quickly about two of those matters. The first concerns safety. It has been put to us that if the FAC continues along this line the commercial objectives mean that there will be reduced aviation safety. Quite obviously, that is not so. The division of responsibility between the Department and the FAC provides, as I have indicated, for air traffic control and flight services to remain with the Department of Aviation. The Department has the experts in this field. It has the technical officers who are best trained to handle these matters. They are not necessarily the money managers about whom we are talking in the Corporation. Rather, the Department will continue to be responsible for the technical side, the safety side, of airport management. Rescue, fire fighting services and search and rescue services will remain with the Department. Why not? The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) alluded to the fact that they were not included in the operations of the FAC. Quite correctly, that is so. For a number of years those areas have come under the responsibility of the Department of Aviation and they have been managed effectively and efficiently. Look at the safety record of airports in Australia. Australia has an excellent safety record in comparison with overseas countries. Airport construction, marking, maintenance, et cetera, will all be required to comply with departmental standards. Finally, FAC airports will be licensed under the Air Navigation Act. It is ludicrous to suggest that creating the Corporation and charging it with the responsibility for efficiency will in some way impinge upon safety requirements at airports. Additionally, the Corporation will be charged with the responsibility of carrying out its own functions in a manner which ensures the safety of airport users. I think basically that says it all. Some question was raised about the planning aspect and the fact that planning responsibilities would disappear, reappear or whatever. I wish to take the time of the House to refer to some personal experience in this respect. In my other life, prior to coming to this place, I was a town planner with the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning. I speak from experience when I say that there was an enormous amount of consultation with the Department of Aviation in planning for future airports and in planning for extensions to existing airports. Some question was raised about local planning codes and so on. It is a fact of life that the Crown-that is Commonwealth Government entities-is not bound by local council planning codes, or indeed State government planning codes. However, in the nine years experience I had in working for the New South Wales State Government there was consultation at every available opportunity. There was ongoing discussion. Quite clearly, the Department of Aviation and the Commonwealth Government were prepared to look at and to adhere to local planning controls if at all possible. Obviously, when we were talking about what would be the overall effect on the general community and whether it would be to the good of the community, certain other matters were taken into consideration, but where possible the provisions of local planning controls, building requirements, et cetera, were adhered to. This will not change. This will not change because the FAC is established. To say that it will is absolute nonsense. When we talk about planning for the future our attention is directed immediately towards consideration of the second Sydney airport and the decision that is imminent from our Cabinet. Honourable members will know of my concern for that proposition because one of the two sites which have been selected for determination is within my electorate. I again state here and now that the planning that has gone on under this Government to determine which of those two sites should be selected has been, in my view, extensive and intensive at the same time. That is the point. Consideration was given again to the concept of pork barrelling, whereby decisions were taken purely for political reasons. I can tell honourable members now that the decision on the second Sydney airport will not be taken for political reasons. That is for sure. The Minister is nodding. The decision will be taken purely on the grounds of economics, efficiency and the best possible site. It may not necessarily be the one that is in my electorate, which would be unfortunate, but again it may be. The process upon which this Government embarked in getting to a position where the environmental impact statement was published, public consideration took place, staff of the Department of Aviation toured the affected areas to promote awareness of what was being considered, submissions were called for, a meeting was held with anti-airport lobby groups, a meeting was held with pro-airport lobby groups and so on was part of its determination to ensure that proper planning went into the consideration of the final determination of the second Sydney site. If one looks at that in a wider context one sees that the Airports Corporation will have a similar role, in consultation with the Department of Aviation, and so it should be. My final comment on this whole second Sydney airport site selection process is one that I would direct to my Cabinet colleagues; that is, the importance of making a decision and making it as soon as possible, preferably at next Monday's Cabinet meeting. For too long now the people of the Wilton and Badgerys Creek areas have been kept in limbo, not knowing what the future holds for them. I make that plea. I am sure that given the process of consideration and determination by this Government the final decision will be made. I turn to a number of other issues which are associated with the legislation. The Corporation will take responsibility for all State capital city airports, plus Coolangatta Airport, plus Launceston Airport, about which the honourable member for Bass spoke a short time ago. It is interesting that he also referred in passing to a meteorological services inquiry which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure is currently carrying out. I happen to chair the sub-committee that is looking at that problem and was in Launceston investigating that matter last week. A number of the problems to which the honourable member for Bass alluded were quite clearly demonstrated to the Committee in the course of that inquiry. I can say to him and to other honourable members that in determining the recommendations that the sub-committee will put before the Parliament the matters raised in respect of Launceston will be taken into consideration. In conclusion, it is important for us to realise that Sydney will be the city in which the new Corporation will face its major challenges, simply because of having to select a second Sydney airport and having to balance out the relationship between general aviation and the more regular public transport aviation needs. I think that is a responsibility that this Government well and truly faces up to. The Corporation will enable us to face up to that in a more balanced and a more business-like way. I come back to the very point I made at the start of my contribution. We are talking about improving the lot of the air traveller and the efficiency of airport operations. No one could say that that is not a laudable aim. In conclusion, I think it is important to realise that the establishment of the Corporation is a significant step forward in ensuring that the provision and operation of costly airport infrastructure is based on efficiency and that investment is undertaken only when there is financial and economic justification. The days of pork barrel- ling, the days of suggesting that we need more international gateways to this country, are gone. We have enough international airports now-probably more than we need-and I think that is a legacy of past attempts to win votes and to win seats. In moving to establish the Federal Airports Corporation to operate our airports, we as a government are bringing Australia into line with general international practices. Again, I think that is an important point. Finally, for the first time in Australia, the financial performance of airports will be measured and results made available to airport users. We often lose sight of the fact that as a parliament we are responsible to the people. There has been much discussion about cost recovery in aviation. As I said earlier, the Bosch report indicated certain avenues to be followed and made certain recommendations. The Government is aware of that. The FAC, when established, will look to efficiency. There will be no compromise on safety. There will be continued recognition of efficiency and the provision of services to the users of airports around Australia. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(11.07) —The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) says, in a masterly piece of understatement, that `the aviation industry has been critical . . . of the inability of the current administrative processes'-that is, of the Department of Aviation-`to make changes in a timely manner to meet the requirements of a dynamic market'. It would seem that the 800 or more submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on the parlous state of aviation regulation in Australia have made at least some impression on the Minister. Since the Minister is able to bring himself to admit some fault in his top heavy, small minded and heavily criticised Department, it seems strange that he also seeks to defend the Department, claiming that the creation of this semi-autonomous, partially controlled Corporation is no reflection upon its past performance. The reasons for that are clear. His Department has two very great skills. The first of these is snowing Ministers, past and present, and this Minister addresses this House from beneath an avalanche. The second great departmental skill is in covering its back-a skill that the long-suffering general aviation pilots claim has reached an art form within the Department. It pains me to criticise any department, but as this Parliament debates a Bill that will set up a new airports authority, with the greater part of its future employees drawn from the Department of Aviation, it is well past time for a few home truths. The Minister informs us in one breath that the new Federal Airports Corporation will be required to offer positions to all Aviation Department staff whose functions are to be transferred, and to offer conditions of employment `at least equivalent' to those they currently enjoy in the Public Service. However, in the next breath the Minister tells us that the Corporation will be-and I use his words-`freed from the requirements of staffing under Public Service conditions' and will have the power to set conditions of employment. What kind of double-speak is this? Is the Corporation to inherit an elite clique of ex-departmental employees on separate and special terms and conditions while its new employees are hired under inferior contracts? If so, we can imagine the bad blood that will undoubtedly arise between the new blood and the old, and the haemorrhaging in staffing and morale that will result. Even worse, is the true situation to be like that of Trans Australia Airlines and the Commonwealth Trading Bank in which a commercial body is to be locked into the salary levels and generous conditions that apply within the Public Service? That is what I think the Minister intends, despite his double-talk, and the results will be disastrous. It will mean that the new Corporation will be as riddled with inefficiency and bureaucratic small mindedness as the Department has been to date in its administration of aviation. In light of the Expenditure Committee report there should be no need for me to support that statement, but I shall be specific. The Minister states that the Department will retain responsibility for safety and security standards, and that is a crucial point. As anyone who has read Dick Smith's Aviation Hall of Doom publication knows-I certainly hope that the Minister has overcome his distaste and has done so-safety and security are the key justifications for all the money wasting, empire building, employment generating and budget blossoming extravagance of the Department. Aviation regulation, under the guise of safety, is out of control. A prime example of the Department's obsessive and illogical behaviour, in the false name of safety, is available to the Minister in my own electorate at Gove. That town of 5,000 or so people, isolated by land and sea and almost totally reliant on one form of transport, aviation, because the Aboriginal people will not permit a sealed road to be built, is suffering the effects of the Department's determined application of its own outdated regulations without regard to the reality of local conditions. For more than a decade Gove has been serviced by five or six F28 jet flights each week, in addition to two flights each by Ansett 737s and TAA DC9s. It was proposed to increase the DC9-737 flights by one or two a week. The Department, applying the rule book, decided that additional scheduled daytime flights would be unsafe unless a control tower was built at the airport. This was despite the fact that the Department has authorised 737s and DC9s to fly into Gove at night without a control tower. At enormous cost a tower has been built to cater for a mere handful of extra movements each week. However, now the Minister has advised me that the Department has changed its mind, that we will now have two control towers in the Northern Territory that have been built and not manned, and that the two additional DC9-737 flights can be operated without the need for controlled air space. The reason given is that a Department of Science meteorological bureau has since been established and that aircraft movements are not as heavy as was anticipated. That is an anomaly in itself. As Gove meteorological office opens, Alice Springs, with no other meteorological office within 800 kilometres, is about to close-and the Department talks about safety. The fact is that the Department got it wrong and, under financial pressures, realised that it could not afford to man the tower, for, at the most, two jet flights a day. So now Gove has a new unmanned tower, a monument to bureaucratic maladministration, which has cost taxpayers millions of dollars to build and will cost thousands each year to maintain. That is the way this Department works-creating expensive, unnecessary and time wasting memorials to its own inefficiency at airports around the country. No doubt the Department's continued `safety' role will mean that the new Corporation will have to do its job not only carrying the dead weight but also operating beneath the dead hand of the Department. I ask the Minister to explain to me and to the aviation industry how it could ever have been considered safe for F28 jets to take off and land in uncontrolled airspace while it is apparently unsafe for 737s and DC9s? This is no isolated case. At Hamilton Island, the advent of regular passenger transport jet aircraft at the frenetic rate of eight a week has similarly required controlled air space and a tower to be built at the Barrier Reef resort, in submission to the god of over-regulation. Can the Minister inform the House whether his Department is still flying its two aircraft traffic-controllers out to the island each day to meet and supervise these jet flights, or has the Department now found accommodation for them on the island resort? Perhaps the two Hamilton Island controllers do not share with their colleagues the stress related illnesses which apparently strike down people in this occupation, as they guide one flight in, and one out each day, through the dense air traffic of the coral reefs. We might compare these two by no means unique examples of over-regulation with overseas experience. At Anchorage in Alaska, for example, military, domestic and civilian airports, all within five miles of each other, with hundreds of aircraft movements daily, including at least ten 747 flights, survive disaster without controlled air space restrictions. In the United States many airports run at a profit for their county authority or private corporation ownership. That is at least in part due to the lower level of regulatory imposition from the Federal Aviation Administration. In the United States safety standards are ensured by the individual assessment of different airports by FAA officers. However, in Australia the ruling mentality is the application of the aviation bible in all cases. It seems that such a system of individual assessment is beyond the capacity of the thousands of departmental officers. Of course, most of these people, of whom I understand some 1,600 are to be transferred to the Corporation to run 17 of 300 Australian airports, are not involved in such decisions. Many are involved in producing the boxes and boxes of paper with which the Department simultaneously snows Australian pilots and covers its back. In general it seems that the industry has tentatively favoured the establishment of the new Corporation-with many reservations-on the basis that any withdrawal of the Department from any function must be a step forward. No wonder; the paper work created and spoon fed to the aviation industry is stupefying. For instance, recently the Department sent every pilot in Australia the radio navigation routes from Perth to Denpasar in Bali. Only Qantas could make such a flight, it being the only owner of aircraft of sufficient range. That airline uses the Jefferson charts which it buys from the United States. However, every Australian pilot, both private and commercial, is issued free of charge the flight plan. It is issued free of charge to pilots but not to taxpayers, who must fund this sort of nonsense. Any pilot who read the horrendous amount of material sent out each year by this paper crazed Department would need to double the regularity of his or her eyesight tests. In the words of a popular Australian comedian-popular mainly for his ability to impersonate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-pilots will have to `stop it or you'll go blind'. The Notams, notices to airmen, issued by the Department are infamous. I cite one example. A recent Notam reads: Sydney runway 25 inner approach slope gradient reduced one per cent. I sincerely hope that the new Federal Airports Corporation staff will be able to explain to pilots what such notices mean. One pilot who received this information asked controllers at Melbourne what it meant. He was told they had no idea. Finally, after lengthy investigation the Airports Division of the Department-the Division that will form the nucleus of the Corporation-was able to explain that it had discovered a one per cent difference in gradient of the Sydney runway from that originally published in some unnamed, and almost certainly widely unread, document. The fact is that this Notam, like so many others, was merely an exercise in back covering just in case some pilot made a heavy landing on the runway and claimed it was due to a one per cent gradient difference of which he had not been notified. Of course, that is not a likely claim. The thinking is: Above all, cover one's back. No wonder the Bosch Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery-the findings of which this Labor-inspired Corporation ignores-was specifically prevented from investigating the inefficiencies of the Department in its cost recovery exercise. As the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association President, Peter Patroni, has pointed out, the great weight of this bureaucracy is hung around the neck of the industry, meaning a $490m a year budget to service the 7,000 aircraft registered in Australia, with about $180m being thrown in by the taxpayer each year. The Minister assures us that the combined staffing of the new Corporation and the Department will not exceed the current staffing level of the Department. I certainly hope that it will not. I hope that this separation of responsibility will overcome the apparent total lack of communication within the Department. I am reliably informed that the $16m upgrading of the Sydney taxiway, of which the Minister proudly informed us during the Budget session, is totally unnecessary. My information is that the upgrading is a means of compensating for outdated air traffic control radar which, astonishingly could itself be upgraded at a cost of around $2m. If I were not aware of many other examples of bizarre departmental expenditure-such as the Gove control tower and the half-finished Darwin control tower which has been abandoned-I would discount this story. However, in light of other examples of mismanagement, I can believe that the Department proposes spending $16m to save $2m. The Minister might like to give us a detailed rebuttal of that scenario. I note that the Minister is keen to ensure that in future priorities for airport infrastructure development are not influenced by matters unrelated to economics or efficiency. I welcome this because there is no doubt that economics and efficiency considerations have had nothing to do with this Government's decisions on Darwin and Alice Springs airports. While Darwin Airport as a shared defence facility will not come under the control of the Corporation, I hope that the Minister will apply the same ground rules to all airports across Australia. On that matter, I will take issue with the Minister on facts he put to this Parliament last year while defending his blatantly political decision not to proceed with the Darwin Airport upgrading. The Minister is on the record as saying that Townsville Airport has much greater passenger traffic than Darwin. That is grossly misleading. In fact, in the latest year for which figures are available, 1983-84, Darwin had nearly 3,500 more international arrivals and 4,500 more international departures than Townsville. In that year international passengers from Darwin increased 5 per cent while they went down 4 per cent at Townsville. While it is true that domestic passenger turnover figures were less in Darwin, the Minister deliberately chooses to ignore in his calculations an all-important factor in the way that inbound and outbound passengers are counted. That factor is that Townsville figures are considerably distorted by all those passengers whose final destinations are Mackay, Rockhampton, Proserpine, Brisbane and Cairns but who simply are counted as they pass through the terminal at Townsville. As the Minister for Aviation should be particularly aware, Darwin is the end of the line, apart from a few passengers to Gove. This means that the figures take on a far greater importance in terms of final destination and departure points. Nothing that I have said detracts from my welcome of the $1m planned expenditure at Townsville Airport this financial year. Townsville certainly needs and fully deserves it. Basically, the terminal at Townsville is in the same shape as it was when I first passed through it in about 1956. However, in view of the Minister's expressed commitment to a new economic rationalism on airport construction, I am sure these figures will be of great interest to him as he applies his new-found principles and, incidentally, studies the favourable reappraisal of the Darwin Airport priority-the report of which he is yet to put before this House. Of course, he is only six months overdue on his own timetable. I join the aviation industry in fervently hoping that this new Corporation will mean some improvement in the performance of the aviation responsibilities of the Minister's portfolio. The Opposition opposes the Bill because clearly it is an inferior approach to that of tackling past aviation regulation failures through the appointment of management boards for individual airports. However, since the Federal Airports Corporation is what the industry is likely to get, like it or not, I live in hope that it will succeed in serving the industry far better than its predecessor's Department has. I hope that if this Bill is referred to a Senate committee, as proposed by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), we will see a more wholesome product at the end of that review. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(11.23) —The aim of the Federal Airports Corporation Bill is to place the commercial operations of a number of airports in Australia in the hands of a Commonwealth business enterprise. I would have thought that members of the Opposition would have supported the proposition because it would allow this statutory authority to take on what one would see as a business mentality. I concur with the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) when he says that an independent statutory authority would offer significant advantages, first of all, to the travelling public and, secondly, to the Australian taxpayer as well as to the aviation industry. Certainly it would allow the commercial flexibility which is greatly desired. More importantly, it would allow consumer responsiveness. The proposed Federal Airports Corporation will be able to act and to react more readily to meet the changing needs of the plane-travelling public and also the aviation industry. Therefore, I find it quite surprising that members of the Opposition have stood in this chamber today and spoken against the proposition so ably put by the Minister. However, I suppose it is not unexpected. We have noticed in recent times how members of the Liberal and National parties are prepared to oppose anything that is aimed at increasing the efficiency of any public enterprise. It seems that they have a desire to ensure that those aspects of our community which are run by public enterprise deteriorate and run at significant losses, because they want to convince the public generally that their idea of privatisation is the answer. It would appear, from some of the Press releases of Opposition members, that that is what they want to do-they want to privatise the profitable airports. If honourable members think about it, that proposal means that they want to leave the unprofitable airports as a continuing burden on the Australian taxpayer. Mr Lloyd —Don't you know about local ownership? You should find out what your own policy is. Mr WRIGHT —I know all about local ownership. For the honourable member's knowledge, it was introduced in 1957 and had bipartisan support. It has been pursued by this Government and previous governments, but it has not always been acceptable to local authorities, be they councils, harbour boards or any such instrumentalities, because there have been some problems. I will be speaking about that matter in a few moments as it relates to the Rockhampton City Council because Rockhampton is an area which I represent. It seems that the Opposition wants to leave the unprofitable airports to be paid for by the taxpayer and to hive off all the profitable airports to its friends in private enterprise. I believe that the Hawke Government deserves commendation for its determination to upgrade the management of public enterprises. In the last three years, we have seen that this is the thrust of many of the pieces of legislation that have been brought forward here, and it is the centrepiece of the legislation being presented by the Minister for Aviation. I go as far as to say that I would welcome this legislation encompassing the airport at Rockhampton. Some honourable members may appreciate that a rather controversial situation is developing with regard to that airport. I will canvass that point. While I am speaking about the general aspects of aviation, I ask that consideration be given to reviewing the overall powers of government over all airports. At the moment, the Rockhampton Airport faces a rather strange threat of a private airport being constructed by the Iwasaki group of companies. The Iwasaki resort is only some 30 kilometres away from Rockhampton. For some time there have been rumours and claims that the Iwasaki group was considering the construction of its own airport. When the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) was in Yeppoon recently, he put that question to the management of the Iwasaki group, who said that really what it was about was constructing an airport to meet the needs of small planes because Yeppoon will have two very large golf courses and tourists will be encouraged to fly in for tournaments. It would appear from a comment that the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, made in a town called Dingo towards the end of last year that that is not the truth. Instead, the Premier said that what Mr Iwasaki intended to do was to build his own airport to be able to bring in tourists not only from Japan but also from all over Australia to benefit from that resort. It was also admitted in the Morning Bulletin in central Queensland that discussions had been held between Ansett Airlines of Australia and Iwasaki on the proposal to build their own airport. It is claimed that Sir Peter Abeles personally approached Mr Iwasaki, and it was the Mayor of Rockhampton, Jim Webber, who quickly contacted Mr Iwasaki in Japan and asked him not to consider the proposition put, I believe, by Sir Peter Abeles to build his company's own airport-an Ansett airport-as it has done on Hamilton Island. We find now that despite all the denials, the Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, Peter McKechnie, told me personally that he believed that Iwasaki would go ahead with building his own airport. That may not be very meaningful to honourable members of this chamber, but I put to them that, if another domestic airport were built some 30 kilometres from Rockhampton, it would mean the demise of the Rockhampton Airport. It would be the means of destroying tourism in central Queensland. It would mean that everything relating to tourism would be centred upon the Iwasaki resort. I hate to think what that would mean in terms of losses for Trans Australia Airlines because, if Ansett is party to this scheme, it would mean that Ansett would have a monopoly on flights servicing the tourist enterprises of central Queensland, particularly the Iwasaki resort. That has happened in the Whitsunday area. Good luck to Ansett that it has taken the initiative, but I am told that Ansett has the monopoly on Hamilton Island, in the Whitsunday area. Anyone who wants to go to the tourist areas around Hamilton Island, regardless of what island it might be, will fly Ansett and will land on Hamilton Island. So Ansett has the monopoly. If that monopoly were transferred to Rockhampton, one could see the devastating effect it would have, more so because at this time and for some years consideration has been given to upgrading the Rockhampton Airport. In June last year, the Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey report, funded by the Department of Aviation, brought down a number of major recommendations centred on the upgrading of the Rockhampton Airport. It is quite obvious that if the Iwasaki scheme were allowed to go ahead, the upgrading of the Rockhampton Airport would have to be cast aside. At first, I thought that was impossible, that surely no private entrepreneur could set up a scheme which could jeopardise a public facility such as an airport, and surely no one, even a private entrepreneur such as Iwasaki, regardless of the multi-million dollars which he has backing him and regardless of the support of Ansett, could dare jeopardise such an important project as the upgrading of the Rockhampton Airport, until I was advised officially that there is nothing a Federal government can do about it. In fact, there is no reason why a private developer cannot build his own airport, providing it complies with regulations on runway length, strength and width and on the removal of hazards nearby, which are laid down in Australian regulations and in international civil aviation rules. This means that should Mr Iwasaki desire to go ahead, given the backing of Sir Peter Abeles, Ansett or anyone else, the Iwasaki group can build its own domestic airport, and once the airport complies with the regulations, according to its proposed use, it will then be licensed by the Federal Government and any domestic airline would be entitled to use it, and the owner could charge landing fees at whatever rate he liked, as in the case with Hamilton Island. I believe that I have put to this chamber a serious problem relating to our present laws in that this Government and this Parliament have no control over such a very important area. In the case of local government no one can build a parking area, no one can build a shopping centre and no one can build roads without the approval of the relevant local authority. In fact, if one wants to expand one's shop today, under local government rules one is required to provide parking. There are very strict rules at State and local government levels, but it seems that at the Federal level, despite the desires of the Minister and the concerns that may exist at that level of government, there is nothing to stop a private entrepreneur from proceeding with his or her airport project. International flights are a different matter but, if one looks very closely at the regulations, one finds that a developer is entitled to develop his own airport to international standards and that developer can get that international airport licensed as such but, for international flights to fly direct to it, he would need special Federal Government approval, because of the Government's bilateral agreement on access with foreign countries. To give an explanation, this is simply the case whereby, if Japan is to fly planes into Australia, the Australian national line has a right to fly into Japan. It is the same in the case of Singapore; it is one for one. If this argument were put forward in a different way, for instance, if Japan were not using one of its access flights, I am told there is nothing to stop Japan Air Lines or any other Japanese airline, such as All Nippon Airways, from flying directly into the Iwasaki international airport in Rockhampton. I do not believe it will become an international airport, but I believe it will be licensed to an international standard. The reason I do not believe it will go to that point is that Ansett would not really want it. If Ansett were party to this scheme, it would want JAL to land in Cairns or Townsville, in which case it would become the domestic carrier. It would have the monopoly, just as it would have from Melbourne and Sydney. The point is that there is nothing this Government or this Parliament can do about it. It surprises me-I am amazed-that that is the situation. I believe that, as we consider the legislation that exists in the field of aviation, cognisance should be given to this problem and consideration should be given to changing the law to ensure that private entrepreneurs simply cannot move in and build their own airports and jeopardise existing public airports. As I said, this is a matter of great concern, because, through the generosity of the previous Minister for Aviation and the present Minister, the Rockhampton City Council has been offered $10m under the local ownership plan so that the airport can be upgraded and expanded to meet its needs in 1995. At this moment the proposition is not acceptable to the Rockhampton City Council, particularly to the Mayor, Alderman Jim Webber. It is not acceptable because the present proposal does not include an extension of the runway from 1,980 metres to 2,275 metres. Regardless of an agreement that seemed to emanate by way of correspondence from the Aviation Department that this was acceptable, we now have some contradictory statements from the airlines. I understand fully the position in which the Minister is placed. He cannot go ahead and support an extension of a runway when the users, that is, the airlines say that extension is not necessary and not required. I ask honourable members to consider this point: On the one hand Ansett is saying that there is no need to extend the Rockhampton runway and on the other hand it is considering getting into bed with the Iwasaki group to talk about building a domestic runway at the Iwasaki resort which I am told could be as long as 2,500 metres. One wonders why and how this could be allowed. We do face a problem because the Mayor has been told by the General Manager of Iwasaki in Australia that if the Australian Government does not support the upgrading of the Rockhampton Airport facilities, Iwasaki will go ahead and build its own airport. This may be seen as blackmail; it may be seen as a threat. But I suggest to this chamber that it is a real threat. The Iwasaki resort opens in May this year. It already has accommodation facilities to cater for at least 1,000 tourists. The advice I have received from a previous manager of Iwasaki is that in the main for the first year those tourists will come from Sydney and Melbourne, but before long they will come from Japan. When one considers 1,000 tourists travelling to the area, one is talking about six or seven additional 737s a week into Rockhampton. Honourable members who have been to Rockhampton and have seen the inadequacy of the facilities there will concur with me totally that there is a desperate need to upgrade those facilities. Some months back we had a problem in Brisbane when a person was pouring petrol over the tarmac and seven jets were redirected to Rockhampton. Hundreds upon hundreds of people were standing around in the Rockhampton Airport and no facilities were available. Everything was overtaxed. Whether one considers Rockhampton as an alternative airport for domestic jet flights or the pending tourist boom that will take place in a matter of months, there is a strong argument for the upgrading of Rockhampton Airport. I believe that the runway should be extended. I believe that if it were extended Rockhampton would not end up with an international airport, but it could be an international gateway. This proposition was put in 1983 by the then Minister for Aviation who pointed out that such an occurrence has taken place all over the Mediterranean. If one were to link the Hamilton Island project with Iwasaki, central Queensland tourism, Queensland tourism and, for that matter, Australian tourism could greatly benefit by having back-to-back charter flights into those two airports. But if that is to happen the runway must be extended and the facilities must be improved. I mentioned previously the Gutteridge Haskins and Davey report, an independent report funded by the Department of Aviation. It looked not only at the runway but also at access roads, car parks, taxiways, drainage, aprons, terminal facilities and relocation of buildings and facilities. I stress that it was an independent study funded by the Department of Aviation. I have here a summation of that report. It is quite clear that those experts, those engineers, were completely of the opinion that the Rockhampton Airport had to be improved, that the Rockhampton facilities were totally inadequate, that the facilities were overcrowded and that they were taxed to the limit. I suggest that with the opening of the Iwasaki resort, Rockhampton Airport is not the sort of facility that one would want tourists to travel through, because their first impressions would be dismal and negative. I have heard arguments that Iwasaki ought to pay his way because after all he will be the main beneficiary. But I suggest that central Queensland will be the beneficiary with the Iwasaki project going ahead. It will be the catalyst for greater tourist development. It will mean that thousands upon thousands of tourists will travel to central Queensland. I would hope many of them would spend money in central Queensland, although, as I say, I am aware that the Iwasaki tactics involve tourists prepaying everything in Japan, with very little money going to the country of destination. But for the next couple of years most of those tourists will be Australians, so there will be a massive input of tourist money. This will not happen if an alternative airport is built at the Iwasaki resort which, as I said, is only 30 kilometres away. It will destroy the Rockhampton tourist industry and it will have an overall effect on central Queensland. It is for this reason that I am amazed that the Premier of Queensland supports the concept. I am amazed that his Cabinet has made supportive statements such as: `We can understand why Mr Iwasaki would want to do it'. It amazes me that the National Party, and particularly the Premier, would hop into bed with Iwasaki on this project, knowing full well the overall negative effect it will have. But there is one solution, and that is for the Federal Government to involve itself heavily, irrespective of the local government ownership proposal or program that was put to the Rockhampton City Council. There is a need for this airport to be upgraded. The Haskins report has already been completed and the recommendations have been made. As I said, I believe that this upgrading needs to be done quickly because we have tourists knocking on our door. I ask that consideration be given immediately to the upgrading of this airport. I stress to all honourable members that this is something that affects not only the city of Rockhampton but also the whole State of Queensland and eventually it will affect the whole country. I believe that the legislation is worth while. I reiterate my point that I only wish that the Rockhampton Airport was being included in the Bill. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(11.41) —I will immediately set the record straight. Some of the Government members who have addressed the Federal Airports Corporation Bill 1985 that is before the House have alleged quite baldly that the Opposition is opposed to the general proposal. That comment no doubt is predicated on the foreshadowed action of the Opposition to oppose the legislation at this stage. The concept of the Federal Airports Corporation is laudable and invites support, which would be its proper entitlement if those addressing the question were thoroughly satisfied as to its total ramifications. The concept certainly provides an opportunity for a vast improvement in that field of endeavour. But the t's must be crossed and the i's must be dotted so that everyone who will be involved, including the citizens of Australia who travel through the aviation system, may be satisfied that benefit will accrue. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) in his second reading speech set out the criteria and clearly the proposal invites support; it demands support. He stated that by placing this responsibility with a largely independent statutory authority, significant advantages would result to the travelling public, the taxpayers, the aviation industry and airport administrators. Nobody could argue with that proposition. But to refine those elements, the travelling public will be looking for added convenience and cost savings. The taxpayer, of course, would not seek to be unduly burdened. The aviation industry looks for efficiency and viability. The airport administrators, perhaps the most important element, must expect and demand sufficient latitude to achieve the objectives which have been placed before them as a prime responsibility. Overhanging all of these points, of course, is the real consideration that the Government, for reasons that may or may not be viable, has the ability seriously to impede the Corporation in the addressing of its responsibilities. I have very much in mind, as a consequence of my chairing of a public hearing of the Joint Committee on Public Works in Sydney last week in respect of the international airport terminal alterations, matters which arose which clearly indicate that a Corporation will be substantially hamstrung in making those viable, effective and efficient business administration decisions which are the very spirit of the Corporation. I do not think for one moment that I am pre-empting any determination of the Public Works Committee. Comments were made during the public hearing which consequentially have become the property of the public. I was very impressed by the fact that we are contemplating spending $20m now on urgently required alterations to the international airport terminal building which in time may prove to be totally in conflict with the objectives of the Corporation. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the extreme case. This $20m is not being invested to provide increased capacity but to cope with an immediately urgent congestion problem at the airport, and may prove to be an absolute waste of money if the Corporation's own business judgment is, say, to relocate the terminal, build a new complex altogether or build something in conjunction with the existing facility. We have usurped a quite logical administration determination for which the Federal Airports Corporation has been particularly tailored. Again, that is subject to government determination in the case of curfews. I am extremely impressed with the fact that at particular hours of the day one can walk into that terminal and it reeks of capacity. It is lightly populated and it is not unhandsome in its general impression but because of the curfews imposed upon airways operations not only within Australia, but also on originating ports in other countries, we have a very tight slotting. If I remember correctly, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., 2,800 incoming passengers are milling in that congested area. Clearly, if that curfew could retreat-it was put by way of comment that the curfew finishing time could be changed from 6 a.m. to 5 a.m., extending operations by an hour-it could be argued that the short term alterations we are contemplating would, in fact, not be so urgent as presently argued. That question remains the prerogative of government. So the Corporation is not free to exercise these responsibilities and powers that we seek to extend to it in this legislation. Again, in that field, if the Corporation on business judgment came to the conclusion that the parallel runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would greatly enhance the capacity to improve the frequency of aircraft movements, it must have an economic impact on the operations. If the Corporation could gain some control in that area, benefit would flow through to the aviation industry. It would be freed from the costs of keeping aircraft in holding patterns or slowing down their approaches. Sometimes this is engineered from well back along the track. Instead of maintaining ordinary cruise speeds, pilots throttle back to regulate their arrival times. This is not consistent with efficiency or economy within the aviation industry. On the question of a parallel runway and the congestion, noise pollution and the arguable adverse effect on the populace in the vicinity of that airport, the Corporation will not be free to exercise its judgment as to what would achieve the objectives laid down in this legislation-all those laudable objectives that the Minister for Aviation detailed in his second reading speech. The spirit of the concept is beyond dispute. The Opposition supports the spirit but is quite insistent that the industry and this Parliament should know more of the finer detail. Quite reasonable arguments have been advanced that there has been inadequate consultation with the industry. There is concern about what is described as incremental charges which could result in a somewhat bizarre situation in which charges will relate to runway distances used and the weight of departing and arriving aircraft. At first blush one could have a quite ludicrous situation of a 747 flying to Auckland with a lighter fuel load and, as a consequence, using a shorter takeoff distance paying a different charge from that paid for a 747 flying long haul to Singapore. All these elements are presently in the mysterious basket. We do not really know what we are dealing with. We are establishing a somewhat amorphous body to address a laudable objective, but the fine tuning has not been done and people have a right to know exactly what is entailed. We are burdened with attitudes common to our populace at large. The machinery that we may establish by way of the Corporation will prove to be totally ineffectual if a spirit is not generated to make it work thoroughly. Comments have been made that we are simply transferring a problem out of the Department of Aviation into the Corporation. The attitudes of all those involved within the exercise must be all that we would wish and those people must have latitude to achieve their objectives. Of course, that remains the big question. We are also mindful that even today there is evidence that in the Treasury and the Department of Finance air travel is still considered something of a luxury and, therefore, extortionate demands could be made on it to accommodate financial objectives. In a country such as Australia this is transparently an absolute nonsense. We have an interest and an obligation to ensure the efficient operation of a system that will reasonably accommodate the expectations of people and the extraordinary demographic nature of this vast country with a distribution of population in considerable imbalance. I emphasise again that the Opposition is not opposed to the concept but, acting quite responsibly, is moving to ensure that some of these questions yet unanswered are satisfactorily answered for the benefit of the Parliament and all those who will be involved in this continuing aviation operation. Debate (on motion by Mr O'Keefe) adjourned. Madam SPEAKER —Pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Moore, Lyne, Lilley, Forrest, Bowman, Ballarat, Wide Bay, Banks, Curtin and Dundas to act as Deputy Chairman of Committees when requested so to do by the Chairman of Committees. Debate resumed. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(11.52) —I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker of this House. I enter the debate to support the Federal Airports Corporation Bill. I want to mention the contribution made by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I had some pleasure in listening to his approach. I note that he has indicated that the Opposition is supporting the proposal from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). It is a pleasure to hear occasionally someone on the other side of the House giving credit where it is due and not simply opposing for the sake of opposition. I respond to the contribution made by the honourable member for Wide Bay in that manner. I welcome the introduction of the new airport authority proposal which is encompassed in this Bill. The Tullamarine Airport is in my electorate and so, obviously, this Bill is of close interest to me. Last year I had the privilege of being a member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. That experience has enabled me to come to grips with many of the issues that are associated with the operation of airports and their effect in the Australian community. I want to do three things in this debate: Firstly, I want to reiterate some of the general points made in the Minister's second reading speech because I think they are worth repeating. Secondly, I want to make some comparisons between the approach being adopted by our Government and those adopted in the past and mention the problems that we have encountered. Thirdly, I want to make some suggestions on the general operation in the future, particularly as it affects Tullamarine Airport in my electorate. I know that that is of deep interest to people living in and around Tullamarine Airport. When the Government came to office in 1983 it had as part of its platform a policy for improved administration of major airports. We believe that placing this responsibility with a largely independent statutory authority offers significant advantages to the travelling public, taxpayers, the aviation industry, airport administrators and people living around and working at airports. Our subsequent analysis has confirmed this view. The Federal Airports Corporation is an important part of the Government's overall strategy to improve the efficiency of the aviation industry and the level of services to consumers. During the debate so far we have touched on the issue of privatisation-not said quite as openly as that, but surfacing from the other side of the House again and also bringing into perspective the question of deregulation. I want to pick up and support some of the comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) in his contribution. It ought to be recognised that departments of state by necessity are bound by government processes which inhibit commercial flexibility and responsiveness. The aviation industry has been critical of this fact and of the inability of current administrative processes to make the changes that are needed to meet the requirements of a dynamic market. Governments in the past have unduly influenced priorities for aviation infrastructure, for reasons unrelated to economics or efficiency, and I will return to that point of the role of governments in the past. It is true, as the Minister for Aviation has said, that decisions taken in the past have inhibited the economy and efficiency of the industry. This legislation will go a long way towards rectifying those problems. The strategy being adopted by the Government is one of devolving management and administration away from government tampering; closer to commercial realities and closer to the users of airports and all that they encompass. The Minister's performance in the administration of public assets, such as Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines and the Australian National Line, demonstrates his ability to bring a sound and entrepreneurial business judgment to the operation of these Government assets, because they are now returning record profits after having been inherited in a run-down, loss-making state. Those who talk about privatisation and deregulation ought to look at the performance of this Minister in turning around what he inherited. This Government is not interested in selling off the profitable components of public assets and will not place in jeopardy the employment of those people who work for the Commonwealth in the aviation industry. Their jobs will be protected under this proposal. I repeat the Minister's assurances that the rights and interests of employees transferring from the Department of Aviation to the Corporation will be protected. To ensure that their employment will not be jeopardised, the Government will require as a matter of policy that the Corporation offer positions to all staff whose functions are transferred. While the Corporation will have the power to set conditions of employment, it will be required also at the time of transfer to provide conditions of employment to transferring staff at least equivalent to those they enjoy currently in their present positions. Overall the Bill represents a balancing of the need for autonomy and entrepreneurial management with the need for public accountability to maximise public benefit. This fits with our policy of public enterprise, which encompasses efficiency, consumer responsiveness, successful management, and another aspect which I will add, that of successful community relations. I turn now to some of the problems the Minister inherited in the administration of airports, as they come within his portfolio. I want people to see the magnitude of the task that has been inherited by this Government and now will flow through to the Corporation. I mentioned earlier that some of the decisions made in the past about the development of airports and their assets have been irrational and uneconomic. They have been purely politically based. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), in speaking on this point, openly conceded that pork-barrelling had influenced decision making in this area. He commented that it was done equally on both sides of the House. I remind the honourable member for Murray that in the 37 years since 1949, when most of these decisions were made-non-decisions and inaction might be a better way of putting it-for all but five of those years those on the other side of the House were in government and were responsible for what has occurred. When those opposite talk about both sides of the House equally making those sorts of decisions, it ought to be kept in that perspective. There has been pork-barrelling, and this Bill is one of the measures to ensure that it will stop. Those who have preached free enterprise have gone about building bureaucratic monoliths, and airports and the aviation industry are good examples of that. In the examinations of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise we came across problems with noise abatement and discipline of the aviation industry, which have not taken place. We came across the sorts of examples brought out in debate today about shortfalls in capital works projects. We came across problems in land use planning, control of assets and land around airports and, most importantly, poor community relations. I refer briefly to section 296 of the report of the Committee, where it is conceded that there are poor community relations. It is a difficult thing to concede, but it is conceded, and I quote from page 61 of the report: The relationship between the Department of Aviation and communities surrounding airports is not good. That could not be stated more specifically or more baldly. Since coming to office the Minister has turned his attention to that problem, and the Committee has noted also that it appears that the Department has now become conscious of its public image and has taken steps to improve its profile and acceptability to the community. It is important to this Government that those who operate airports establish good community relations because they have such a vital effect on the lives of the people who live around the airports and work at them. The Government has set objectives for the Corporation covering social, financial, management and efficiency aspects. The Corporation will be required to take those objectives into account in planning its operations. I also introduce some suggestions for the Minister about how the Corporation might do some of its business in the future. The Government is acknowledging that in the devolution of management and responsibility the Corporation will have overall management and control of airports. The Government will not be sticking its finger in the pie, telling the Corporation how to do it; the Corporation will have overall management and control. It will be left to develop its own administrative structure, and it will probably develop some system of managing airports on an individual basis through a structure that will report back to the Corporation. I expect that that management structure will embrace some of the principles this Government believes are important. Those employees who work at airports will need to be involved in the decision making that affects their environment. Employee participation is something to be embraced in every aspect of the Australian work environment, and I hope that that will take place within our airport operations. We have acknowledged already that relationships with local communities have not been good in the past. I hope to see the Corporation giving emphasis to community involvement and particularly to local government, which has a strong role to play in the communities surrounding the airports and their operations. Of course, I expect that the Corporation will give due regard to commercial expertise. The Minister has already made this clear. There are commercial operations; there are traders who operate at airports and whose business is vitally affected by the operations of the airports. Of course, we expect the Corporation to take note of the interests of the private sector which are involved in this way. In other words, we are recognising that airports are important community assets. We, as a government, want the best out of them from all points of view. We must embrace thinking beyond the boundaries of the airports. It is not just a matter of drawing a line and putting up a fence and saying: `It all finishes here'. We must take account of the broader needs. I take the case of Tullamarine Airport which has a buffer zone around it. This is one of the best examples of proper land use control and planning around an airport in Australia. That buffer zone will have to be protected. At Tullamarine we do not want to inherit the problems that have developed at other airports through buildings getting closer and closer. Tullamarine is becoming and could well become the gateway for tourism because all around it are the Macedon Ranges, and open country. It also has access into Melbourne. Obviously we want the Corporation to take account of the vital role of the airport as it affects this sort of potential for the State of Victoria. This sort of question is being addressed at present by the Victorian Government. Just near Tullamarine Airport we have one of the most offensive rubbish dumps that one could imagine. An international tourist climbing off the aeroplane at Tullamarine runs right into a heavy bank of odours about 30 seconds out of the airport gate. Obviously that is an issue which must be addressed and the Victorian Minister for Planning and Environment is taking steps to ensure that that dump is moved. He has my full support for that. We will do our best to ensure that that sort of planning and land use control does not occur around airports in Australia in the future. At Tullamarine Airport we are within 40 minutes of some of Victoria's major export abattoirs and there is potential to develop out of Tullamarine the export by air of chilled meats to add to our frozen meat trade. I hope that the Corporation and the management body at Tullamarine will see this sort of potential and so do more to develop those industry and export opportunities for farmers in and around central Victoria who are so close to this asset. The docks and the rail yards are within 20 minutes of the airport, so obviously there is an opportunity to develop a strategy totally embracing the airport and all that it has to offer. In other words, we are not just looking at the operations of today; we are doing some forward planning. I believe it is time that governments did this and I commend the Minister for his approach. In summing up, I wish to add one point about the Minister's approach. I believe that he has had to face some hard decisions and questions about airports. He has taken steps to give real effect to the devolution of efficient management on sound business principles. He is prepared to implement the recommendations of reports-not all of them, but he has given effect to many of them. That has been consistent with the general Government strategy of taking notice of reports, not pigeon-holing them and using them as a way of postponing debate on an issue-putting it away for 10 years and hoping that the problem will go away. This Minister has been prepared to take a report and put it into effect. The Government has done that in a number of areas. The establishment of the Corporation is a significant step forward in ensuring the provision and operation of an airport infrastructure based on efficiency and investment undertaken where there is financial and economic justification. I believe that the Bill represents a major step forward in aviation in Australia and, as the member with responsibility for Tullamarine Airport, I shall be watching the developments very closely. I hope to be involved in them and no doubt I shall have many discussions with the Minister on these matters in the future. I commend the Bill to the House as I believe it is a major step forward and I have no reservations in wholeheartedly supporting it. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(12.11) —The second reading speech by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) on the Federal Airports Corporation Bill on 13 November last year spelt out the objectives for the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation. He summarised these briefly as: . . . to offer significant advantages to the travelling public, taxpayers, the aviation industry and airport administrators. It seems that to this end the Corporation will be charged with the operation of 17 major airports and with providing consultancy services to other operators in Australia and overseas. Other functions are to include: Reviewing the use and capacity of existing Federal airports; determining the necessity for or desirability of extending or otherwise altering Federal airports and carrying out necessary or desirable extensions to or alterations of Federal airports; carrying on commercial activities as or in relation to Federal airports, including joint venturing; providing facilities and services such as or in relation to Federal airports; disposing of or otherwise dealing with land which was previously a Federal airport or part of one; and corresponding with and providing assistance to the Department of Aviation in respect of Federal airports. The Corporation is scheduled to commence operations in the 1986-87 financial year and about 1,600 staff of the Department of Aviation are expected to be transferred to the new Corporation. One underlying theme in the Minister's speech is a recognition that departments of state are governed by internal processes that severely inhibit commercial flexibility and the kind of practical responsiveness required in the aviation market-place. Just how bad the situation has been is obvious when one considers that the major reason for the industry's initially somewhat favourable, although guarded, response to the Minister's proposals was that it apparently considered that almost any separation from the Department of Aviation was a desirable reform. Despite the Minister's assurance in his speech that the Federal Airports Corporation does not represent any adverse `reflection on the Department of Aviation and its predecessors', the simple fact is that the Department of Aviation has not been notable for its speed in decision making or the subtlety of its appreciation of the dynamics of the aviation market-place. Notwithstanding the constraints of departmental procedures, the overall impression has frequently been that the Department of Aviation has all the understanding and flexibility of a plastic yak. I note that the Department of Aviation retains responsibility for national planning of airports, including the investigation of the need for additional Federal airports, the location of them and their establishment and development. The Department of Aviation will also retain responsibility for setting safety and security standards for airports, for air traffic control, for the provision of non-visual navigation and communication services, meteorological services and facilities relative to aircraft flight service and associated functions and for aircraft hijack resources. The Department will also retain responsibility for the provision of search and rescue and fire-fighting facilities, against the recommendations of the report of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. The objective of offering a better deal to a long-suffering aviation industry and its clientele is certainly commendable. However, I have reservations about the effectiveness of the vehicle that has been chosen. The Minister claims that his powers of direction over the Corporation are no different from his powers in relation to Trans Australia Airlines or the Australian National Line. However, if those that he envisages in this legislation are utilised widely, they will interfere with the autonomy and managerial ability of the Corporation in a most serious way. A major drawback with the potential for great harm is that only directions pursuant to clause 41 (2) are required to be made public. The other many discretions which the Minister and his Government will retain do not have to be made public. Unlike the British Airports Authority which sets performance standards, apparently no discretions are mentioned by the Minister, including the 2 per cent staff reduction requirement set by the Department of Aviation. It is not unreasonable to conclude from those few remarks that the motivation of the Minister seems to be political in large part. The FAC will not be financially independent. Indeed, it will not be independent in many important decision-making areas. These are covered in clauses 9, 11, 16, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 56, plus others. Mr Lloyd —That is a few areas. Mr ROCHER —That is quite a few areas and with a great deal of discretionary power left with the Minister and his Government. We are left to wonder whether this is not just a technique to remove the political heat from the decision making that has to be taken in relation to airports and airport terminals around the country. It is the sort of thing that we see governments indulging in from time to time. Occasionally, it is the device that is used to set up an inquiry, to put off all complainants until that inquiry reports, and hope that the heat goes out of the argument. The same device is used for statutory authorities, and I suspect that the FAC will also be used in that way. Despite what the previous speaker had to say, we know there are some very controversial decisions to be made in connection with airports. I can already anticipate the Minister hiding behind the fact that he has an independent statutory authority to handle those complaints. Therefore, the reference will have to be made to that authority rather than the Minister exercise his responsibility as a Minister. The fact is that the Minister and the Government retain power, but remain able, at the same time, to offer the excuse that the Corporation is independent. It is also true that the FAC is unable to control its destiny in any real way and, at the same time, on the face of it, is to be given a monopoly. The Corporation will be in no way comparable to a private trading concern. Lack of liaison with local government is obviously one of the things exercising the minds of local authorities which are adjacent to major airports in Australia. Only this morning the Mayor of Belmont in my own city of Perth said that he is about to hop on a plane to come over here and register his concern about this legislation. I might say that there is an element of grandstanding in that because the legislation has been lying around for a couple of months. So I think he is going to spend $1,200 or $1,500 of his ratepayers' money to make a political point which might well have been better spent in the time that has been available to him. But the truth is that this Mayor represents an area which is affected by noise, by the operation of Perth airport, and he does have a genuine concern on behalf of his constituents about noise and air pollution generally. Mr Lloyd —I think they are also concerned about commercial development on and around the airport over which they will not have any control. Mr ROCHER —I suspect that is true, as my friend reminds me. The question of curfews, of course, is a hot political issue and I imagine the Minister will now be able to say, if this legislation goes through the Parliament, that that is largely out of his hands and certainly his decision-making power would have to be tailored to the needs and wishes of the day, and the need to consult the Corporation. That is just a small example of how this legislation may be made to work to get the government of the day off the hook and able to defer a political question of some heat. It is questionable whether the general aviation airports will be able to charge reasonable landing fees and still be profitable, thus leading to the possibility of cross-subsidisation between the major airports and general aviation airports. The provisions regarding compensation for clause 41 (2) directions are quite inadequate. Clause 33 of the Bill gives the Minister a discretion as to whether he requires the Corporation to honour a pre-existing agreement that existing leases and other arrangements be allowed to run their full term. I also note that there is no requirement for common user terminals for a deregulated airline system which sort of casts a shadow over the argument that the Minister often uses when he refers to the coalition's airlines agreement legislation. There is nothing envisaged in this legislation which would accommodate a change to the requirements of the present duopoly that exists on major trunk routes throughout Australia. There is not adequate provision for planning liaison with local government authorities or ex gratia payments in lieu of rates. Finally, there are some additional important concerns with the possible interpretation of terms which are not defined in the Bill. For example, these terms include `reasonable', `sound commercial practice' and `industrial democracy'. As well as those specific points I have several general reservations that go beyond the FAC and into the substance of the Government's much vaunted policy of public enterprise. The practical realities are that it is far easier to talk and write about better management of Commonwealth facilities either in the Public Service or in business enterprise, than it is to achieve it. Discussions about cost efficiency, corporate planning and the expertise and flexibility of management which will reside in the Corporation are all very well, but our actual experience with government business enterprises has not been inspiring. All too often they have been proven case studies in inefficiency, feather-bedding, financial mismanagement, sweetheart deals between unions and management, all of course at the taxpayers' expense. A second point deals with the 1,600 staff to be transferred from the Department of Aviation to the FAC who will be guaranteed equivalent conditions, including superannuation. New employees, therefore, would have a separate structure of benefits. This raises several problems, not necessarily only management problems. One is that pre-FAC and post-FAC employees will be engaged under two classes of employment, and possibly two classes of benefits. Yet, hiving off FAC from the Department is partially based on the ability to free those employees from Public Service Board conditions. Clearly, the original employees will carry quasi-PSB conditions with them. Post-FAC employees will join only when natural wastage affects the pre-FAC employees as the Minister requires that there will be no net increase in staff due to the subdivision of the Department and the Corporation. Therefore, freedom from Public Service conditions will take many years. Given natural wastage after 10 years, there will be two distinct classes of employee, as the Minister does not state how long the guaranteed equivalent conditions will last. The dual system is clearly not in the best interests of either management or employees. Alternatively, it could be considered that there will be no differentiation of benefits between staff of equal rank and, therefore, benefits are under de facto control by the Public Service Board and the advantages of forming the FAC are limited in that context. I put it to the House that a far better method would be to adopt the proposals contained in the 1984 coalition policy on aviation. The coalition parties undertook, firstly, to ensure that all major airports seek to recover their costs from operational income and, wherever possible, derive a profit for future works programs and, secondly, to set up management boards for each major airport. It was envisaged that these boards would have wide powers of management and be instructed, whenever possible, to operate on commercial principles. Their membership would include business leaders and other qualified persons. These boards, subject to Commonwealth Government approval, of course, would have the power to borrow on the commercial markets for the purposes of financing airport works. I feel and believe firmly that this would be a far better approach than the one envisaged by the Government in this instance. I turn to some specific provisions in the Bill, some of which I mentioned only by identifying them by number. While the Minister said in his second reading speech that the FAC would be able to operate more commercially and more efficiently, under clause 9 there is a requirement that a contract above $5m must have his approval. Clause 11 gives the Minister the mandatory right to approve any partnership entered into. Clause 16 says that Corporation members are subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. Clause 39 states that the Corporation must consider the objectives and policies of the Commonwealth Government when setting targets. A reasonable rate of return on assets is required but is not defined. The need to retain reserves for future requirements is stipulated, yet the Corporation is not vested with a planning role. Reasonable dividends are stated as a requirement but they are not defined. In the light of all of these requirements in clause 39 the Corporation is left to design its own performance indicators. I put it to the House that those provisions are quite inconsistent in terms of reasonable and prudent management. Clause 40 provides that the Minister can direct the Corporation to vary financial targets and/or performance indicators and the Corporation must comply. Clause 41 provides that the Minister may direct the Corporation if he is satisfied that it is `in the public interest' to do so. How many sins are perpetrated on the Australian public and Australian taxpayers under that obscure, undefined heading `in the public interest'? Clause 43 gives extremely broad discretions to the Government and the Minister in connection with determining the capital structure of the Corporation, thus giving rise to uncertainties over the financial base dividend and capital repayment requirements and, therefore, the level of charges required. If the Minister, under this clause, has wide discretionary powers, I put it to the House that it will be impossible for the Corporation to meet the stated objectives of the legislation as they refer to capital structure and dividend and capital repayment requirements. The Bill enables the Minister to give directions to the Corporation on matters at the heart of its responsibilities. For example, he may be able to vary the Corporation's financial plan under proposed section 40. The Minister will be able to vary the Corporation's recommendations as to payment of dividends by power to be given to him under proposed section 46. The Minister will be able to give directions to the Corporation with respect to the performance of its functions or exercise of its powers, except in relation to specific airports, when he is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest to do so. Those powers are to be vested in him under proposed section 41 (2). The Minister will be able to direct that the capital of the Corporation be repaid to the Commonwealth by dint of provisions contained in proposed section 42 (2). The Minister will be able to overrule the Corporation's determinations regarding the level of aeronautical charges by dint of provisions in proposed section 56 (5). Those are the matters which give rise to my concern and doubts about the stated intention of the Minister and his Government. Mr DUBOIS(St George)(12.31) —In rising to speak on the Federal Airports Corporation Bill, I would firstly like to congratulate the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) for taking the initiative to establish the Federal Airports Corporation. This is in line with our Government's policy to improve the administration of Australia's major airports. My electorate of St George is situated in Sydney's southern suburbs, some of which adjoin Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. As such, any legislation which has repercussions on the operations of the airport is of great interest to me and my constituents. My constituents are affected directly by airport operations simply because planes fly over their homes, schools, businesses and so forth. In addition, many people who reside in my electorate work at Kingsford-Smith Airport or in industries associated with servicing the aviation industry as a result of the many employment opportunities generated at the airport. Therefore, any moves made by the Government to improve the efficiency of operation at Australia's airports will directly have an impact in my electorate. The establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation has come about as a result of the recommendations of the 1984 report of the Bosch Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. I am excited about the establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation for a number of reasons. The functions prescribed for the Corporation will enable it to develop and operate its airports in a more efficient and cost effective way. One of the objectives set by the Government is that the Corporation be a good neighbour to the communities it serves. As such, the residents of St George can only benefit from the establishment of the Corporation. They will benefit, along with many other Australians, as a result of the cost efficiencies by simply being travellers on planes. By having the airports run more efficiently, through the use of state of the art management techniques, it will make travelling on planes a much more pleasant experience for many passengers who may currently be held up by old-fashioned methods of airport management. In addition, the residents of St George will benefit as taxpayers. Under the Government's cost recovery policy, either the full cost or a very high proportion of the airport and airway facilities and services provided by the Commonwealth are to be recovered from the aviation industry. In the past, the ordinary taxpayers have heavily subsidised the users and beneficiaries of these facilities. In 1982-83, the cost recovery level was only 54.8 per cent. This amounted to a subsidy of $184.8m-a huge burden for the taxpayers of Australia. Such an initiative to improve cost recovery is clearly consistent with the Government's aim of improving equity in Australian society and its tax reform measures. The establishment of the Federal Airports Corporation is a significant step forward in ensuring that the provision and operation of costly airport infrastructure is based on sound management practice and investment is undertaken only when there is financial and economic justification. Honourable members sitting on the opposite benches are still trying to work out their philosophies on privatisation. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure where the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) currently stands on the matter. We in the Australian Labor Party are of the view that government corporations can operate as efficiently and effectively as any private body if the frameworks provided for the government enterprise allow it to exercise appropriate commercial judgment. But balanced against this autonomy and entrepreneurial management is a need with such bodies for public accountability to maximise public benefit. Our policies on public enterprises are based on efficiency, consumer responsiveness and successful management. This is in stark contrast to the wishy-washy policies of the Leader of the Opposition. For example, this Government has made substantial changes to Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd to allow them to operate more commercially. Consequently, both have achieved record profits in the past year. Information provided by the Parliamentary Library shows how much better off Qantas and TAA are under this Hawke Labor Government than under a Liberal government. Just look at this for a track record. For the financial year 1984-85, TAA's net profit after abnormal items and tax was $28,143,000. Compare that with the figure for the last financial year in which Fraser governed the country. TAA had a net loss of $2,276,000. The situation for Qantas shows a similar picture. For the year March 1984 to March 1985, Qantas's operating profit after income tax was $147,794,000. Compared with the year 1981-82, Qantas had an operating loss of $478,000. Of course, that was the year it was decided to sell one of Qantas's assets-the Wentworth Hotel-for some $61m. If that figure is included in the balance sheets for Qantas for that year the picture does not look so bad. However, in reality if one looks at operating profit and loss figures, Qantas had a loss under the Fraser Liberal Government. Just compare that with the profit figure-let me repeat it-of $147,794,000 for 1984-85 under the Hawke Labor Government. Who needs privatisation when we have a record like that? Judging by the record of the British Airports Authority, major airports have the potential, at least, to be very profitable. Heathrow Airport alone under the British Airports Authority had a profit of #50,307,000 for the year 1983-84. That figure, again provided by the Parliamentary Library, is provided before adjustment to depreciation for re-lifing. The total profit for the British Airports Authority for the same year was #51,573,000. Again, figures such as that go to show just how profitable government enterprises can be. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Parliamentary Library for providing assistance to obtain the information I have just given. The Corporation, therefore, will be free to operate its day to day management and to exercise its commercial judgment. It will not have to be staffed under Public Service conditions, it will not have to use the Department of Housing and Construction for its capital works, and its day to day land dealings do not have to be administered through the Government. In relation to public accountability, the legislation includes a requirement for the Corporation to make a public report annually and to submit to the Minister each year a three-year forward planning program. Therefore, by the implementation of this legislation, for the first time in Australia the financial performance of airports will be measured and results made available to airport users and the general public. In moving to establish the Federal Airports Corporation to operate our airports, we are bringing Australia into line with general practice internationally. It is an important part of the Government's overall strategy to improve the efficiency of the aviation industry and the level of services to the consumer. I should like to take this opportunity to show some other initiatives taken by this Government to improve the efficiency of the aviation industry. Last November in this place, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) announced the following improvements to be undertaken at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: The construction of new taxiways, reconstruction of an existing taxiway and provision of larger fillets at taxiway and runway intersections. This project will result in a reduction of some of the present congestion and delays experienced at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It will eradicate some of the current noise problems created by delays which cause planes flying into Sydney Airport to circle overhead for some time before they get clearance to land. In addition, the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that the international terminal at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport will be remodelled and expanded in a number of areas, including extensions to and upgrading of the arrivals and departures levels covering check-in, passenger processing, concession and baggage reclaim areas; provision of a new transit lounge; upgrading of baggage conveyor facilities; and provision for two additional aerobridges. One just has to observe Sydney's international terminal to see that one of the major causes of congestion is in the check-in and processing of passengers. These proposed public works alterations to the terminal can only be of great benefit to the travelling public and to those friends and families who are saying farewell to an outgoing passenger or hello to an incoming one. When the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise tabled its report in this place last November, I was denied leave to make any comments. I want to take this opportunity to say a few things about the report and to show how the recommendations of the Committee are in line with this Government's policy of improving the efficiency of Australia's airports but with a view to ensuring that all policies have due regard to suburbs close to the airport. If the Government accepts the curfew recommendations of the Committee the residents of St George will be able to enjoy a no aircraft noise curfew. Planes arriving and departing from Sydney's airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. would have to use the runway which makes them take off and land over Botany Bay. No noisy aircraft such as cargo, propeller or jet aircraft will be allowed to fly over the St George electorate between these hours. In addition, the Committee recommends that noise monitoring stations be established to investigate aircraft noise, and the effects of the revised curfew will be reviewed in 12 months in consultation with the community. Once again, I want to stress the good neighbour policy of this Government. We are well aware of the detrimental environmental effects of noise. I receive many complaints about noise levels from my constituents. I commend the legislation. I also commend the Minister for Aviation for introducing it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I call the honourable member for Lyne and remind him of the time constraint. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(12.41) —I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) for the opportunity to speak for a minute or so. In view of the time constraints I will discard the speech I intended to make. Let me just say that I hope in the future we can plan Australia's airport program better than we have in the past. I do not blame only this Government for what has happened, I blame all previous governments. However, there is a reason for what has happened. We have to appreciate that over the years aviation has grown tremendously because of passenger and freight requirements, and I believe that aviation is very important to the future of Australia. I appreciate the fact that because of geographical considerations each of the States of Australia requires an international airport and governments have to provide for that. I naturally support what has been said by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I hope that the legislation, if passed, will have a commercial orientation. I also hope that a dividend will be paid to the Government. I believe that airports should be owned either locally or privately or by the State, as is happening in Britain at the moment. I trust that in future, irrespective of what happens to this legislation, we will have a better and more virile program so far as the future of aviation in Australia is concerned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(12.43) —in reply-I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate. I appreciate their co-operation in view of the time constraints that have applied. The Australian Democrats have raised with me the matter of ex gratia payments in lieu of rates on Federal Airports Corporation airports. I want to place on record that it is the intention that the FAC will be required to conform with government policy to make such payments and to continue without diminution the payments currently made by the Commonwealth in regard to commercial activities in airports. I draw the attention of honourable members to the reference to this matter in my second reading speech. I commend what has been said by honourable members who have participated in the debate. I have noted their comments and I commend the Bill to the House. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beazley, K. C. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian (Teller) Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dawkins, J. S. Burr, M. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to several answers and comments he made yesterday and today regarding fuel pricing and taxation. Is it not a simple fact that he has no intention of honouring in full the promises he has made on both taxation cuts and passing on falls in world oil prices? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr GEAR —Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs noted a report published today implying that thousands of dollars are wasted by being spent on ethnic groups in Australia? How does the Minister respond to this charge? Mr HURFORD —I have noted the cover story in this week's Bulletin. In short, I look upon it as an extraordinarily prejudiced offering, made from a very conservative point of view. In fact, it is so conservative that it is critical of the very little work that was done by the previous Fraser Administration. In particular, it was grossly unfair to my colleague the present Minister for Housing and Construction. I want to place squarely on the record that I do not know of one policy decision made by my colleague, when he was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which is looked upon critically in this article that I would not have been proud to make myself. I want to illustrate that point. First, the article was critical of his increasing the number of grants-in-aid to ethnic groups and to migrant resource centres. I believe that such action was absolutely essential as affirmative action to overcome disabilities that are being experienced by non-English speaking people. I am glad that the Cabinet supported the Minister in that move. It was a move towards the more caring society that is an objective of the Hawke Labor Government. Second, the Minister made grants-in-aid available for trade unions. It is essential to make such grants-in-aid available through trade unions because there are thousands of people of non-English speaking backgrounds who can be reached through trade unions and who have no connection with ethnic groups. This is the only way that help can be extended to them. Grants were made to trade unions across the political board, including one to the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, led by Laurie Short. Some of the criticisms in that article mentioned a couple of unions which were not helped by the Minister but were helped, and proudly helped, by me. Mr Spender —Who are they? Mr HURFORD —I refer to a grant to the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union in Victoria, for instance, which has many non-English speaking people for whom I and not the Minister for Housing and Construction am responsible. So I commend him on his initiative, because making those grants available through trade unions means that they are not competing with the ethnic groups; they have their own special grant. As I said earlier, these grants are reaching people who would not otherwise get one. The third illustration to which I refer is that my colleague was accused of taking more refugees from central and South America, allegedly for political reasons. That is absolute nonsense. He and the Government responded on humanitarian grounds to a special request from the Canadian Government for such a program in partnership with that government. People are coming from all political backgrounds from central and South America, including from under left wing regimes, such as that in Nicaragua, as well the right-wing regime in El Salvador. In summary, my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction has been responsible for Cabinet endorsement of a statement of nine principles of immigration. Frankly, those principles are more or less the same principles of the previous Fraser Administration. One principle is that it is the duty of migrants to integrate into Australian society and not assimilate into a melting pot, as was the situation that existed before the mid-1970s. It is necessary to note that, in return for that absolute duty, within the context of integration, migrants have a right to continue to enjoy their own cultural heritage in our multicultural society. That heritage has enriched our society and we have a marvellous unity within the diversity that has come from our being a multicultural society. Opposition members-Time! Mr HURFORD —The previous Minister can be congratulated on the part that he has played, as can most honourable members of this House other than the rabble who are interjecting. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In preparing his statement on taxation of 19 September last year, did he make any assumptions about future movements in the world price of oil and their consequential effect on future government revenue? If so, what were those assumptions? Mr KEATING —Last year, the Government, unlike the Opposition, looked at the capacity of the tax reform exercise, in a segment of it which mattered in terms of structural changes to the tax system, to fund itself. What the Leader of the Opposition said was that he would take the tax cuts, but he would not support the Government's proposals to fund them. As I understand the Opposition's approach to fiscal policy, it will do all the things that it said it would do in the last election, and that it would pay for the tax cuts without funding them and it would give back the oil money too. That is where the Opposition stands. In terms of general fiscal policy, this Government makes the appropriate judgments on revenue from time to time. Mr SIMMONS —Will the Acting Minister for Trade inform the House of the outcome of the trade negotiations undertaken by the Minister for Trade in Washington this week? Can Australian farmers expect any relief from the damaging effects of the new United States farm legislation? Mr KERIN —It would be best for the House to await the return of the Minister for Trade, because he will be reporting in detail to this House next week. In terms of the cable traffic and what information my Department and the Department of Trade have been able to get, it is quite clear that the Minister for Trade has had productive discussions with Secretary Shultz, United States Trade Representative Yeutter, Commerce Secretary Baldrige, outgoing Agriculture Secretary John Block, the Labor Secretary, Bill Brock, and other senior Administration members. The Minister has received undertakings that the US Administration will do all that is possible to minimise the damage to Australia's interests and to seek to have some aspects of the legislation rectified. The Minister has been accompanied in these negotiations by Mr Michael Shanahan, who is the Senior Vice-President of the National Farmers Federation. I think it is appropriate that I relate to the House the fact that Mr Shanahan has expressed his appreciation of the Government's efforts. For example, he said yesterday: On behalf of the National Farmers Federation I want to fully support the actions that Mr Dawkins and his party have been engaged in on behalf of the Australian Government since they arrived. I think all honourable members of this House will be very concerned about the nature of what is now the United States farm Act. Quite a few officials have said publicly, even at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference, that there had been about 11 months discussion in the Congress on the then farm Bill and it was eventually all put together in some two and a half days. There is a lack of clarity in many areas. It is very obvious with respect to some commodities that it is unworkable. We need clarification on the mandatory provisions of the Act. It is very unclear with respect to beef. With respect to wheat and flour, we get the general view that there will be an across-the-board subsidy, but for other commodities there will still be targeting. The situation is not yet clear. It will not be clear for quite some time, but I am sure that the Minister for Trade will be able to report to the House in detail on the assurances that he has been able to achieve because he has acted very forcibly in Australia's interests. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Given the extent and depth of the present rural crisis which, apart from drought in the past, is acknowledged in terms of both its market and price implications to be one of the worst in recent times, will the Prime Minister broaden his Cabinet's consideration of the fuel consequences to the rural community, which we understand is to be held later this week, to consider the application of the capital gains tax and the quarantining of farm losses as they affect the rural community? Mr HAWKE —It is interesting that I should receive this question from the Leader of the National Party of Australia in light of some comments that have been made in the aftermath of the Western Australian State election. It may be recalled that when I visited Western Australia-I am willingly invited by my Party in all States to participate in State elections, as distinct from the Leader of the Opposition-to which I was willingly invited and willingly participated, a certain event took place. There was a rather non-spontaneous demonstration by some farmers which was organised by a member of this House and by a then member of the Western Australian Parliament, Mr McNee. But I am pleased to say that Mr McNee is no longer a member of the Western Australian Parliament. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. Standing order 145 refers to relevance. This answer is not relevant. The Prime Minister has failed to tell you that he was too scared to come out and talk while I was there. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order but the Prime Minister's answer will be relevant to the question. Mr HAWKE —I am being very relevant, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that Mr McNee, who suffered the fate, as he should have, of being dismissed by the electorate, along with a number of other Liberals who lost their seats, represented seats that are part of the Federal electorate represented by the honourable gentleman who has just taken a point of order. I think he has as much chance of remaining in this Parliament and representing that seat as Mr McNee had on Saturday. That is a necessary background to observing what Mr McNee, a member of the Liberal Party, had to say in regard to where responsibility lies politically for the state of rural crisis in this country. He gave vent to his considered feelings on Monday after the electors had dealt with him. He undertook a very considered and thoughtful analysis of where political responsibility lies for the rural crisis in this country. I refer to an article in that reliable journal, the West Australian, of Monday, 10 February, under the heading `NPA wins battle for bush vote'. In referring to how the National Party dumped the Liberals, this is what the Liberals had to say: Mr McNee, who is facing defeat . . . denounced the NPA's philosophy. Though he refused to admit he was likely to lose the seat, Mr McNee said that the NPA's claim to be a specialist rural-based party represented a return to `Dad and Dave politics.' He continued to talk about the National Party, the Leader of which Party has presumed to ask me this question. This is what the Liberal Party had to say about responsibility in this matter- Mr Hunt —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Does a Prime Minister or Minister have to be relevant in his answer to a question during Question Time? Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will continue to answer the question and be relevant to it. Mr HAWKE —I ask my good friend, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, to listen to what the spokesman for the Liberal Party had to say because it is entirely relevant. It is a question of where responsibility lies for the problem. The Liberal Party spokesman-I presume that the Leader of the Opposition does not disown the Liberal Party spokesman-said: If they- Mr Sinclair —How is this relevant to capital gains tax? Mr HAWKE —I know that the Leader of the National Party does not want to hear this, but he will hear it. This is what the Liberal Party spokesman had to say: If they- the National Party- had performed well over the 30 years they held the primary industry portfolio at the Federal and State levels, then the rural industries would never be the way they are now . . . That is the analysis-- Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order 145 and standing order 142. Standing order 142 states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House or, to any matter of administration . . . I put to you that the matters to which the Prime Minister is adverting in his answer clearly fall outside standing order 142. Mr Holding —That is not going to get you back on the front bench. Mr Shipton —The honourable member should listen. I would also refer you, Madam Speaker- Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Shipton —Thank you for your protection, Madam Speaker. I also refer you to page 404 of the Oxford English Dictionary as to the definition of the word `relevant' in standing order 145. I ask for a favourable ruling, Madam Speaker. I have confidence in you. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable gentleman for drawing attention to the two standing orders. The Prime Minister is now curtailing his answer. Mr HAWKE —The Liberal Party spokesman concluded by saying: The NPA has to stand up and accept its share of the blame. What it has been doing is taking the accolades but when blame comes it `jumps ship' and blames the major party in coalition. The position is quite clear. When the Leader of the National Party asks about an issue- Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. You ruled that the Prime Minister curtail his answer after my last point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I did not give a ruling. I thanked the member for drawing my attention to the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister will finish his answer. Mr HAWKE —Thank you. The Leader of the National Party- Mr Tuckey —Tell us about the capital gains tax. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will be quiet. Mr HAWKE —That is an expression of hope rather than certitude. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I will wait until they are ready. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to those who are consistently interjecting that they are wasting Question Time. The Prime Minister will finish his answer even if it means that we have only this one question for the rest of Question Time. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the National Party has directed a question to me about what decisions this Government will take. When we consider the decisions that have to be taken to try to protect the interests of the rural community in this country, we will take into consideration all the factors that are necessary. One of the points that I am trying to make is that this Government, which has come to power after some 30 years in which the National Party had been in the centre of government, has to deal with a situation where the National Party has imposed upon the rural interests of this country a set of economic policies and conditions which are basically responsible for their position. We will take into account all the factors that are necessary to try to improve the position of the rural producers in this country to the extent that that lies within the power of this Government. Unfortunately we will not be able to undo in one stroke, two strokes or three strokes the calamitous position which has been imposed upon the rural industry of this country by 30 years of maladministration by governments which the National Party was at the centre. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House of the latest position in regard to the structural changes which have been proposed for the dairy industry and the sugar industry? Mr KERIN —I guess there are not two other primary industries in Australia that bring about the split between John Howard dries and National Party populism on this whole question of regulation and deregulation more than the dairy industry and the sugar industry. What we have in Queensland, of course, is the National Party led by Joh Bjelke-Petersen-- Mr Slipper —Sir Joh to you. Mr KERIN —Sir Joh, the poor man's Marcos. Sir Joh has placed his own agriculture Minister in an impossible situation with respect to restructuring of the sugar industry. I need to point out that the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, the industry at both miller and grower level, agreed to what is known as the Savage report of the Sugar Industry Working Party, the 100-day committee. Since that time the Queensland Government has done everything possible to subvert that report and to hamstring the Minister for Primary Industries in that State. Basically the New South Wales Labor Government, which is prepared to co-operate with the Federal Government, is very close to getting in place both a restructuring and a financing package for the sugar industry. Mr Saper of the Queensland Cane Growers Council has advised that he thinks that some progress is being made by the industry organisation. I have yet to have that officially communicated to me. But even if we can get together a package agreed to by the industry and the Government that does mean something in terms of restructuring to the benefit of the industry down the track, we would still be waiting with bated breath to learn whether or not the Queensland Premier was prepared to give any price support or to go along with the restructuring proposals on which we can reach a consensus. The dairy industry is probably even more complicated because there will always be a need for regulation in the dairy industry. We have virtually six State dairy industries and the questions are very complex indeed. We have reached a position where, by and large, the Australian Dairy Industry Conference has agreed with the Government's proposals. These measures have been communicated to me. I met members of the ADIC on 23 December following the failure of the dairy industry to reach agreement on the marketing arrangements proposed by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference. I give great credit to Pat Rowley for the attempt that he made as Chairman of that Conference to get agreement with the industry in the States. I have met various members of the industry twice since then. I met the ADIC again on 26 January with a view to trying to settle the marketing and institutional arrangements which, hopefully, will operate from 1 July 1986. A few more compromises and a few more statements have been made by prominent dairy people, but I am certainly not going to take forward a submission to Cabinet that the arrangements are either unworkable or will have no beneficial effects. I will be taking the ADIC's proposals and all the other proposals by the State governments and the industry to the Cabinet. Many of their views will be represented in the Cabinet submission, but it is essential that we deal with this whole question with as much integrity and sense as is possible, rather than going along with some lowest common denominator approaches on what is a very complex question. We will not be bothered about regulation and deregulation and all this ideology and the nonsense from the Opposition. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Speaker, may I also be permitted to add my warm congratulations on your election as Speaker. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his Scullin speech when he pontificated about flogging off the assets of the people to rich friends in private enterprise. I now ask: Why did he flog off the $100m-plus Belconnen Mall, an asset of the people, for a discounted $87m when there was a higher bid for $102m? Mr Humphreys —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order, I draw your attention to question on notice No. 3142 at page 4646 of the Notice Paper. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Denison that he has that question on notice on page 4646. It is the same question. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, would you be prepared to hear me on the point of order, which I did anticipate? Madam SPEAKER —Would the honourable member repeat his question while I read the question on the Notice Paper? Mr HODGMAN —Yes. If I repeat the question in full, Madam Speaker, you will see that there is no identical question in question on notice No. 3142, which comprises 14 quite separate questions. The question I want to ask and to which the public is entitled to hear the answer is this: Firstly, why did the Prime Minister flog off the $100m-plus Belconnen Mall, an asset of the people, for a discounted $87m, when there was a higher bid for $102m? Secondly, why did the Prime Minister move with such indecent haste to flog off this asset of the people just 23 hours after closing of tenders? Finally, was the Belconnen Mall flogged off to any of the Prime Minister's rich friends in private enterprise? None of those questions appear in question on notice No. 3142, but these matters are of great importance and I am quoting the Prime Minister's own words right back at him. Madam SPEAKER —The question is in order. Mr HAWKE —The Government decided in May 1985 that, for budgetary reasons, the Belconnen Mall should be sold. Mr Ian Cameron —What else is for sale, Bob? Mr HAWKE —I wish the honourable member was for sale. The only problem is that there would not be many tenders, I am afraid. The decision was taken that it be sold and that the sale should be effected so that payment would be received in the 1985-86 financial year. I want to make these points in regard to the tender process for the sale of the Belconnen Mall. May I say at the outset that I totally repudiate the implication in the honourable member's question, as indeed I believe would the overwhelming majority of the members of this House. The tendering process for the sale of the Mall was determined by an interdepartmental committee established for that purpose, after reference to the general tendering procedures laid down by the purchasing and disposal division of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The tendering process was then supervised by the interdepartmental committee in accordance with the procedures it had laid down. The final decision on the tender was taken by Cabinet on the unanimous recommendation of the interdepartmental committee. It was publicly stated by the Minister for Territories at that time that a bid which was higher in dollar terms than the preferred tender had not been accepted. Without disclosing material or matters which would normally be considered confidential within this sort of commercial process, the following points may be made. There was no practical difference between the discounted net worth of the two highest bids, that is, between the preferred tender and the other tender which was higher in dollar terms. The preferred tender provided arrangements most appropriate to the Government's preferred fiscal position, as I have indicated. That is, the Government followed the legitimate and common commercial practice of having regard to its own financial position in considering the different packages offered by alternative tenderers. The preferred tender was superior to the other tender in aspects other than price; for example, in regard to child care facilities to be provided. The Australian Taxation Office had assessed the value of the Belconnen Mall separately but concurrently with the tender process, at $88m, and after examining the tenders the Australian Taxation Office assessed the price offered by the preferred tender as reasonable. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to table the documents from which he has just been reading. Madam SPEAKER —Is the Prime Minister reading from a public document? Mr HAWKE —Just on this occasion I am quite prepared to table it. Mr Hodgman —On this occasion, Bob? You are a crook. Mr HAWKE —I think I heard the honourable member who just asked that question say `crook'. We have been through that in this House. I know he is thick, and very thick, but I would have thought even he had the capacity to learn. I ask that he withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry, I did not hear the comment. If the honourable member for Denison made such a comment, he will please withdraw. Mr Hodgman —I did, and I am not the only one who thinks so. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison that if he does not withdraw I will name him. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. You will hear a lot more about this. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison; do not keep going. Mr MARTIN —Has the Special Minister of State seen Press reports that Australia is `soft on drugs'? Is this a true reflection of the situation? Mr YOUNG —I did see the Press report headed `Australia soft on drugs'. It followed upon the return of several members of the Opposition from a fact-finding tour of South East Asia. They were briefed on the drug situation in two or three countries of South East Asia, and I hope that I was able to facilitate their briefings, both before they left and during their visit to that area. Unfortunately-I do not blame them for this-the headline that Australia is soft on drugs does not represent the proper attitude of this or any previous Federal or State governments in relation to this issue in Australia. It may well be that people overseas think we should have a different penalty for some crimes that may be committed in the drug trade, and there may be an argument between some people in Australia as to whether capital punishment should apply. That is something we have argued over the years and have abolished, and that is the attitude of most people in Australia. That is in no way related to the attitude taken by this Government on criminal activity in relation to drugs in this country. Since we came to office we have greatly enhanced the resources of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service, which comes under my colleague Senator Button, to deal with this problem. I ask honourable members to understand the sorts of problems we are dealing with when they talk about drugs and drug-related crimes. We are not dealing with a national problem, it is an international problem. When I met with the United States Attorney-General last year, he said to me: `Mr Young, I cannot tell you that we are winning the war against drugs because, quite simply, we just do not know'. The United States invests billions of dollars in the war against drugs in that country and has bodies headed by no less a person than the Vice-President of the United States. In this country the Prime Minister has lent his name to all our efforts do something about this evil in our community. But we are dealing with very smart people who operate drug rings and do not recognise national borders any more than they recognise State borders within the nation. We face an immense problem. Billions and billions of dollars are involved in the drug trade and the drugs find a market. While there are demands for drugs within a country, people will find ways of getting them in. Some people think that all the resources of the country ought to be spent on law enforcement; that the more police or Customs Officers we have at the Customs barriers, the more successful we will be in keeping drugs out of the country. That is not altogether true. The experience of the United States shows that while about two-thirds of its resources are spent on law enforcement and about one-third on prevention, the people involved in those areas, who have a lot more experience than any of us here, would argue that more should be spent on prevention and less on law enforcement. They are matters which are being studied constantly by people in Australia as well as by Ministers in the Government. One of the reasons why last year we called all the States together under the umbrella of the Special Premiers Conference on the National Campaign against Drug Abuse, with my colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, was to get all governments involved in this fight, particularly to prevent drugs from coming in and to rehabilitate drug addicts. We wanted also to let the States know that the Prime Minister had told us that more had to be done to stop drugs getting into the country in the first place. That is an enormous problem. Australia, like the United States, has a huge coastline and it is very difficult for a country of our population and resources to be successful in keeping out all the drugs that people may want to bring in. There are rumours about why drugs come here and how great the demand is. When one hears the figures on how much drugs come into Australia, one could imagine that everybody in Australia was on heroin. We all know that that is not true. Mr Tim Fischer —It is moved on to Europe. Mr YOUNG —It may be moved on. Another of the allegations that is made is that, Australia being a safe port, if the tag `Australia' is put on a parcel it is less likely to be searched overseas than if it has a tag showing that it has come from another port, particularly a port in South East Asia. We are doing a great deal to try to overcome the drug problem. Not only are we doing that in this country; we now have spread around the world 20 liaison officers from the Australian Federal Police feeding back intelligence about what is occurring in this industry. In addition, we have given substantial assistance-a practice which was commenced by the Fraser Government-to the Thai Government in the form of a computer and officers from my Department and from the Australian Federal Police to work that computer to assist to bring up to date the sorts of records which can be kept about movements of people in and out of the country who may be involved in the drug industry. It is not true and we should not give the impression that it is, irrespective of the side of the House on which we sit, that Australia is soft on drugs. We should all be involved in doing what we can to overcome the problem. Mr McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. The Minister will be aware of the Victorian Government's proposal to increase waste disposal as well as to store radioactive wastes at Dutson Downs in Gippsland. Is he concerned about the resultant pollution to the Gippsland lakes network which has already been severely damaged by waste seepage? Will he urge the Victorian Government to adopt the policy of waste disposal by furnace ship rather than dumping in an environmentally sensitive area? Finally, what progress-if any-has been made in developing a national storage site for radioactive waste? Mr COHEN —It should be recognised that there are two separate questions here: One concerns low level waste and the other high level waste and the very serious poisons which the Commonwealth has been investigating in consultation with the States. This resulted in a major seminar which was held in Melbourne towards the end of last year. We were investigating the possibility of incinerators being located in various parts of Australia in order to get rid of the very poisonous waste. The problem in the Gippsland area of Victoria is related to less poisonous wastes and the matter is really the responsibility of the Victorian Government. It has been suggested that perhaps the Commonwealth could be involved as a result of wetlands treaties, but our investigations show that this is not the case. I would be perfectly prepared to meet representatives from the Gippsland area and discuss the matter with them, but at the moment all the information that I have is that this is primarily a matter for the Victorian Government to determine. Mr MILTON —Is the Minister for Science aware of criticisms by the British scientist Dr Ronald Lewis-Smith about environmental neglect at the Casey Base in Antarctica and at the former Wilkes Base? Is he in a position to comment on those criticisms? Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, there is a problem at the Casey and Wilkes bases but it must be considered in context, and remedial action is being taken. First, I will deal with the situation at the Casey Base. The present buildings at Casey must be abandoned within two years because their structural integrity cannot be guaranteed beyond that time. There is very heavy emphasis at Casey on a rebuilding program because the new buildings must be completed within two years. Unfortunately, there has not been very much science done at Casey; the scientific emphasis has had to be put at the other bases. That is a temporary factor which will last only for the next two years. The Wilkes Base is in a somewhat different category. Wilkes was established by the Americans in 1957 and the buildings still belong to them. We occupied the base between 1959 and 1969. The buildings still belong to the United States but there is a problem historically, which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment would be well aware of, about what to do with abandoned bases. Because they are historically significant, the normal practice is to leave them to the elements. Because the normal processes of decay do not operate in Antarctica buildings which have been erected tend to last for perhaps centuries at a time without showing any major changes. The question of rubbish must be looked at. We have taken double burners down to Antarctica. By the end of March double burners will have been established in each of the bases so that readily combustible waste can be eliminated on site. We are backloading the non-combustible and intractable waste and bringing it back to Australia. Of course this is enormously expensive and there are a few quarantine problems to be looked at- Mr Goodluck —Five container loads. Mr BARRY JONES —No, 21 container loads in the last season. This is a major problem and it is horrifically expensive as well. Our hope is that by the end of March of this season many of the problems referred to by Dr Ron Lewis-Smith will have been overcome. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the National Training Council report for 1982-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 22 of the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry Policy Council Act 1984, I present the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924, I present the Australian Dairy Corporation annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972, I present the Australian Wool Corporation annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 28 of the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977, I present the Oilseeds Research Committee annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960, I present the Australian Meat Research Committee annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Wine Research Institute annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 9c of the Fisheries Act 1952, I present a subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government policy statement on the reform of primary industry statutory marketing authorities. The statement was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr N.A. Brown —On a point of order, if that is the appropriate vehicle: We wish to register the fact that we do not accept this statement as having any status higher than that of the reports that have been tabled. There is a recognised and time-honoured procedure for making statements by Ministers and the appropriate course is to give the Opposition a copy of the statement in advance and indicate that that statement is to be made. This is simply ministerial statement by means of the postal service and that is bad for the Parliament-it is bad for both sides of the House. We must register our concern about this. The statement has not been made in the House, as I understand it from my colleagues, and we register our protest to that extent. Mr Young —Obviously the Minister for Primary Industry wanted to make this statement because it relates to such an important issue. He made the statement about a month ago when the House was not sitting and it was posted out to honourable members. Mr Sinclair —The House was not sitting. Mr Young —Obviously. It was sent out a month ago when the House was not sitting. If time does allow, because of the importance of it, the Government would not be opposed to bringing it back on at some time. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965, I present the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation annual report for 1984-85. For the convenience of all honourable members the report was posted to all members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for 1984-85 which also includes a report on the operation of the adult migrant education program which is required under the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979, I present the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, I present the annual reports for 1984-85 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation. The report of the Superannuation Investment Trust includes the financial statement for the year ended 30 June 1986, together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Health annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961, I present the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, I present the Health Insurance annual report for 1984-85. For the convenience of honourable members the report was posted to all honourable members during the recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Science and Technology Statement for 1985. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Although I say it myself, it is 236 pages long and a good read. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Research Grants Committee report on grants approved for 1986. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission reports on the heavy engineering industry, passenger concessions, biological control of echium species-including Paterson's curse/Salvation Jane-and the eagerly awaited cherries in brine or other preservative from Italy (anti-dumping). These reports were posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on the motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Biological Resources Study annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980, I present the Museum of Australia annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973, I present the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation annual report 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr PORTER —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order with your consent concerning the lack of provision of Hansards to honourable members. It seems to me that the Daily Hansards are being delivered to the House later and later each day. They have not been delivered today. I understand the Senate has its Hansard today. I do not know why. I wonder whether you could inquire as to why there is this delay. I well remember that it was only a couple of years ago that we actually got the Hansards the next morning. Now, we are lucky if we get them in the afternoon. I wonder whether you could inquire on our behalf. Madam SPEAKER —I certainly will take on board the inquiry and find out the reasons for the delay and see whether there is any way in which we can speed up the process. I recognise the inconvenience to honourable members. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —by leave-I wish to inform the Parliament of the Government's response to the report by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation `Bushfires and the Australian Environment', which was tabled in this House in 1984 and to a closely related report by the Standing Committee on Forestry of the Australian Forestry Council `The 1982-83 Bushfires' which was also completed in 1984 and tabled in the Parliament in February 1985. The Government has taken the opportunity to address both of these reports simultaneously as they contain a number of common recommendations. I wish now to address some of these recommendations. I table the text of the committee's recommendations and the Government's responses to them and seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard at this point. Leave granted. The document read as follows- RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPORT BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION ON ``BUSHFIRES AND THE AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT'' Recommendation Response 1. The Minister for Territories and Local Government request the Local Government Ministers' Conference to review the adequacy of existing land use and land use planning as it relates to bushfire mitigation (paragraph 110) Accepted. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will request both the Local Government Ministers Conference and the Planning Ministers Conference to review land use planning as it relates to bushfire mitigation 2. The Minister for Housing and Construction request the Housing Ministers' Conference to consider adopting and publicising a housing bushfire protection standard (paragraph 120) Accepted in principle. The Government notes that there has already been detailed Commonwealth/State consideration of proposals for the publication and adoption of a housing bushfire protection standard. Many States have developed design and siting guidelines for building in bushfire-prone areas. The Minister for Housing and Construction will raise the question of need for a public awareness campaign for these guidelines with the Housing Ministers Conference. 3. The State Ministers responsible for Local Government and for Fire Services in consultation with the Australian Insurance Industry Council, review the funding of rural fire brigades with a view to finding more equitable arrangements than insurance premium levies (paragraph 127) Accepted. Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will refer this matter to the Local Government Ministers Conference for consideration. 4. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment co-operate with State Departments to develop a national awareness campaign dealing with bushfire survival, building protection, fire prevention and the role of fire in the Australian environment (paragraph 138) Noted. Any awareness campaign will need to involve all interested Commonwealth and State authorities. In the first instance this matter will be raised with the States and Northern Territory to determine the most appropriate forum for consideration of the proposal. 5. The Commonwealth Department of Education and Youth Affairs assist State Departments and authorities to develop video programs and education kits concerning bushfire topics which would be suitable at senior secondary levels (paragraph 139) Accepted. The Minister for Education will raise the proposal with the Australian Education Council for consideration 6. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs request the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to review the teaching of bushfire science in tertiary forestry and land management courses (paragraph 144) Accepted. The Minister for Education, through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, will convey the terms of this recommendation to the States and tertiary education institutions and ask them to consider the need for such a review 7. The Minister for Primary Industry request the Australian Forestry Council to consider establishing a special fund to assist the universities to teach and carry out research in bushfire science (paragraph 145) Noted. The Minister for Primary Industry will defer communication with the Australian Forestry Council until consideration of the responses of the tertiary education institutions (see response to recommendation 6) 8. An authoritative Australian fire ecology textbook be commissioned by the Commonwealth Government through the CSIRO for tertiary education purposes (paragraph 146) Noted. CSIRO will consider further, following responses from tertiary education institutions under recommendation 6 9. The Minister for Defence review the role of the Natural Disasters Organisation in respect of the operation of the Australian Counter Disaster College with a view to providing a national centre for bushfire training (paragraph 150) The Australian Counter Disaster College (ACDC) provides counter disaster management training courses for Commonwealth, State and overseas personnel from all emergency services including the fire services. The College also provides mobile teams which train emergency services personnel in States and Territories as well as instructors to lecture at specialist training establishments in the States. Special courses for bushfire disasters would be to the detriment of general disaster training. Higher attendance by senior officers of State and rural fire authorities would be welcomed at ACDC courses. 10. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation provide the resources necessary to enable the completion of the experimental and data analysis phase of Project Aquarius (paragraph 161) Accepted. CSIRO has completed the experimental phase of Project Aquarius and is analysing the data with the aim of publishing the results early in 1986 11. The Department of Science and Technology conduct a symposium to discuss the development and co-ordination of computer modelling and remote sensing related to bushfires (paragraph 164) Accepted. Department of Resources and Energy, in conjunction with CSIRO and other related organisations, will organise a symposium in 1985-86 to discuss the development and co-ordination of computer modelling and remote sensing in relation to bushfires 12. The Australian Bureau of Statistics examine the need for, and the problems involved in, a national bushfire statistics series (paragraph 166) Accepted in principle. The Australian Fire Incident Reporting System (AFIRS) is becoming well established throughout Australia with significant technical support being provided by the WA Fire Brigades Board under agreement with the Australian Assembly of Fire Authorities (AAFA). The Australian Bureau of Statistics will consider requests from the AAFA for technical support of AFIRS initiatives and for technical assistance in the design and implementation of a system to yield national fire statistics 13. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the Minister for Primary Industry request the Australian Environment Council, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and the Australian Forestry Council to discuss the co-ordination of bushfire research with a view to establishing a co-ordinating unit within an appropriate authority, such as the CSIRO (paragraph 170) Accepted in principle. Co-ordination of all bushfire related research in Australia will be raised with the States and Northern Territory. In March 1985, CSIRO established the National Bushfire Research Unit. The Unit's activities will be guided by a Research Planning Committee, membership of which will include non-CSIRO representatives. Subject to the resources involved, and responses from the States, this Committee could also advise on research co-ordination at a national level 14. The Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for bushfire matters, jointly discuss the establishment and financing of a national bushfire research fund (paragraph 171) Accepted. The Government notes that the `user pays' principle is an important factor in encouraging community responsibility in relation to bushfire prevention and risk avoidance. Given the widespread responsibilities for bushfire matters at Commonwealth and State levels, the question of the best method of progressing discussions on the establishment of a national bushfire research fund is to be raised with the States and Northern Territory 15. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation maintain a significant bushfire research program after the completion of Project Aquarius (paragraph 173) Accepted. When the results of Project Aquarius have been published, CSIRO will continue to conduct research into bushfire behaviour and ecological studies of the long-term effects of bushfires and controlled burning on the Australian environment 16. The Commonwealth review its research priorities to determine the feasibility of increasing the funding for CSIRO research into the ecological impact of fire regimes (paragraph 175) Not accepted. CSIRO allocates funds with the approval of the Minister for Science according to Government priorities. ASTEC is reviewing R and D funding, starting with CSIRO. In recent years, CSIRO has increased its research on the ecological impact of fire regimes in various regions of Australia and is currently reviewing its priorities for the future direction of this work 17. The Department of Defence review its bushfire procedures to ensure they provide for full consultation with local authorities about fire prevention and pre-fire planning (paragraph 181) There are presently joint service contingency plans in place covering disaster relief arrangements in each Australian State or Territory, with particular bushfire supporting plans in some fire-prone areas. These plans were prepared in consultation with emergency services personnel and clearly specify liaison responsibilities with local authorities. The Department of Defence as a landholder will review procedures for consultation with local authorities on fire prevention and fire preparedness planning 18. The Commonwealth Departments of Administrative Services and Defence review the cost imposition to rural fire authorities caused by Defence land holdings and consider the need to provide additional financial assistance (paragraph 182) The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will consider this matter with respect to all Commonwealth property, consulting other Ministers as appropriate 19. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment review the bushfire protection and management practices of properties of international and national importance (paragraph 189) Accepted. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment will ask the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Heritage Commission to review and report on current bushfire protection practices on properties of national and international significance 20. The Minister for Defence review the role of the Armed Services in bushfire fighting operations and establish mechanisms to facilitate closer co-operation with civilian bushfire authorities (paragraph 195) Noted. The existing arrangements whereby State and Territory authorities can seek Commonwealth assistance, including Armed Services assistance, when State or Territory resources are unable to cope with a disaster, have been tested, used and found effective 21. (i) the Bureau of Meteorology continue to provide free fire weather services during the bushfire season, (i) Accepted (ii) special purpose funds be provided to enable the Bureau to employ specialist fire weather meteorologists in each State, (ii) Noted. The level of special purpose funds to be provided will be determined in the budget context (iii) special purpose funds be provided to establish a network of remote weather stations (paragraph 201) (iii) Noted. The level of special purpose funds to be provided will be determined in the budget context 22. The Natural Disasters Organisation investigate the need for, and the means of establishing a national bushfire fighting support service to acquire and deploy equipment that the State authorities cannot singly acquire (paragraph 202) The Commonwealth has a very limited direct role in bushfire fighting operations. Establishment of a national fire fighting support service would have major funding implications and might set a precedent for the creation of similar support services to assist in other disasters. Research into the effectiveness in Australian conditions of the type of equipment envisaged by the report as possibly suitable for provision on a national basis (major airborne fire fighting and infra-red scanning systems) is still at an early stage. Some State bushfire fighting authorities have expressed a desire for the provision of such equipment but others have expressed serious doubts about its cost effectiveness. Documentation of research trials, such as Project Aquarius, need to be concluded before informed decisions can be made about the advisability of the Commonwealth entering into such a potentially costly area. Some States have already purchased and installed infra-red equipment in aircraft specifically for fire fighting purposes. The need for a national bushfire fighting support service, how and by whom any such service might be managed, and the proper authority to investigate these issues will be raised with the States and Northern Territory 23. The Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry request the Standing Committee on Soil Conservation of the Australian Agricultural Council to consider formulating a proposal for Commonwealth assistance with post fire soil protection works (paragraph 206) Accepted. The Minister for Primary Industry will request the Standing Committee of Soil Conservation to consider possible Commonwealth assistance for post fire soil protection works RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPORT BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY OF THE AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY COUNCIL ON ``THE 1982-83 BUSHFIRES'' Recommendation Response RECOMMENDATION 1 The Commonwealth Government examines the need to establish an organisation within its structure to co-ordinate Commonwealth activities and assist co-ordination of support and promulgation of uniform policies for activities concerning bushfire preparedness and avoidance -it is considered that one avenue may be the expansion of the role of an existing body such as the Natural Disasters Organisation Noted. This recommendation will be further considered after consultation with the States and Northern Territory RECOMMENDATION 2 The Commonwealth and State authorities responsible directly and indirectly for the suppression of fires jointly examine the extent to which a common approach to training, equipment, communications and basic preparations could facilitate the development of preparedness for bushfire suppression Accepted in principle. This recommendation will be taken up with the States and Northern Territory RECOMMENDATION 3 Consideration be given to the establishment of a national training course on bushfire control, co-ordination etc., directed in the first instance at senior fire control officers drawn from each State to supplement the activities of the present individual State arrangements -Standing Committee on Forestry considers that the course might most appropriately be based on the facilities of the Australian Counter Disaster College The Australian Counter Disaster College (ACDC) provides counter disaster management training courses for Commonwealth, State and overseas personnel from all emergency services including the fire services. The College also provides mobile teams which train emergency services personnel in the States and Territories as well as instructors to lecture at specialist training establishments in the States. Special courses for bushfire disasters would be to the detriment of general disaster training. Higher attendance by senior officers of State and rural fire authorities would be welcomed at ACDC courses. See also recommendation 9 of HRSCEC Report RECOMMENDATION 4 That the Department of Defence gives priority to training in bushfire suppression for selected numbers of troops located in or near bushfire-prone areas The Armed Services take precautionary measures for Defence facilities and activities in bushfire-prone areas, including training of selected personnel. The primary role of the Armed Services is national defence. Training in dealing with bushfires is incidental to that role and cannot be given priority RECOMMENDATION 5 The desirability of standard legislation relating to police powers of evacuation be carefully looked at Accepted. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services and the Special Minister of State will seek agreement of the Fire Ministers Council and Police Ministers Council respectively on need and action required for implementation RECOMMENDATION 6 That urgent consideration be given to implementing policies for adequate fuel reduction either by controlled burning or other effective techniques in all fire-prone forests to ensure that fuels do not accumulate to levels which pose a serious threat to human life and property Noted. Implementation of policies for adequate fuel reduction is largely a State matter. However the technique will be employed where appropriate on Commonwealth controlled land. Further research is required to assist land managers in deciding on the most appropriate fuel reduction techniques for particular areas. The recommendation will be drawn to the attention of the State and Northern Territory Governments RECOMMENDATION 7 That support be given in promoting the placement of powerlines underground in urban/rural fringe bushfire-prone areas and, where such method is cost prohibitive, a public awareness campaign be established encouraging the community to report to the respective electricity authority any powerline fire hazard Noted. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will draw the recommendation to the attention of the Local Government Ministers Conference RECOMMENDATION 8 That planning authorities be given the necessary support to enable and encourage them to take all aspects of fire prevention, including location, access and design of buildings into account when considering planning proposals in areas prone to wildfires Noted. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services will request the Local Government Ministers Conference to review all aspects of land use planning as it relates to bushfire mitigation RECOMMENDATION 9 That the provision of a fire weather service should be an important part of the national meteorological service and that the Bureau of Meteorology continues to issue without charge to central fire control authorities and State forest services detailed reliable forecasts during the fire season on a 7-day a week basis and special forecasts for fighting fires and for fire hazard reduction burns Accepted RECOMMENDATION 10 Providing additional special purpose funds to the Bureau of Meteorology -To enable the Bureau to employ at least one but preferably two specialist fire weather meteorologists in each State and the Northern Territory on a permanent basis each having access to a mobile forecasting unit -To enable the Bureau to expand its network of automatic weather stations -To enable the Bureau in co-operation with the CSIRO to increase its research efforts into meteorological aspects of fire behaviour particularly to improve knowledge of local wind variations and the effects of fires themselves on the prevailing wind flow Noted. The level of any additional resources to be provided will be determined in the budget context RECOMMENDATION 11 That the Bureau of Meteorology in co-operation with relevant Commonwealth departments and authorities -Carries out a feasibility study on the use of aircraft to detect fronts and, if proven to be feasible, to carry out tests to detect and trace cold fronts which do not have significant cloud patterns -Establishes a procedure to recover automatic weather buoys, to be refitted en route with new batteries and replaced in desired positions in the Southern and Indian Oceans before the fire season in the southern States commences Noted. Front detection by aircraft is feasible. Proposals to evaluate the operational effectiveness of aircraft data are being developed. Implementation will be considered in the budget context Recovery and refurbishing of drifting buoys is not cost effective. Present plans for upgrading the drifting buoy network will proceed and plans to implement a small network of anchored buoys will be developed. RECOMMENDATION 12 That the Bureau of Meteorology in co-operation with the relevant Federal and State departments and authorities develops a fire weather training course for bushfire operators and conducts the course from time to time in each State Noted. Will be implemented to the extent available resources permit RECOMMENDATION 13 That Council agrees that proposals to establish a national fire investigation team and a specialist support group equipped with modern specialist equipment not generally available at the regional fire-fighting level (eg. infra-red equipment) warrant further examination and considers that the proposals should be drawn to the attention of State and Federal Governments as early as possible, in order that a more detailed examination of the issues may be undertaken Noted. This recommendation will be raised with the States and Northern Territory. See also recommendation 22 of HRSCEC Report RECOMMENDATION 14 That Council requests the Commonwealth and State Governments to consider the establishment of a National Fire Authorities Organisation to assist co-ordination of national and State activities concerning bushfire and rural fire suppression -it is considered that the organisation may best be established under the umbrella of the Natural Disasters Organisation The Commonwealth has a very limited role in bushfire fighting operations. Consideration would need to be given to the need for a National Fire Authorities Organisation, how and by whom it would be managed, and the role, if any, of the Commonwealth. This recommendation will be raised with the State and Northern Territory Governments RECOMMENDATION 15 The Council supports the provision on a continuing basis of Defence Force personnel trained on bushfire fighting The three Armed Services presently provide continuation training in bushfire suppression to selected personnel during bushfire seasons. Furthermore, the Australian Defence Force is presently introducing a bushfire training package which uses the NSW Bushfire Council's new publications as a reference. Once established, this process will standardise bushfire training throughout the Armed Services and should contribute towards their effectiveness in bushfire fighting The primary role of the Armed Services is national defence. Priority cannot be given to bushfire training The existing arrangements whereby State and Territory authorities can seek Commonwealth assistance, including Armed Services assistance, when State or Territory resources are unable to cope with a disaster have been tested, used and found effective. See also recommendation 20 of HRSCEC Report RECOMMENDATION 16 That all research related to bushfires be co-ordinated by a central authority or agency representative of the State and Commonwealth authorities involved to ensure that an integrated approach is adopted and that adequate liaison with potential users of results at all stages of the research from planning to implementation is undertaken Accepted in principle. Co-ordination of all bushfire related research in Australia will be raised with the States and Northern Territory. In March 1985, CSIRO established the National Bushfire Research Unit. The Unit's activities will be guided by a Research Planning Committee, membership of which will include non-CSIRO representatives. Subject to the resources involved, and responses from the States, this Committee could also advise on research co-ordination at a national level. See also recommendation 13 of HRSCEC Report RECOMMENDATION 17 That the State and Commonwealth Governments be requested to consider the allocation of special-purpose funds for research into aspects of bushfire control which are identified by AFC and other relevant ministerial bodies as having high priority, to be co-ordinated by a central authority or agency representative of the State and Commonwealth authorities involved Noted. The `user pays' principle is an important factor in encouraging community responsibility in relation to bushfire prevention and risk avoidance. Given the widespread responsibilities for bushfire matters at Commonwealth and State levels, the question of the best method of progressing discussions on the establishment of a national bushfire research fund will be raised with the States and Northern Territory. See also recommendation 14 of HRSCEC Report RECOMMENDATION 18 That consideration be given to using the expertise during Project Aquarius to conduct ongoing research programs identified as having high priority after completion of Aquarius in 1984-85 Accepted. The recent establishment by CSIRO of the National Bushfire Research Unit will ensure that expertise acquired during Project Aquarius will continue to be applied to bushfire research of high priority RECOMMENDATION 19 That universities providing undergraduate training in forestry be made aware of the need for employment of permanent fire science lecturers in view of the importance of this subject in the national context Accepted. The Minister for Primary Industry will request the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee to convey to universities the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Forestry regarding the need for employment of permanent fire science lecturers in universities providing undergraduate training in forestry RECOMMENDATION 20 That the Commonwealth with the co-operation of relevant State departments and authorities develops video programs and education kits concerning bushfire topics addressed particularly to higher levels of secondary education but also the general community Accepted in principle. The Minister for Education will raise the proposal with the Australian Education Council for consideration RECOMMENDATION 21 That the CSIRO develops an authoritative textbook on fire ecology suitable for tertiary education Noted. To be considered further by CSIRO following responses from tertiary education institutions. See also recommendation 8 of HRSCEC Report RECOMMENDATION 22 That Council supports the continuation of the USA/Australia fire study tours and supports broadening their scope to include other related aspects of fire management Accepted. The Australian Forestry Council is currently finalising formal arrangements via a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure continuity of the USA/Australia fire study tours The Standing Committee on Forestry accepted an offer by the USA and Canadian forest services to hold a fire study tour in the US and Canada in July/August 1985 RECOMMENDATION 23 That the Commonwealth undertakes the task of collection, collation and reporting of national fire statistics from information supplied by State land management and fire control authorities through the National Fire Incidence Reporting System Accepted in principle. The Australian Fire Incident Reporting System (AFIRS) is becoming well established throughout Australia with significant technical support being provided by the WA Fire Brigades Board under agreement with the Australian Assembly of Fire Authorities (AAFA). The Australian Bureau of Statistics will consider requests from the AAFA for technical support of AFIRS initiatives and for technical assistance in the design and implementation of a system to yield national fire statistics RECOMMENDATION 24 That the Commonwealth investigates and reports on the efficiency of radio communications by a multitude of users, as in the case of large bushfires at regional borders, and makes recommendations to ensure efficient communications at all times between all agencies involved in fighting fires Accepted in principle. The communication issue will be raised with the States and Northern Territory. Refer also to recommendation 2 of the Standing Committee on Forestry Report RECOMMENDATION 25 That the Commonwealth establishes and funds an organisation at the Commonwealth level accountable to the Australian Forestry Council, via its chairman and requiring direct involvement from the Department of Primary Industry and CSIRO to implement the recommendations contained in this report that relate to national co-ordination and co-operation Noted. Consideration will be given to this recommendation following consultation with the States and Northern Territory Mr COHEN —The House of Representatives Committee recognised that bushfire prevention and suppression are State responsibilities and that there are only limited areas where the Commonwealth can be directly involved. However, there were a number of areas identified where the Commonwealth can co-operate with State and local governments to ensure that sound ecological management approaches are followed and loss of life and property damage are minimised in bushfire prevention and suppression. Several recommendations in the reports deal with improved national co-ordination. The widespread responsibilities and interests of the Commonwealth and the States highlight the need for improved national co-ordination. In addressing each recommendation the Government has recognised that, since prime carriage rests with the States, consultation with the States and Northern Territory on the committees' proposals is paramount. Accordingly, the Government has given this matter high priority. Other recommendations in the reports cover a range of matters including education and public awareness campaigns; training and use of Defence Force personnel; acquisition and deployment of special equipment; fire-weather and other services; planning and design of buildings; funding and co-ordination of research; and collection of statistics. As I have already mentioned, the Government proposes to consult with the State and Northern Territory governments on the most appropriate way to progress the issues dealt with in particular recommendations. Let us mention briefly the areas to which we are referring. The first is research. Both the parliamentary committee report, in recommendations 13 and 14, and the Forestry Council report, in recommendations 16 and 17, refer to the requirement for co-ordination of research and the need to develop a national bushfire research fund. The Government has noted that bushfire research interests are much wider than just those represented on the Australian Environment Council, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers and the Australian Forestry Council mentioned by the House of Representatives Committee. Losses to life and property in bushfire outbreaks in recent years have generated considerable criticism of the adequacy of existing arrangements for bushfire prevention and control and the level of Australia's bushfire research. In addition to the importance of national co-ordination of research, there is a need to ensure that the results of research are properly implemented through improved fire prevention and control practices. It is relevant to mention here the important role which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation performs in relation to bushfire related research. The experimental phase of Project Aquarius has been completed and the data are being analysed by CSIRO. A summary report of a cost-benefit study on the aerial suppression of bushfires was released on 6 February 1986 and the main report of this economic study will be issued during March. The final report on Project Aquarius should become available by early 1987. It is expected that CSIRO will continue to conduct research into bushfire behaviour and ecological studies of the long term effects of bushfires and control burning on the Australian environment. Indeed, we understand that CSIRO plans to extend these activities through the National Bushfire Research Unit established in March 1985. I turn now to another matter which is to be taken up with the States and Northern Territory-training and equipment. Recommendation 22 of the parliamentary committee report and recommendation 13 of the Forestry Council report seek an investigation of the need for, and the means of establishing, a national bushfire fighting support service to acquire and deploy equipment that the State authorities cannot singly acquire. The cost-benefit study just released by CSIRO compares the cost effectiveness of various aircraft and aerial suppression methods with conventional ground-based methods of bushfire control. Although some State bushfire fighting authorities have expressed a desire for the provision of specialist equipment, research into the type of equipment envisaged by the reports-major airborne fire fighting systems-is still incomplete. It would be prudent to defer consideration of any major acquisitions until a thorough consideration has been given to the conclusions of the CSIRO cost-benefit study. We note some other States have expressed serious doubts about the cost effectiveness of a national service to acquire and deploy special equipment. It is also relevant that some States have already purchased and installed infra-red equipment in aircraft specifically for fire fighting purposes. Clearly we need informed Commonwealth-State consideration of this recommendation. Recommendation 2 of the Forestry Council report calls for the Commonwealth and State authorities responsible directly and indirectly for the suppression of fires to jointly examine the extent to which a common approach to training, equipment, communications and basic preparations could facilitate the development of preparedness for bushfire suppression. In addition, recommendation 24 of the Forestry Council report calls for an investigation and report on the efficiency of radio communications by a multitude of users involved in bushfire prevention and suppression. Again the States and Northern Territory need to be consulted and involved. Recommendation 4 of the Forestry Council report seeks priority from the Department of Defence for training in bushfire suppression for selected numbers of troops located in or near bushfire prone areas. The Government has noted that where Defence assets and units are in bushfire prone areas, the Defence Force trains its personnel in bushfire suppression. In addition, the Australian Defence Force is introducing a bushfire training course package which uses the New South Wales Bushfire Council publications as reference material. Once established, this process will standardise bushfire trainingthroughout the Australian Defence Force and should contribute towards the effectiveness of the armed forces in bushfire fighting. The primary role of the Defence Force is, however, defence of the nation. Thus priority cannot be given to bushfire training as is suggested by the recommendation. One other recommendation which we wish to mention is recommendation 14 of the Forestry Council report, which calls for consideration of the establishment of a national fire authorities organisation to assist in co-ordination of national and State bushfire activities. Once again it is clearly appropriate to seek the views of State governments on the most appropriate forum for consideration of this proposal. There are some other matters to be drawn to the attention of the States and Northern Territory, and these are referred to in the tabled documents. When it has received responses from State and Northern Territory governments, the Commonwealth Government will examine these various matters further. The Government believes that the House of Representatives Environment and Conservation Committee's work on bushfires and the environment has significantly improved our understanding of the complexities associated with national co-ordination of the many aspects of bushfire prevention and control, particularly with respect to research, training and national awareness of prevention and suppression measures. I am delighted to see that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton), the Chairman of the Committee, is present in the House. I commend him for the work that he and his Committee have done. Both reports that we have mentioned today have added a new and better focused impetus to our liaison with the States in order to achieve more effective national co-ordination. The Government has responded positively to this need and we commend our response to the House. I present the following paper: Bushfires-Ministerial Statement, 12 February 1986. Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.08) —I am very pleased that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has finally responded to the report on bushfires which the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation tabled in this place some 16 months ago. In fact, I think it is quite extraordinary that a subject of such importance to so many Australians and in a field where we have seen such massive human misery and substantial economic loss in recent years has taken so long to be examined in depth and to the degree of detail which is quite obviously necessary. No doubt the fire-fighters who are battling the 12 north-eastern Victorian bushfires at present will welcome the Minister's statement but not its contents. No doubt they will join with me and with many others in wondering why it has taken so long to table what is not a totally satisfactory response to the recommendations contained in the report, which was prepared by a committee of which I had the honour to be a member at the time. The Minister has, quite rightly, pointed out that the contents of the report are, in a sense, trail-blazing-it was the first time a Federal parliamentary committee had conducted an investigation of that nature into bushfires-it must be recalled that our investigation was a response to the Ash Wednesday disasters in Victoria and South Australia. While the physical scars of that horrible day have perhaps been erased in many areas, there is no question that they have left a very deep impression on the communities which suffered tremendous fear and personal loss when so many people died at that time. Australians tend to imagine that bushfires are something we have to live with. The fact of the matter is that scientific research in so many fields of human endeavour has demonstrated that humanity is able to tame nature although, unfortunately, we are often unable to tame those within our own communities who wish to misuse nature. Most fires, regrettably, are started by human beings. A very small number of fires are started either by weather conditions or by other means. This emphasis was contained in the report of our Committee. We examined the causes of bushfires; then we looked at the machinery that was currently in place to combat them. We accepted the fact that, under a Federal system, land management is essentially the responsibility of the States. The Minister in his statement ran to cover on that point at a very early stage, and quite rightly so. Whilst one cannot help but accept that it is perfectly reasonable for the States to have that ultimate responsibility, our inquiry was told so often by State officers, especially fire prevention officers, that they were very conscious of the fact that there really was a breakdown in areas such as research, that there was not the level of close co-ordination of activity which was obviously necessary in the national interest if we were going to get true value for money. Reading the response of the Minister on the area of research specifically, I must say that I am not totally convinced of the line he has taken. I accept that naturally the Government is looking for ways of not spending money, and that becomes quite clear in the response he has made. On the other hand, the activities of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in recent years, especially since the Ash Wednesday fires, and the response of the Government in respect of the Project Aquarius inquiries, which have only recently been completed, leave very real doubts as to whether the CSIRO is going to be adequately funded. I raised this issue last year when the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) made some interesting comments on the subject. I recall a Press release put out then by the head of the CSIRO making it quite clear that while that body was prepared to accept responsibility for fire research at a national level, this was completely predicated upon the availability of funds. Frankly, there was not sufficient evidence in the last Budget that funds of the quantity necessary for this type of basic research have been made available. The Commonwealth's role in bushfire suppression traditionally has been to provide defence personnel and equipment as required to assist the States when they face a crisis which is beyond their resources. This has tended to be a very ad hoc operation. In our report we emphasise the need for the defence forces to have a contingency plan which could be applied especially in those geographic areas where there were defence forces in being. In other words, part of their normal activity would be the suppression of major fires, either on Commonwealth property or in support of the civil power when required. The response in the Minister's report, which was perhaps not totally unexpected, was that the defence forces were to defend Australia. It did not say against what, but it is implied that the defence forces do not particularly see the fighting of bushfires as part of their normal role. I would question that because, as I said before, the defence of Australia against droughts or floods is in a sense just as real to the community as defending Australia against some potential aggressor. I think the position should be seen in that context. As I have said, the responsibility for land management rests essentially with the States, although the Commonwealth is responsible for the management of its own land resources. We noticed in our inquiry that a not insignificant number of major fires had started on Commonwealth land. This again emphasises the fact that the standards of fire prevention which must be maintained by the Commonwealth in its own areas of direct responsibility must not be underestimated. Again, I feel that the response from the Minister was somewhat lacking on that point. The co-ordination of Commonwealth operations with the States has been maintained in recent years through the Natural Disasters Organisation, which is attached to the Department of Defence in Canberra. I think there is a case to be made, as we noted in our report, as to whether that is necessarily the right type of machinery. Is it right that the NDA necessarily should be part of the Department of Defence? What are the other alternatives which could be rationally considered? Again, that point was not adequately covered in the Minister's response. As I said, we have been waiting 16 months for this response. Throughout his paper the Minister continually says that we must discuss the matter with the States. What on earth has been happening for the last 16 months? We have had two summers in that period. We were lucky this year because, except for Victoria, most of Australia did not experience serious fires. Last year we had a disastrous situation in much of Australia and certainly around the Australian Capital Territory. Surely these issues are real. They are not things that we can put off year after year. I think it is grossly unsatisfactory that it should have taken 16 months for the Minister to come up with what can only be called a second-rate response to what he described as a worthwhile report. It is for all those reasons that I believe the Government should go back and come up with a serious policy on the Commonwealth's involvement, both at a research and a technical level, on how best we can control the problem of bushfires. The Federal response overall in this period has not been very satisfactory. There have been no worthwhile initiatives to overcome the serious shortcomings in fire fighting techniques, nor have the problems of better co-ordination between the Federal and State authorities been effectively addressed. The Commonwealth has reduced its commitment to the major Project Aquarius, although the Minister has pointed out in his response that, of course, the first stage of that report has now been tabled and, hopefully, in the next few months we will see the second stage of it. Nevertheless, in the last year and a half of those investigations there were major problems as to whether sufficient funds were being provided. In addition, funding of the National Centre for Rural Fire Research at the Chisholm Institute of Technology was cut and the centre has since closed. The CSIRO Division of Forest Research has received no commitment in recent times for the significant level of additional funding which will be necessary for fire research. That was the situation as of May last year. In fact, there has been little encouragement for the CSIRO to develop a national fire research program. It is no good passing those problems over to the States. They are the clear responsibility of the Commonwealth. I should like to refer to another matter of considerable relevance in the context of our report and the response of the Minister. I refer to the fire weather service. The Bureau of Meteorology is charged under the Meteorology Act 1955 to issue warnings of weather considered likely to give rise to bushfires. Research on fire weather interpretation conducted in co-operation with State forest services and the CSIRO was terminated in the mid-1970s under a Labor government allegedly because of resource constraints. Unfortunately that research has not been continued since. Obviously, accurate reporting is essential if fire control is to be effective, and there are a number of areas where improvements are necessary in assisting the suppression of fires and minimising the loss of life, property and resources. The major improvements required to the fire weather service relate to more advanced warning of significant frontal movements, detailed fire weather forecasts at the meso-scale, knowledge of local wind variations, and the effects of fire on prevailing wind flow. All this is part and parcel of the ability, which we do not currently have, to train adequately bushfire control officers to enable them to have a better knowledge of meteorological aspects. Clearly, this is an area in which we require and must have significant improvements. Unfortunately, meteorological reporting facilities and staffing have been undermined by the present Government. With a reduction of 13 per cent in the weather bureau labour force, officers have become alarmed at the threat to safety caused by inadequate reporting. The most extraordinary situations can arise between the Australian Capital Territory and the New South Wales border areas in this regard. Queanbeyan, for example, gets its meteorological reporting from Sydney whereas the Australian Capital Territory fire authority gets its from, naturally, Canberra. The inconsistencies that arise from that can lead to a situation in which a major fire warning is issued in one area but no major fire warning is issued in the adjacent area where clearly the environmental and climatic conditions are probably identical. Those are the sorts of problems which, on the ground, can cause the deaths of Australians and the substantial loss of both equipment and personnel, particularly volunteer fire fighters. I am sorry the Minister did not pick up in his response the point we made in our report about the great role played in Australia by the 300,000 volunteers who man our volunteer fire fighting units throughout Australia, especially in States such as New South Wales and Victoria, and particularly in South Australia. They are the ones who bear the brunt; they are the ones who take the real risks. In many cases they are inadequately equipped and inadequately trained. All of these points were contained in our report. Unfortunately, the Minister did not refer to the significant and vital role played by those Australian volunteers. I am sure I speak for all members of this House when I pay a tribute to those men and women who year after year go out and take those real risks, often with inadequate-I emphasise that-compensation in the event of their death or serious injury. In my own volunteer fire brigade, we lost a member last year in the fires near Canberra. Many of us are conscious of the massive personal loss in a very real sense. The importance of volunteers is something which no government should be prepared to ignore. In New South Wales, through trade union action in particular, there has been a steady push on the Government to do away with a volunteer system, to have a larger, professional fire fighting organisation and to try to freeze the volunteers out. Mr Downer —They are trying to do it in South Australia too. Mr CONNOLLY —That is happening also in South Australia. If that situation is allowed to perpetuate two things will happen: First, fires will break out and will not be stopped because there will never be sufficient professional firemen or equipment to make fire prevention viable; and, secondly, we will not have the support of the communities from which voluntary firemen come. While we must have a professional service, particularly in urban areas, volunteers are most involved, in rural communities in particular. Clearly it is the responsibility of local government and State government to protect their legitimate interests. The Opposition is not prepared to see a diminution of the role of the volunteer fire fighters in that field. The Environment Committee report also recommended that special purpose funds be provided to enable the Bureau of Meteorology to employ specialist fire weather meteorologists in each State and to establish a network of remote weather stations. This has been highly successful in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales. These remote weather stations do not require much maintenance. The local government authority has established a blueprint for the control and management of bushfires in the Blue Mountains possibly second to none in Australia. It has been in operation for some years and it has been most successful. Surely what we should be doing is learning from that experience and trying to apply it elsewhere. The lessons of the recent years are ones which we can ignore at our peril. However, I am very concerned that on the basis of the Minister's response he has once again allowed bureaucratic inertia and lack of political will to cause him to ignore the realities. He must take those reports much more seriously than the Government has done to date. Debate (on motion by Mr Milton) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government- (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr MacKellar and Mr Tickner. To the Right 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: 1. we are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag; 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee, and your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should: completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Downer and Mr Young. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance Allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the inadequate funding provided to the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters Limited (NAATI) by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments is endangering the effectiveness of NAATI's work. Established by the Commonwealth Government in 1977 in response to the interpreting and translating needs of the ethnic community it is now jointly funded by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to maintain the standards and good order of the interpreting and translating profession. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will ensure adequate support to enable NAATI to continue its vitally important work. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectively show us: that the amendments to Child Care Act (1972) directly contravene the ALP Party Policy of 1982, which stated that the government would guarantee quality care and would allow services to be provided at a cost that could be met by a majority of the users. The amendments to the Child Care Act: (a) directly attack the quality of care that Centres are able to provide. (b) increase the cost and accessibility of care to parents. (c) threaten the employment of staff in Centres. (d) lower working conditions in the industry. Your petitioners then humbly pray that your Honourable House restore full funding to children's services and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: a The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent material; and b The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Conquest. 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 they are opposed to the introduction of the Kerin Plan for the Australian Dairy industry which would destroy the livelihoods of many thousands of dairy farmers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will reject the Kerin Dairy Plan. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- The long, drawn out, prolonged effect of ever expanding interest rates has and will continue to tear this country apart as home purchasers are given temporary easement or extended time payments, paying a mere pittance off the original loan with a complete disregard for the final result, i.e. the selling of small business and an intolerable position for the early or young home purchasers, also social disruption at its worst for the last 15 to 20 years. Therefore no government or opposition in a power position should continue to tolerate this cruel, vicious procedure that shatters the very structure of family life. We need a five year period to reduce this absurdity by tackling it at it's source. Firstly, interest repayments on home loans to be reduced by 2 per cent annually for the next five years or until it is down to 6 per cent. This would, or should eliminate union demands, and cause no hazard for investors, who could reinvest in Government projects, or other worthwhile ventures and also ease the burden on Social Securities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Initiated by John Knight. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that according to the Senate Select Committee report 1 million sheep have died during export to the Middle East in the last 5 years. At least 2 per cent die on each voyage, in addition to the large numbers which may die as a result of particularly adverse conditions, for example 40,000 due to fire, 15,000 due to cold at Portland and 15,000 recently due to humidity near Jedda. Beyond the mortality figures, all sheep endure the stress of the voyage and the cruelty of halal slaughter (which has recently been banned in Britain). Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should accept the findings of the Senate Select Committee. In particular: 1. to phase out the live sheep export trade over 5 years and to substitute for it a refrigerated sheepmeat trade. 2. in the interim, to give the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service responsibility for the welfare of export sheep in Australia, including the power to stop abuses. 3. in the interim, to implement the Senate Select Committee's recommendations regarding the improvement of current conditions and husbandry practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth our deep concern over the continued imprisonment of Mrs Lindy Chamberlain. We ask the Federal Government to appoint a Judicial Inquiry with a Royal Commissions powers to compel the attendance of witnesses. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately give this matter your earnest consideration. 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 the Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully request in the matter of Lindy Chamberlain your concern and assistance to procure her immediate release to be followed by a judicial inquiry to be held outside the Northern Territory. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (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) increasing 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. The petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice system, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the 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 Sharp. To the Honourable the President and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: The the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan TV stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial TV operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives. Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national summit for survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished soils. 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. 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 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 practise 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 further more 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 Downer. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of the Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The Dalton-Oolong area has been rated as the 4th highest earthquake risk area in Australia and that an earthquake of up to magnitude 6 on the Richter scale may be eminent. The Bureau of Mineral Resources in Canberra wish to install numerous monitoring devices in this area, but are unable to do so at present as they lack the appropriate equipment due to inadequate funding. The citizens of this area are concerned for the safety of themselves and their property. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to fund the Bureau of Mineral Resources so that more earthquake monitoring & earthquake prediction equipment can be installed in the Dalton area and your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the 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. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage that will be done to the living standards and security of Australian small businesses and their families as a result of Government policies on fuel pricing, interest rates, and the ALP-ACTU accord. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr Hurford-What families do small businesses have? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(2.28) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Might I add my congratulations to you in your role as Chairman of Committees. The Australian small business sector claims approximately 700,000 members. That represents the number of employers who employ fewer than 10 people. Most of these businesses have a substantial family input. I add that for the benefit of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). From my experience the welfare of small business often dominates discussion at meal-times. There is a good reason for that: That business usually is the source of the food on the table. Again, that is something which the Minister has never had to experience. These families know very well that there is no judicial system to guarantee their welfare. They rely on their collective hard work, their skills and government policy to dictate their continued prosperity. In that regard the decisions of the Government judicial body, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which guarantees the financial security of many Australians, can be a major threat to that security. Today the Opposition wishes to detail the current debilitating effect of the Labor Government's policy on this important small business sector. Our matter of public importance particularly refers to the current issues of fuel prices, wages policy, interest rates and taxation policy. I will commence with fuel prices. Let me first refer to the Government's defence as presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) demanded a full flow-on of world fuel price reductions to all Australians. It is bad enough for the Government to use spurious arguments to convince the Australian public that it should now bear an unnecessary taxation burden and be cheated of its rights. However, yesterday, I got the distinct impression that the Treasurer had allowed himself to be convinced by his own factually deficient rhetoric. It is a major crime for any Treasurer who has the figures and knows the result to try to talk himself into accepting what is not correct. As is usual in this place and under this Government, when the facts of the present day are compelling, the Treasurer seeks to hide in history; he wants to give us another history lesson. But the small business community and the Australian people are fed up with history lessons; they want solutions to today's problems and they want them from the incumbent Government. They do not expect them from the Opposition. They know who is making the mistakes. Yesterday, the Treasurer, in an attempt to justify a decision to cheat Australians of a substantial drop in fuel prices, reverted again to history and demanded that the Opposition state where it would cut expenditure if it were to keep its promises on fuel prices. Let me give a clear message to the Government on this issue. Firstly, under long-standing bipartisan arrangements, the price of fuel charged to Australian consumers, both business and private, has been linked directly to world prices. That policy has resulted in a steady increase in fuel prices over past years. That long-standing, bipartisan policy states that the price of fuel must now be reduced by 7c a litre. The Opposition has told this Parliament and the Australian people that that is still its policy. There is historic evidence of that policy being followed. Admittedly, in past times, there were mostly rises in fuel prices, but when the price fell the government of the day, the Fraser Government, reduced the charges accordingly. Now the Government is fudging the issue. It is trying to cheat Australians of their rights and their basic need for cheaper fuel. The Government's failure to maintain our fuel costs at world parity prices will have a massive direct and downstream effect on the viability of Australian business and whether it can compete with foreign products at home and abroad. We all know that the competition exists on both planes and in both areas. Not too many small business people in Australia can manufacture a product that would not in some way suffer from overseas competition from people who have already received their fuel cut and who are already receiving the benefits from that cut. Let me also deliver a clear message on this issue to the members of Australia's media, who, either through lack of intelligence or just plain partisanship, wish to ask the Opposition how it would administer this price cut and the consequent loss of revenue, while failing to ask the Government three simple questions. For their benefit I shall state the questions that they should ask. The first question is: `Do you, the Government, intend to grant justice to all Australian fuel consumers and reduce the price of their fuel costs by 7c a litre, under long-standing arrangements?' The second question is: `If so, how will you, the Government, finance the lost revenue?'. In other words, I am saying to the media: `Do not ask us; ask the Government'. If the rules are to apply and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not go rushing off for another short term election, it will be two years before the Opposition can take over the government of this country again. People will not wait those two years for their 7c a litre; they want it now, and they are entitled to it. It is up to the Press to ask this Government: `What are you going to do?'. There is no need to wait until Friday. The rules are written down and have been for many years. The third question the Press might ask this Government is: `In the light of the long-standing predictions by many international experts in the industry that international fuel prices would fall, why have you got yourself into this predicament? Why, in your last Budget and in your last tax statement, were you prepared to spend every penny plus another $6 billion to extend the deficit? Why were you prepared to do all that when the dogs were barking all over the world that fuel prices would fall, and fall dramatically?'. The suggestions of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in another place that the Government knew what was going to happen but it did not think it would happen so quickly is some evidence of his inability. Of course, the price was going to crash and of course there would be a domino effect. That is a basic principle. When a cartel breaks up, every member will be trying to undercut the other. Of course, that will create a massive drop in prices. The Government knew that would happen. It has got itself into this problem and now it wants the poor old Australian consumer to pay the price for its mistakes. The Opposition says that that is not on and that it will hound the Government every day, as I am sure the Australian public will. When the Press has done its duty in this regard to its customers-the Australian people, the people who pay its wages-I shall give the Opposition's answer to these sorts of questions that the Press has put to us. The Opposition's answer is clear. If the Government decides to reduce its revenues and, probably, its expenditures by the rumoured figure of approximately $1,600m, we will accommodate that reduction in our calculations for government in the future. We will take that into account, if the Government does it. It is only the Government that can do it. If we disagree with the means by which this Government achieves its cuts, we will state our priorities in the lead-up to the next election, when we know the economic situation of that time. We will not be stampeded into making economic commitments in today's volatile economic climate-volatile because of the Government's actions-to allow the Government to divert public attention from its intention to cheat Australians of their right to cheaper fuel. We will not give the Government that opportunity. It is the Government's problem and we will not be in it. We are not obliged to be in it, nor should we be in it. It is totally irresponsible and, if the Government wants to respond to that comment, I repeat that it is totally irresponsible for an Opposition looking to coming to government in two years time to be called upon by the Press to make predictions. It is the Government that is dealing with today's economy. It is the Government that has to fix it, and, of course, it is all the Government's fault that we have the current situation. Let me give a direct example of the huge problems the Government's fuel and wages policy is causing small business. I ask honourable members to look at the fuel cost to the fishing industry. Maybe the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and some other members such as the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) would be interested to see what the Bureau of Agricultural Economics had to say in this regard. Opposition members-Where are they? Mr TUCKEY —They are not here. They are not worried about the effect of fuel prices on the fishing industry. A fisherman in the south east trawl fishery will save $1,650 a year through the fuel price cut, if the Government does not cheat him out of it. The east coast prawn trawler will save nearly $5,000, if the Government does not cheat him out of it. The southern bluefin tuna fishery in South Australia will save nearly $7,000 per annum per enterprise, if the Government does not cheat it out of the fuel price cut, and the fishermen in the northern prawn fishery-those people who trawl the Gulf of Carpentaria-will save $23,333 a year, if the Government does not cheat them. Let me give honourable members examples relating to the trucking industry. I have just received a telex from a person in the trucking industry who says that if the industry does not get the price cut it will blockade the roads. He is a senior representative, and his industry does not thank the Government very much either for its Interstate Road Transport Act. Fuel cuts for the trucking industry, for an interstate operator, would result in a drop in costs in excess of $2,000 per annum. That operator's kids' clothes will look much better as a result. In a previous argument I drew to honourable members' attention that the revenue of truck operators had gone up by $7,000 and the cost of fuel and tyres by $9,000. We know very well what the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) would tell us, if he were here, about the effects of the cost of fuel to the tourist industry. The cost of fuel to the rural industry is something that I am sure will be dealt with at length on another day. The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) should also think about those people-the farmers-in his electorate whom, he told us, he did not have to worry about. He said: `It is the other people in the towns who vote for us'. Let me remind the honourable member that those same people use fuel, and they use a hell of a lot of it. They are entitled to a price cut too. Such people drive 30 or 40 miles to take their kids to a cricket match. They do not have the privileges of public transport and electric trains and such things. Those people need that fuel cut and they will be considering whether or not it pays them to vote for a government that cheats them of the basic right to cheaper fuel. What about the downstream effect? What about the effect of the cost of transport on other products? I am told that 45 per cent of the value of every product in Australia will relate back to transport costs. What about the feedstocks used in so many of our industries, such as the manufacture of chemicals, plastics and tyres? The Australian tyre manufacturing industry is in enough trouble already with overseas imports. From here on in, if the Government tries to cheat it out of that drop in fuel prices, it will suffer from further inefficiencies and a further inability to compete. It was drawn to our attention today that even the citrus industry is a major consumer of fuel in reducing orange and other juices by the use of heat. Then there is the transfer effect. Look at all of the small businesses which need the extra money which would pass to them if fuel were cheaper. The Government would be the only loser. An article in the Business Review Weekly reminds us about what will happen in regard to inflation. It states: . . . the flow-on could cut the inflation rate by 0.34 per cent. A further price fall to $US20 a barrel, which many analysts consider possible- this was in January- could see the CPI slashed by almost 1 per cent. I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Is it not good economics to lower the CPI? Is that not why the Government should be responsible for implementing this policy? Let us look at the 31 January edition of the Business Review Weekly which gives us an indication as to what the Government might do about this matter. An article on page 15, referring to the Minister for Resources and Energy, says: Because of its reliance on oil revenue, he said, the Government could not accommodate a big drop in the price of oil. His view was that increased excise was the most likely response. . . There then appears this sentence in quotation marks: `there is a lot more room for taxation at the . . . pump'. The Minister in the other place told Australia on 31 January that he sees room for more taxes on fuel. Here we are arguing today for less tax on fuel. Of course, he thinks the answer might be found by imposing an excise. We can see what has happened to excise on fuel. It has risen from 7.155c a litre to nearly 10.5c a litre since the Government introduced its shocking business of automatic indexation-that taxation by stealth. The other day working class voters saw the price of a carton of beer increased by 25c and saw the price of a keg of beer increase by $2.50. That was all due to the Government's excise. But that is not the end of it. We now see what is happening in regard to the wage decision and, of course, the productivity push. In the few minutes remaining to me I say to the Government: There is a simple rule about productivity in small business. One divides the cost of one's wages as an on-cost into one's turnover and/or profit. I can tell honourable members from my experience and from all the people I have talked to that there is no productivity in small business when that calculation is made. I would like to know why the Confederation of Australian Industry is not bringing 1,000 small business people to the present hearing and saying to them: `You tell your story'. There is no productivity in our business. We are going backwards. Wages as a percentage of turnover are getting higher and higher. That is the message for small business. I do not know about some big scoop on a coal field and what it has done. Small business does not have the money to put that sort of capital into becoming efficient. It must use people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.43) —This is an irresponsible and dishonest proposal and it is quite typical of what this House has come to expect from this inadequate Opposition. Let me say why it is irresponsible. It is irresponsible because it is deliberately designed to damage the Australian economy, to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of Australian businessmen and to destroy confidence in this nation. It is all built on very flimsy evidence. Members of the Opposition front bench willingly seek to damage our nation's economy for their own selfish political ends. I said it was also a dishonest proposal. It is dishonest because it comes from a party which in government all but destroyed the Australian economy. Let me outline some of the facts as to what this coalition did to the Australian economy. The two parties in the coalition achieved the unique double of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. They brought the small business sector in this country to its knees. They destroyed business profits, business confidence and business investment. Just as the coalition was hopeless in government, so it is now hopeless in opposition. It is no wonder that we read the extraordinary news in the paper this morning that a new tactics committee is being set up by the Opposition. It is floundering around, looking for a way out of its political mess because it knows that it cannot overcome its terrible reputation as being an enormously unsuccessful manager of our Australian economy. The latest tactics committee is doing nothing more nor less than bringing back some of the failed front benchers who are now on the back bench. To quote one commentator-many commentators are saying the same thing-it is one of the more extraordinary political manoeuvres of recent times. Whose brainchild was this? Mr Carlton —This is a great intellectual contribution. Why don't you get on to the subject of petrol? Mr HURFORD —We have just had an interjection from the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar. I understand that one of the reasons why these back benchers have been brought into this tactics committee is to counter the sort of dry market nonsense that he is peddling and which is getting his Party into such diabolical trouble. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is a requirement for speakers to be somewhat relevant. We did draw to his attention a very serious problem for the Australian people. He does not have to use his time in playing politics. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor knows there is no point of order. The Chair will not entertain frivolous points or order. Mr HURFORD —It is not only a frivolous point of order. Of course, it also is preventing me from addressing this nonsense that he has put before the House. Let me remind the House of the parlous situation which existed at the time when honourable members opposite handed over government. In March 1983 inflation was running at 11.5 per cent a year. In March 1983 economic growth was but a fond memory. During 1982-83 the economy actually contracted. In March 1983 when government was handed over to us, 10 per cent of the work force was unemployed. In March 1983 the prospective Budget deficit had blown out to a massive $9.6 billion. Now they lecture us on how to run an economy by putting forward this frivolous, irresponsible, dishonest proposal that is before us today. Small business was on its knees in March 1983 because that is where the coalition had put it because of its inadequate policies. One can only note from the statistics regarding bankruptcies and business failures that the figures were at their absolute maximum at the time that the coalition handed over government to us. I remind the Opposition that small businesses do not have living standards. The proposal is illiterate. When the Opposition talks about the families of small business, it should say small business people who have families and living standards. It ought at least to present a literate proposal instead of the illiterate one that is before us. But let us look at the contrast. Let us look at the state of the economy today. Today domestic product continues to grow quickly. We expect economic growth to be at least 4 1/2 per cent in 1985-86, after 4.8 per cent in 1984-85 and 4.9 per cent in 1983-84. There is nothing that small business people want more-and I was one before entering the Parliament-than a growing economy. That is what they want and that is what they have now. The number of bankruptcies and the number of business failures are minuscule compared with what was happening when this discredited Opposition was in office. Let us look at non-farm gross domestic product. It is expected to rise by 5 per cent in 1985-86. It was the same in 1984-85. I could cite all sorts of statistics to prove my point and I will mention some of them to show how small businesses are now getting some benefit from a growing economy, in contrast to what was handed to us by this discredited coalition which has the effrontery to bring a proposal such as a this before the House today, and an illiterate proposal at that. Retail sales were up by 4 per cent in the three months to November 1985. The number of new motor vehicle registrations was up by 6.7 per cent in the three months to last November. There has been continuing improvement in labour market conditions. There has been a particularly strong performance in the September and December quarters of last year. The Government's target of 500,000 jobs in its first three years in office has been achieved. Small businesses want people to be employed because small businesses can make profits from those people's incomes. They can then get on with the job of being successful and of reinvesting. Similarly, employment increased by 8.8 per cent. A total of 548,100 jobs were created between the 1983 trough and December 1985. Another employment statistic is an increase of 3.8 per cent-a total of 249,400 jobs were created-over the 12 months to December 1985. Since June 1985, there has been an increase of 2.5 per cent; a total of 164,500 jobs have been created. I say again: Why is this relevant? It is because there is just one thing above all others that will benefit small business; that is a growth in our economy. Of course a minority get behind the Poujadists like the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), Katharine West and others who with their empty rhetoric go around the country saying that we are not looking after small business. Of course we are looking after small business. If I do not have the time to do so, I am hoping that the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who is to follow me, will be able to read into the record the sorts of special policies that the Hawke Labor Government has put into place for small businesses to reinforce what it wants more than anything else; that is, a growing economy. Let me return to more facts. The level and rate of unemployment have fallen. Job vacancies in the ANZ Bank series of job advertisements are both up; real private business fixed investment adjusted for sale and lease back transactions recovered in 1984-85, growing by about 5 per cent, and private investment was up. Mr Deputy Speaker, if only I had time I would give the statistics showing by what amount these things are up. Manufacturing industry is recovering. Production rose by 2.4 per cent in the September quarter to be 5.2 per cent above production a year earlier. Investment expenditure is expected to rise by 32.5 per cent on current prices in 1985-86. Yet this discredited group come in here and suggest that small businesses are on their knees. I repeat that they were on their knees in March 1983 when honourable members opposite handed over government because they were rejected by the people of Australia, but they are not on their knees now. (Quorum formed) As has been said so often from this side of the House, members of the Opposition do not like the facts. All they do is take our time when, indeed, we would be telling the truth to this House. I was showing how the turnaround achieved by the Hawke Labor Government has been nothing short of spectacular. What is being offered as an alternative by this Opposition? More of the same of the Fraser years. I have shown already how discredited the previous Government was in what it achieved for this country during those years. Those opposite clearly want us to slash government spending and put thousands out of work as they were so successful in doing during their years in government. That is what they did then and that is what they want us to do again now. We do not like high interest rates, but it is a better way to slow down the economy than by creating the thousands of unemployed that members of the previous Government created. That would be their alternative way of addressing the problems that we have today. Where are their workable solutions, other than slashing government spending? Where are those solutions which would do nothing more, if they slashed government spending, than create more bankruptcies among small business people, put more small businesses out of business, create less security and employment for small business people and lower the living standards of the small business people? The hypocrisy of members of this Opposition talking about fuel prices has to be witnessed to be believed. Their present leader, when he was Treasurer, was responsible for no less than lifting the fuel revenue of this country by 700 per cent in five years. He lifted the fuel revenue from $346m to $3,400m. So in their opportunistic way they seek to make political capital out of what is a difficult decision; they seek to suggest that we are delaying a decision on fuel prices. The decision will be made on Friday well before 1 March. They are doing nothing but fall into the trap that their present Federal President, Mr John Valder, told them they should not fall into. They are being opportunistic instead of being responsible. This is an irresponsible, opportunistic matter of public importance which they have brought before this House. Unfortunately because of the Opposition's frivolous points of order and frivolous quorums I have not got time to go through the specific government policies for small business. I hope the honourable member for Charlton will have the time. I conclude by saying that through our policies we have lifted the expectations of small business in this country; we have brought about rapid changes in technology and we are meeting increasing diversity of consumer needs through small businesses. Small business is very important to us and the key advantage of small firms is their motivation and their flexibility. Small firms are able to react more rapidly to new opportunities brought about by change in market production techniques and so on. We will be continuing to assist small business. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.56) —I was enchanted by the logic of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who said that he was basing his speech on facts. He spoke about the employment growth in this country and how positions vacant are expanding. He quoted from an ANZ Bank report. Yesterday's Australian Financial Review clearly shows in the headlines and in a graph that jobs fell by 2,000 in the last week of January alone. So if the rest of his speech is like that we cannot put much credence in it. We have arrived at a situation in this country today where, if a person works, invests, has a go and takes a risk, this Government penalises him, grinds him into the ground and taxes him into oblivion. However, on the other hand, if a person chooses not to work the Government will leave him alone, give him an amnesty and, in fact, will send him a cheque every other week. Nowhere is this philosophy better shown than in the present attitude this Government has towards small business. Small business is being crippled with every tax and restriction imaginable. The Government seems to believe that small business is a milch cow to be sucked dry forever. It is crazy economics to penalise small business the way this Government is doing. Small business in fact is big business in Australia. There are 700,000 small businesses in this country and, in total, they employ 60 per cent of the private sector work force. They represent the backbone of this country, the family unit working together. In their attempt to make a living they invest everything they have, they work long hours-they do not knock off at 5 p.m.-they take on responsibility, they employ locals and they service the community. All this is done in an attempt to better themselves. They are family people; for the most part they are Christian people; they are hard-working people; they are the real workers of this country. We have hundreds of thousands of them in Australia today who have had enough of this Government. I go through shop after shop in my electorate-in Bogan Gate, Trundle, Tullamore, Gilgandra, Gooloogong, Nevertire and Warren-where the shop owners and small businessmen tell me that they have had a gutful. They ask me why they should continue to work. They say they would be better off if they walked out of their businesses and went on the dole. There is no incentive left in this country today to do anything right any more. They have been crippled by taxes, interest rates and fuel prices. A couple from Gilgandra rang me just before I flew to Canberra. They sell everything in town from fuel to food and other items. I will not embarrass them by using their names, I will just call them Joe and Mary. Joe and Mary provide a service in the town and they have done so for several years. Last year they grossed something in excess of $100,000, but after tax, wages, on-costs, the 17 1/2 per cent loadings that previous Labor governments put on them, licence fees and interest rates, and after working 100 hours a week, this couple are going broke. Last year they paid $20,000 in interest rates, and in just over 12 months that amount has risen to $45,000. This family has been living on $70 a week for months. The wife has gone out to work, the husband is working until midnight, and the bank is now selling them up. I realise that this is a mild case and that others are far worse off, but when I spoke to the woman on the phone she was in tears, completely humiliated and bewildered, wondering what she was going to tell her children and waiting for the auctioneers to come into her home. To me that epitomised what is happening to small business in this country today and the insanity of the present Government's policy. We have the highest real interest rates since the Depression, the highest interest rates in the world, and this Government is doing that simply to prop up the dollar for fear that the trade union movement will want to renegotiate Bob Hawke's precious prices and incomes accord. Regrettably, we have come to a situation where what Simon says, Bob believes. The trade unions are not only running the country, they are even running Parliament House. They went out on strike in the dining room, so we shut down the Parliament of this country. Mr Hunt —Bring a cut lunch. Mr COBB —That is right. Since the Western Australian election the Government is in a panic about how many seats it will lose in the next election. The Government is now making a pretence of taking an interest in small business and rural people. In recent days we have seen the pathetic spectacle of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) emerging from his Canberra bunker and visiting one or two places to get what he calls a first hand assessment of how things are in the bush. I ask you! The whole exercise was conducted in secret. No one was told of the event beforehand, except of course the television cameras. It was a publicity gimmick rivalled only by his recent youth phone-in. Of course, the Prime Minister would not dare visit the country nowadays and tell the people beforehand because he knows just how unpopular he is in the bush. An Opposition member-He is a crook. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It was pointed out by Madam Speaker earlier today that the interjection which was just made is unruly and I ask honourable members not to make it again. Mr COBB —Thousands would have been there to greet him with placards. Even Gough Whitlam is more welcome in the bush nowadays than is the Prime Minister. President Marcos has his acres of barbed wire for protection and the Prime Minister has his fortress of clandestine secrecy. The Cowra farmer, the small businessman whom the Prime Minister visited, said that the Prime Minister told him after the visit that until then he had no idea just how bad things were. I challenge the Prime Minister to visit a town in country Australia, but to tell the people beforehand that he is coming. It is a challenge that he cannot accept for he knows the reception he would get. From now on, just as Marcos has been restricted to his barricaded palace, the Prime Minister must forever after remain a prisoner of the cities, such is his unpopularity in country Australia. Small business is about to have an assault on it the like of which Australia has not seen before. We will have capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, quarantining of off-farm income. The list goes on and on. That comes on top of the recently introduced business entertainment tax. We had the spectacle on our television screens only this morning of one of Australia's finest restaurants, the Nutcracker, having all its contents auctioned off because it was forced to close. That is what this Government is doing for small business. We are about to see businesses forced to add another 3 per cent to their costs in the form of a superannuation claim under a cosy arrangement that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has come to with this Government. Big business is objecting to it, but not too loudly. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is poised to rubber stamp the agreement and prove beyond doubt to even the most sceptical observer that the industrial relations club really does exist. However, small business is starting to realise what it is up against and to fight with the coalition for its survival. Mudginberri was evidence of that and will prove to be a turning point in this country's industrial relations history. Small business needs, more than anything else, to have the dead hand of this Labor Government removed from it. The National and Liberal parties will remove the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, and we will free up the wage fixing system, starting with the small business sector. This Government is pledged to do the opposite-to kill off small business and force the independence of the operators to be suppressed. Let us look at the implications of capital gains tax. All that small businessmen have left-they are not earning any profits-when they sell the business at the end of their working lives is the capital gains profit, if there is any. That is their superannuation policy. If that is taken away from them they will have nothing left for which to work. Although the Government has said that the capital gains tax policy will not apply before 19 September, if the small businessman tries to sell his business, the person who buys it has to mark down the price because he knows that he can never make a capital gain from it. This Government wants everyone under the umbrella of big business, big unions and big government. This will kill the work ethic and strangle the wealth producers and it is anathema to the coalition and the way of life in which we believe. The National and Liberal parties will do everything in their power to restore the small businessmen of Australia to the rightful place they once enjoyed under previous coalition governments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Charlton. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.08) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Opposition spokesman was heard in silence. Members of the Opposition will give the honourable member for Charlton the same courtesy. Mr ROBERT BROWN —They were so humiliated by the devastating nature of the defence on the part of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) that they have not yet lost that sense of excitement. They have not yet settled down. I am sure that had the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), stayed here and looked around the benches at the members of Opposition, they would have settled down immediately because at last he is starting to exercise some degree of effective discipline over them. If they just calm themselves down, I will complete the hole that was dug for them by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and I will put all honourable members opposite into it. I will start with the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and I will finish with the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb). The rest of the fellows will not miss out, because between the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Parkes I will make sure that they all join them. I am absolutely delighted to hear of this latter-day concern of Opposition members about small business in Australia. I have said before, and I say it again, that during the period that they were in government small business in particular in Australia was absolutely devastated. I hope that all Opposition members will stay here and listen to me because if they do no one will be able to call a quorum on me and waste time. I have a few things I wish to say which will take the whole of the 10 minutes allotted to me. Let me give an example, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that you are listening with the utmost intensity. The honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) is just waiting to hear these pearls of wisdom that I am about to give the House. Opposition members have been talking about their latter-day concern for small business in Australia. Let me give some figures, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that you and the honourable member for Dunkley are listening very closely and you will take note of these figures. When the Opposition was in government in 1979-80, the number of people who were sent into bankruptcy-and these are essentially small business men and women-was 4,900. In the next year, 1980-81, the number was 5,100. In 1981-82, the number was 4,500. The last year, 1982-83, the year when the Australian people finally passed judgment on the Opposition, the figure was more than 5,000 once again-it was 5,100. Everyone in Australia, including members of the Opposition, knows that that tide has now been turned. Opposition members, knowing that the tide has been turned, come into this House and take spurious points of order of the kind they have chosen to take today. They know that this is frivolous and dishonest and they know, as the Government knows, that the reasons why they raise questions of this kind are certainly not those they express when discussing this matter of public importance. For example, why should they use an expression of this kind: `The damage that will be done'? Why do they not talk about the damage that has been done? They know not only has no damage been done; a remarkable resuscitation in the welfare of Australian business, both small and large, has been brought about as a result of the very effective policies of this Government. The Australian people, from one side of the nation to the other, know that and rejoice in it. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer referred to the fact, which I now repeat, that before we came into government we gave the Australian people a positive assurance that we would seek within our first three years in government to create half a million new jobs. Members of the Opposition may well remember that. They laughed at that proposal and they said it could not be done because they knew that they could not do it. We undertook to seek to do that in three years and we achieved it with five months still to go. With five months still to go we had created the 500,000 new jobs that we undertook to create. On the one hand, we have the honourable member for O'Connor giving his forecast; on the other hand, I will tell Opposition members what kind of forecast has been made by one of the people for whom they purport to speak. I refer to comments that were made and reported yesterday by the chief economic analyst of Bis Shrapnel Pty Ltd in Australia. Mr Ian Cameron —Who? I have never heard of him. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I just referred to the fact that Opposition members purport to speak for such other people yet they do not even know who they are. I know that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) has never heard of Bis Shrapnel; that is precisely the point that I am making. But let me tell him what this chief economic analyst had to say about the continuing success and the great achievements of the present Government. He said that during the 1986 calendar year we could expect real economic growth of 4.6 per cent. That means we will maintain the rate of growth that we have achieved for the last three years, after inheriting a situation in which in the year prior to our coming into government real economic growth in Australia was negative. Mr Chynoweth —Calamitous! Mr ROBERT BROWN —Yes, absolutely calamitous and the level of official unemployment in Australia was three-quarters of a million people. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) interjects. His interjections indicate a completely frivolous attitude towards the sort of suffering which he, his Government and his Party inflicted on the Australian people. In the couple of minutes that remain, I wish to put something on record in connection with some of the claims that have been made about interest rates. (Quorum formed) As a result of that reduction in the time available to me, Opposition members have prevented me from adding something new to one of my speeches for the first time in three years. They accuse me of using the same speech all the time and then they arrange a situation in which half the Parliament is called into the chamber in order to hear it. I have just been drawing attention to the fact that under their Government bankruptcies in Australia reached an all time historic record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to revise the Criminology Research Act 1971. This is the first occasion since 1971 on which a Bill has been introduced specifically for this purpose. The Criminology Research Act 1971 was enacted to give effect to a joint scheme between the Commonwealth and the States for the conduct of criminology research and the training of criminal justice personnel. These arrangements provided for the establishment of: The Australian Institute of Criminology, funded by the Commonwealth to engage in research, training and related activities at a government level; the Criminology Research Council, serviced by the Institute and consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and each of the State governments, to make research grants from a Criminology Research Fund; the Criminology Research Fund, as a fund consisting of contributions from both the Commonwealth and the States, the Commonwealth providing one half of the fund and the States providing the remainder on a per capita basis; and a Board of Management of the Institute, consisting of three Commonwealth members and three persons appointed by the Council to represent the States. The establishment of the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council took into account a number of factors, including the incidence and cost of crime-the annual cost of administering the criminal justice system in Australia is currently estimated at more than $2 billion; the need for a systematic and co-ordinated approach to the organisation of criminology research; the need for a governmental institute to assist government departments and for a practical orientation to the conduct of research; and the desirability of avoiding the waste of resources involved in the duplication of effort among the Commonwealth and the States. The Australian Institute of Criminology has, since its establishment, produced a wide range of publications, including publications on drug abuse, corporate crime, terrorism and Aboriginal criminality, subjects in which both the Commonwealth and States have a close interest, and publications on the prison system, alternatives to imprisonment, sentencing and policing, which provide Australia-wide perspectives. The Institute's data base relating to Australian criminological research is now included in the Australian Information Network, AUSINET, and is thus available to criminal justice departments and agencies throughout Australia. The training and seminar program of the Institute has also covered a wide range of subject matter concerned with the criminal justice system. The Criminology Research Council has provided funds for more than 120 separate research projects focusing on virtually all aspects of crime and criminal justice in Australia. Research conducted by the Institute has had a national and comparative orientation which enables the Commonwealth and each State to measure its own achievements against that of other jurisdictions and to be alerted to successful initiatives that have been attempted elsewhere. In addition, the Institute has more recently undertaken primary research into such matters as the enforcement of laws relating to occupational health and safety, the development of alternative modes of handling criminal justice matters relating to Aboriginal offenders and the participation of young people in crime, particularly property offences. In contrast to research conducted by the Institute, research funded by the Criminology Research Council has for the most part related to State or local problems, rather than problems having a national orientation and the research has been primarily evaluative of existing systems within State jurisdictions. The Institute and the Council have paid particular attention to the development of research likely to have practical value in the formulation of criminal justice policies. Research of the Institute and research sponsored by the Council has made a direct input into the development of criminal justice policy. For example, the Institute has undertaken a substantial amount of research for the meetings of Ministers responsible for prisons, probation and parole; research funded by the Council on gun laws has led to legislative changes in a number of States. In July 1985, a review team was established to examine the functions of certain statutory authorities, including the Institute, falling within the responsibility of my portfolio. The review team has made some suggestions for the amendment to the Criminology Research Act, and the present Bill incorporates those suggestions. I turn now to the contents of the present Bill. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to enable the Northern Territory to become a participant in the joint Commonwealth-State scheme established by the Act. The Northern Territory administration has indicated its agreement to the proposal. The Bill introduces amendments to increase the size of the Criminology Research Council from seven to eight, consequent upon the addition of the Northern Territory. A consequential increase is also made to the size of the Board of Management of the Institute from six to eight. This will allow four State members, instead of three, to be appointed to the Board and four Commonwealth members who will include the Director of the Institute, and three members appointed by the Attorney-General. The Director is to become a member of the Board in line with current practice in similar Commonwealth legislation. The Bill also introduces amendments to clarify the functions of the Institute by giving the Institute specific authority to collect information and statistics, without detracting from, and in the context of, the overall collecting and co-ordinating role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In addition, specific authority is given to the Institute to provide information and advice to Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory criminal justice departments and agencies, and to collaborate with bodies in Australia and overseas. The Review Team that I have mentioned recommended that the Act should be amended to enable the Attorney-General to request the Institute to conduct a particular research or training project as one to which the Institute's Board of Management should give priority. The Bill includes a provision to give effect to this suggestion. Miscellaneous amendments are made on financial and administrative matters to update provisions on those matters. The Bill makes specific provision for the Institute to enter into contracts. This will enable the Institute to enter into contracts with Commonwealth or State departments or agencies for the conduct by the Institute of criminological research, and for the expending of moneys by the Institute pursuant to those contracts. The Bill also contains an amendment to place beyond doubt the Institute's power to arrange for research to be carried out by others as well as to conduct research itself. In addition, the Bill will enable sitting fees to be paid to non-Public Service members of the Board of Management of the Institute. Finally, a Schedule is included in the Bill of minor amendments of a drafting nature which, among other things, remove instances of gender specific language and replace them with gender neutral language in line with current Government policy. The financial considerations arising from the proposed amendments are minimal. The cost to the Commonwealth will be about $800 per annum for remuneration of the non-public servant member of the Board of Management. The cost to the Northern Territory will be about $700 per annum-in respect of its contribution to the Criminology Research Fund-plus the cost of sending a representative to meetings four times a year. The Northern Territory could minimise the latter costs by appointing a local deputy to attend meetings where required. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 10 December 1985, the Government announced its intention to continue the highly successful community employment program otherwise known as CEP for a further three years beyond 30 June 1986. This Bill is to give effect to that intention. The CEP was introduced by the Hawke Government in August 1983 in response to the massive problem of long term unemployment in the Australian labour market. When this Government took office in March 1983 the Australian economy and labour market were in a parlous state. The economy was in deep recession, the worst for 50 years, and employment was continuing to plummet. By September 1983 the unemployment rate had reached a post-war high of 10.4 per cent and the incidence of long term unemployment had escalated alarmingly. The previous Government had failed utterly to fulfil its election promise to provide jobs for all those wanting work. Despite the effects of international recession, the Hawke Government provided the environment and leadership to turn this tide. It came to office with a firm commitment to generate economic recovery through the pursuit of expansionary macroeconomic policies in the context of the historic prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement. The Government's overall economic strategy has proved remarkably successful. Economic growth has averaged around 5 per cent per annum, the highest rate of sustained growth since the late 1960s. We undertook to create 500,000 jobs in the first three years in office, and this objective was achieved last November-five months ahead of schedule. Over 548,100 new jobs have now been created since the Hawke Government came to office in March 1983, and our annual rate of employment growth of 3.8 per cent during 1985 was the best performance by any Western industrialised country. Unemployment has been reduced from over 10 per cent to less than 8 per cent. Despite this impressive growth performance, the Government has always acknowledged the special difficulties faced by the long term unemployed and other groups of disadvantaged job seekers, such as Aboriginals, the disabled and migrants with English language difficulties. These people have limited prospects of getting a job, even in times of general economic recovery. The longer a person is out of work the greater the loss of skills and confidence, and the more reluctant are employers to recruit such a person. The incidence of long term unemployment was a major social problem confronting the Hawke Government. By November 1983, over 260,000 Australians or 41.8 per cent of all those out of work had been unemployed for nine months or more. This represented a tragic waste of human and economic resources which the Government was determined to address through special measures designed to improve the employment prospects of these disadvantaged job seekers and enable them to share in the benefits of general economic recovery. The community employment program was our major response in this area. The program provided worthwhile work experience on community based and public sector projects for the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, with the objective of breaking the vicious circle of prolonged unemployment facing such people and assisting them back into the general labour market. Legislation established the CEP as a three-year program when introduced in May 1983, and the program was formally launched by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in August of that year. The Hawke Government has allocated $1 billion to CEP in its first three Budgets, which makes CEP the largest labour force program ever implemented by a Federal government in Australia. The results have been outstanding. To date, Federal funds have been committed to provide for more than 16,000 projects sponsored by community organisations, local government and State and Federal governments. More than 87,000 short term employment opportunities have been created for long term unemployed and other disadvantaged job seekers. In terms of its targeting performance, CEP has been particularly impressive. Long term unemployed persons-that is, those with nine months or more prior unemployment-represent over 62 per cent of all CEP placements to date, with 77 per cent of placements during 1985-86 being from this category. The average prior duration of unemployment amongst all CEP participants to date is 58 weeks and 70 weeks for those placed during this financial year. This is a remarkable achievement and shows that the program is really reaching the core of long term unemployed persons. The CEP is also targeted towards migrants with English language difficulty, Aboriginals and disabled persons. Participation in the program by persons from these groups has increased progressively and is now well in excess of the representation of these groups amongst the ranks of those registered as unemployed with the CES. During this financial year 12 per cent of all placements have been Aboriginals, 14 per cent disabled persons and 10 per cent migrants with English language difficulties. One of the most outstanding achievements of the CEP has been its success in meeting its objective of equal female representation in jobs created under the program. The CEP was the first labour force program to take up the challenge of the Government's equal opportunity policy in this way. To date the overall participation of women in the program has been 38.6 per cent. This includes the jobs on local roads component which initially did not have a target for women. If this component is excluded then the overall participation rate for women on projects approved to date is 42.7 per cent and on projects approved in 1985-86 it is 52.6 per cent. In 1985-86 the target of a 25 per cent placement rate for women on the local roads component is actually being exceeded by 5 per cent. CEP has also proved extremely successful in improving the job prospects of those who have participated. A survey undertaken by my Department in March 1985 showed that 41 per cent of ex-CEP participants were in employment six months after leaving CEP, with 59 per cent having been employed at some time during this six-month period. A second survey in July 1985 indicated further improvements in these post-program results to 46 per cent and 61 per cent respectively. In addition, research by the Bureau of Labour Market Research shows that participants in this type of program experience a continuous improvement in psychological well-being and are more able to cope with any subsequent period of unemployment than are non-program participants. The decision to continue CEP is based on both evidence of the continuing need to assist the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups in the labour market and on its level of success to date. Despite economic upturn there is no room for complacency about the employment prospects of the long term unemployed. Although the number of people unemployed for nine months or more has declined by 50,000 or 24 per cent to 210,300 over the two years to November 1985, there are still 92,400 who have been unemployed for two years or more. This latter group lost their jobs in the massive downturn in the labour market under the Fraser Government during 1982-83 and need the assistance of CEP. The continuing need for assistance for the long term unemployed is reinforced by short term projections undertaken by my Department which show that even under optimistic scenarios for economic and employment growth the total number of long term unemployed persons is not expected to fall significantly as a percentage of total unemployment over the next two to three years. The success of the CEP has ensured that it will remain an important part of the Government's overall strategy for assisting unemployed persons. The CEP's public sector orientation, which creates work for those persons least able to benefit from employment opportunities created in a period of economic upturn, complements other Federal Government initiatives designed to assist the long term unemployed, such as the wage subsidy schemes provided through the new Jobstart initiative. Besides being successful in terms of its fundamental objectives, the CEP can also be judged by its administrative performance. Cost effectiveness has been maintained in that 75 per cent of CEP funds are spent on labour, and administrative costs have been contained to 3 per cent of the CEP budget. A further positive efficiency indicator is the fact that the cost to the Commonwealth for a six-month equivalent job has declined from $9,887 in 1983-84 to $9,817 in 1984-85. In addition, the community at large has benefited from the CEP. Although the major objective of the program is to assist the long term unemployed, a secondary objective has been to provide services and facilities of community benefit. Consequently the program has funded a variety of projects from road upgrading, parks and gardens, sport, recreation and tourism facilities to environmental enhancement and arts and heritage projects. The performance of CEP to date has been excellent. Although there have naturally been some operational problems, this is to be expected in a program of this size. The Government is currently in the process of consulting with those administrators and sponsors who have participated in the CEP in order to gain constructive input into the formulation of the new program. We believe that it is necessary to undertake this process of consultation before final decisions are taken both on the program and financial guidelines which determine the structure and administrative arrangements for the new program. I am sure that this process will result in an even more effective program to assist the long term unemployed, whose disadvantage in the labour market still continues and is a major concern of this Government. On the basis of CEP's success in meeting the needs of this group, its effective administration and its benefit to the community, the Government feels fully justified in continuing this important initiative. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill relates to the participation of officers and employees of the Trade Union Training Authority in the election of staff representatives to the regional councils for union training established in each State under the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. These regional councils have the role of advising the Australian Council for Union Training and ensuring that the training policies formulated by the Australian Council are implemented in their States by the local trade union training centres. These elected positions were first provided for by amendments made to the Act by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985, which dealt with a number of matters relating to the structure and administration of the Trade Union Training Authority. It was provided that there be a new position of staff representative on each regional council and it was intended that the holder of the position would be elected by and from those officers and employees of TUTA who performed their duties in the State for which the council was established. The officers and employees in TUTA establishments which are located in a State but which function at the national rather than the State level were to be precluded from participating in those elections because the regional councils are only concerned with the work of TUTA at the State level. The national bodies to which I refer are the Office of the National Director, the National Office and the Australian Trade Union Training College. Of course, persons employed at those establishments are eligible under the Act to participate in the election of the staff representative on the Australian Council for Union Training, which has national responsibility for the formulation of TUTA's policy. When the necessary election regulations were being prepared, however, it became apparent that the intended exclusion of national and college staff could not be given effect to under the 1985 provisions. Accordingly, the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to remove that difficulty and to give full effect to the intention of the 1985 amendments. The Bill seeks to achieve that objective in the following manner. Proposed paragraph 20 (1) (e) provides that a regional council is to include a representative of TUTA staff in that State elected by and from those staff and appointed to the council by the Minister. When read in conjunction with proposed sub-section 20 (5), this provision also limits the persons who may participate in the election to officers and employees of TUTA who are employed in relation to the State in which the regional council is located. Proposed sub-section 20 (5) sets out the criteria for determining whether an officer or employee is to be regarded as employed in relation to a State for the purpose of the election pursuant to proposed paragraph 20 (1) (e). As I have mentioned, officers and employees engaged in national functions are to be excluded from these elections and therefore the `non-regional offices' under the regulations will be the national director's office in Sydney and the national office in Wodonga. It was considered preferable to enable this to be done by regulation rather than to specify the offices concerned in the Act because of the possibility of changes in the future to their location. Financial Impact The proposed legislation has no significant financial impact. The costs of conducting the elections for staff representatives are expected to be small in view of the limited number of TUTA staff involved. The measures contained in recent amendments of the Act, including this Bill, will assist in the further development of an efficient, progressive and well-led trade union movement, which is of crucial importance to all Australians. The education of leaders and potential leaders of trade unions in developing and improving their skills and industrial knowledge is clearly a national responsibility. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Amendments to the Ministers of State Act which sets this sum are from time to time thus required to cover changes to ministerial salaries. Following the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review, national wage case decisions automatically flow to offices within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including Ministers of State, without the need for the Tribunal to make a separate special report on the particular increase. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Ministers of State Act to increase the maximum annual sum from $630,000 to $660,000 to cover the effect of the 3.8 per cent national wage decision handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 4 November 1985. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act 1981. The Bill will come into effect on the day it receives royal assent. The Apple and Pear Export Underwriting Act established an export underwriting scheme for apples and pears for the 1981-85 export seasons. Underwriting involves the guaranteeing of a minimum return by the Commonwealth Government in a year when prices fall below average export returns achieved in recent years. Its objective is to provide industry with an appropriate insurance against sharp export market downturns without masking longer term market trends. Under the terms of the previous scheme, underwriting payments were to be made on all exports of apples and pears, separately, in years when the average export return was less than the determined underwritten or floor price. The floor price was equal to 95 per cent of the weighted average export return for the preceding four export seasons. An underwriting payment occurred in one year only-1981, when $4.8m was paid in respect of exports of apples. This Bill proposes that underwriting be extended for a further five years but under modified terms and conditions, both in respect of the previous scheme and also the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission in its 1985 apples and pears report. It is proposed that underwriting continue to operate separately for apples and pears but, in addition, it should now also apply, separately, to forward and at risk export sales. Forward sale exports are those which have been sold prior to shipment and at risk sales are those shipped before sale. In each instance, the floor price is to be at a level equal to 85 per cent of the average return received for that type of sale in the best three of the preceding four seasons. The Government considers that the proposed scheme is an improvement over the previous scheme and the IAC's recommendation. Major criticisms by industry of the previous scheme were that, given the relative differences in at risk and forward sale export returns for apples, no meaningful underwriting insurance was being given to the apple industry, and the method of calculating the floor price resulted in one bad price year unduly limiting the prospect of payouts in succeeding low price years. Similarly, the IAC's recommendation involving underwriting at risk sales only, at a level of 80 per cent, was seen by the industry as too restrictive. In addition, there was particular concern that the IAC was proposing termination of underwriting for the industry after only three years. It is considered that the terms of the Government's scheme contained in the Bill deal fully with these concerns. It is intended that the scheme be reviewed by the IAC prior to the end of the five years. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. The Bill will come into effect on the day it receives royal assent. The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973 reconstituted the powers and composition of the previous Board and vested in the Corporation various export control powers and functions. One of these functions is to advise the Minister on those persons who may export apples and pears. Under the existing regulations apple and pear exporters must be licensed, with licences issued by the Minister on the recommendation of the Corporation and subject to certain eligibility criteria, such as marketing experience and financial standing. The Bill seeks to provide for the Corporation in future to issue export licences itself, rather than the Minister, and to be empowered to charge a licence administration fee. This will result in the Minister being removed from involvement in the day to day administration of the licensing system and is consistent with both the Government's policy relating to statutory marketing authorities in the primary industry area and existing legislative arrangements for meat exports. As a separate but related issue the Corporation has agreed upon, in consultation with industry, a policy of restricting the number of licence holders as a means of improving exporter co-ordination and co-operation. This policy was determined by the Corporation, after a long period of examination of the industry's exporting arrangements at a time when exports of apples and pears have generally been declining. The Industries Assistance Commission has also recently looked at the industry's export arrangements and, in its August 1985 report on the industry, suggested that the Corporation's export controls be largely removed. The Government has not accepted the IAC's suggestion on the basis that the Corporation's export policy should be given the chance to work. Under the proposals contained in this Bill the Corporation will be solely responsible for administering the policy in relation to determining the issue of licences. Unsuccessful applicants will continue to have the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill also provides for a number of amendments of a machinery nature. The most significant of these is to place the requirement on the Corporation that it be subject to the discipline of corporate planning as a means of improving its operations and accountability to industry and government. These provisions have been included in the legislation of some other primary industry statutory marketing authorities and will as soon as practicable be introduced for the others as part of the recently announced policy relating to these authorities. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Barley Research Levy Act 1980 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 75c per tonne. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation representing barley growers of Australia. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. In February 1985 I announced the Government's intention to encourage rural industries to raise the level of their research contributions to 0.5 per cent of their gross value of production-GVP-within five years, and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to match expenditure of the levy contributions from industry dollar for dollar to that level. This followed a thorough review during 1984 of rural research and the contribution of the rural industry research fund scheme to this effort. I made further comment on the need for government action on rural research in my second reading speeches on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Bill 1985 on 20 March 1985 and the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 on 17 April 1985. The Barley Research Levy Act is one of the few research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of GVP level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to barley industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry considerable flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. From the industry's point of view passage of the Bill will ensure that a request by the industry for an operative rate increase, which is effected by regulation, is not delayed by the pressure of legislative business in the Parliament at the time the request is made. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. Last year the barley industry sought and was granted an operative rate increase to 35c per tonne. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.24 per cent of its GVP. I take this opportunity to compliment the industry on its positive support of this applied research scheme, which is aimed at increasing profitability of producers. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971 to increase the maximum research levy rates to $5 per tonne of dried vine fruits and to $30 per tonne of dried tree fruits. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Dried Fruits Research Committee. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Dried Fruits Levy Act is one of the package of research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of gross value of production-GVP-level, and for which I have brought forward amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to dried fruits industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. Last year the dried fruits industry sought and was granted an operative rate increase to $1.50 per tonne of dried vine fruit, $7.50 per tonne of dried plums and $5 per tonne of other dried tree fruit. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.14 per cent of its GVP. I compliment the industry on its positive support of this applied research scheme, which is aimed at increasing profitability of producers. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 20c per head for sheep, lambs and goats and $2 per head for cattle and buffaloes. The operative rates within this maximum are set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Live-stock Export Charge Act is one of the package of research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of gross value of production-GVP-level, and for which I have brought forward amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to livestock and meat industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for operative rate increases above the current maximum, which would then generate additional budgetary outlays. The current operative rates generate an industry contribution to its research program of about 0.16 per cent of its GVP. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Live-stock Slaughter Research Levy Act 1964 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 15c per head for bobby calves, 20c per head for sheep, lambs and goats, 50c per head for calves and $2 per head for cattle and buffaloes. The operative rates within this maximum are set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act is one of the package of research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of gross value of pro- duction-GVP-level, and for which I have brought forward amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to livestock and meat industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for operative rate increases above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. The current operative rates generate an industry contribution to its research program of about 0.16 per cent of its GVP. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) (5.02) I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Meat Chicken Levy Act 1969 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 1c per chicken hatched. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Meat Chicken Levy Act is one of the package of research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of gross value of production-that is GVP level-and for which I have brought forward amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to chicken meat industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. The current operative rate generates an industry contribution to its research program of about 0.05 per cent of its GVP. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 to increase the maximum research levy rate to 50c per head. The operative rate within this maximum is set by regulation on the recommendation of the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee. The levy is collected at industry's request and held in trust to fund research projects. The Pig Slaughter Levy Act is one of the package of research Acts under my portfolio in which the maximum rate is not already at or above the 0.5 per cent of gross value of production-GVP-level, and for which I have brought forward amendments here today to bring the rates up to that level. The proposed amendment would establish a maximum rate of industry contribution to pig industry research at about 0.5 per cent of the industry's GVP, at current prices. This will give the industry the flexibility to increase its research contributions over some years consistent with the Government's policy, but will avoid the need for frequent amendments to the legislation. No additional budgetary outlays will result from the amendment itself. However, the Bill would enable the Government to agree to an industry request for an operative rate increase above the current maximum, which would then generate additional matching budgetary outlays. Last year the pig industry sought, and was granted, an operative rate increase to 20c per head. This raised the industry's contribution to its research program to about 0.17 per cent of its GVP. I compliment the industry on its positive support of this applied research scheme, which is aimed at increasing profitability of producers. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to implement changes to the organisational, funding and administrative arrangements for wool research which are set down in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I will refer to this legislation subsequently as the `Act'. Part VI of the Act, which provides the legislative authority for present wool research arrangements, is to be repealed. The new provisions for wool research and development are to be contained in Part V. In addition, the Bill provides for amendments or repeal of several sections of the Act concerned largely with day to day operational arrangements. It also includes the necessary transitional provisions to give effect to the new research arrangements. I will deal with these miscellaneous amendments and provisions before discussing wool research. The proposed amendments to sections 8 and 9 provide that persons should not normally serve as members of the Australian Wool Corporation-AWC-beyond the age of 65, and section 14 provides for the Corporation to meet the travelling expenses of the Government member, as for other members, while engaged on AWC business. The remuneration and allowances of members of committees established by the Corporation under section 21 of the Act are to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal Act of 1973. The Working Capital Trust Fund established by section 27 and 28 to receive advances of government loan funds during the early operation of the reserve price scheme is no longer required. The loan has been repaid and following consultation with the AWC the two sections can be repealed. The proposed amendments to section 42z place a greater responsibility on the relevant parties to reach agreement on the principles of remuneration for expenses incurred in making refunds to wool growers from time to time out of the Market Support Fund. If the Wool Council and organisations representing registered persons are unable to reach agreement the Minister for Primary Industry may appoint an independent arbitrator to recommend on the principles for subsequent ministerial approval. The proposed amendments to section 76 (3) of the Act will provide that any proceeds from the sale of wool stores will be used specifically for the benefit of the wool industry. Section 86 was originally incorporated into the Act to preserve the rights of Commonwealth public servants employed by the AWC or its antecedent authorities. It has become redundant following amendments to the Public Service Act 1922. Some minor consequential amendments to sections 28a, 83 and 84a are necessitated by some of the proposed amendments I have outlined. I will now deal with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to introduce changes to the wool research arrangements. This is the third major piece of rural research legislation to be introduced by the Government. It has been preceded by the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research Development Corporation Act 1985 and the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. The Government's action in establishing a research and development corporation for the meat and livestock industry, that is, the AMLRDC. In revamping research arrangements for 12 other rural industries, that is, the Rural Industry Research Fund, reforms and the proposed changes to wool research arrangements, illustrates our resolve to establish rural industry research on a fully accountable and cost effective basis. The Labor Government recognises that a high level of such research is vital to the future profitability of the rural sector. The Wool Research Trust Fund is the largest rural industry research fund or RIRF with a 1985-86 budget of around $25m and reserves of some $44m. It is administered by the AWC under the Wool Industry Act 1972. The Government has decided that the AWC should continue to have responsibility for wool research because of the need for close integration of such research with the research co-ordination, promotion, marketing and industry consultation operations of the AWC and the International Wool Secretariat. The changes proposed by the Government will strengthen and support the successful arrangements which already exist for wool research. As distinct from the present Act, the Bill provides for a clear statement of objectives in respect of wool research. These objectives are to: Identify more precisely areas of wool research and development that are relevant to the needs of the wool industry; improve the efficiency and effectiveness of wool research and development; encourage the more effective use of the resources and skills of the community in general and the scientific community in particular in wool research and development; and improve accountability for expenditure on wool research and development activities. It is the Government's strong intention that rural research be focused on areas which increase commercial returns to producers who are responsible for funding half of the research expenditure through statutory levies. In line with this intention the Bill provides a broad definition of research and development to cover all aspects of wool production, processing and marketing. Responsibility for evaluating the research needs of the wool industry and identifying priority areas for research expenditure will rest with the Wool Research and Development Council which is to be established under the AWC. The Council will have responsibility for developing wool research and development plans and for making recommendations to the AWC concerning the funding of wool research activities. It will also ensure that activities listed in the annual operational plan are carried out in an efficient manner and will report to the AWC on these activities. The Wool Research and Development Council will consist of nine members comprising a Chairperson appointed by me, as the responsible Minister, from at least two AWC nominees. In addition there will be four persons selected by the Research Council's Selection Committee which was established under the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 and four members appointed by me on the nomination of the AWC. As for other research councils, it is important that wool research be administered by the best available people with a mix of expertise necessary for carrying out the Wool Research and Development Council's functions. The Bill provides for the Wool Research and Development Council to prepare a five-year research and development plan. This plan will be prepared in consultation with the Wool Council of Australia. It will define the principal objectives of the AWC and the Research Council in relation to wool research and development. As well it will outline the strategies which should be pursued to achieve those objectives in the light of an assessment of the economic outlook of the wool industry for the period which the plan covers. The Bill provides for the research and development plan to be submitted to me, through the AWC, for my agreement. In presenting the plan to me the AWC will be able to make its own written comments. I will consider the plan in relation to whether it is in the interests of the wool industry, whether it is directed towards the objectives for wool research as set out in the Bill and whether it is in accordance with the legislated role and functions of the Wool R and D Council. The Bill will allow me to request variations to the plan providing these are made in writing to the AWC and include my reasons why variations should be made. The Wool R and D Council will be required to consider my request for a variation to the plan, and will be able to make revisions as it considers appropriate. Provision is made in the Bill for the Wool R and D Council to review the plan at least annually, or at any other time, and to consider whether variations are necessary. Where a variation is considered necessary, the Wool R and D Council will make a request in writing to me through the AWC for my agreement to the variation. I will be able to agree with, reject, or make another variation as I think fit. In addition to the five-year plan, the Wool R and D Council will be required to produce an annual operational plan. This plan will describe the particular research and development activities which the Research Council considers should be funded by the AWC. It will include estimates of the maximum financial contribution which the AWC should make for each of those activities in the year to which the plan relates. The Bill provides for the annual operational plan to be submitted through the AWC to me for my agreement. In presenting this plan to me the Corporation will be able to make its own written comments on the plan. I will approve an operational plan submitted in this way unless I believe it to be inconsistent with the five-year research and development plan to which it relates. In the latter case I may request, in writing through the AWC, that the Wool R and D Council revise the plan appropriately. As in the case of the research and development plan, provision is made in the Bill for the Council, through the AWC, to request variations to the annual operational plan at any time. The Government considers that the adoption of corporate and annual planning procedures by the Wool R and D Council will enhance the AWC's capacity actively to direct research and development activities towards achieving objectives which have been endorsed by the wool industry. It will provide the Corporation with a strong basis for evaluating projects submitted to it for funding against the strategies, priorities and objectives which are identified in the research and development plan. In addition, the planning process will allow me, as Minister, to focus on the strategic direction and overall performance of wool research without needing to become involved in the approval of individual research activities and their detailed administration. With regard to accountability for wool research expenditure, the Wool R and D Council will be required to prepare an annual report which assesses its achievements against the objectives and activities set out in the research and development and annual operational plans. Provision is made in the Bill for the Chairperson of the Wool R and D Council to attend a meeting of the Wool Council of Australia to present the annual report and to respond to questions on any aspects of the Research Council's past or future activities. The Research Council's annual report will also be included in the AWC's tabled report, thus satisfying the need for direct accountability to the Parliament. In addition to the legislative requirement for the Chairperson of the Wool R and D Council to consult with the Wool Council of Australia in developing the research and development plan, and subsequently to report and to answer questions regarding its wool research and development activities, the Council will be able to consult with other persons and bodies competent to advise or assist it in any matter relating to its functions. As well, to facilitate an exchange of information about research matters, the Chairperson of the Wool R and D Council will, along with chairpersons of other industry research councils and the AMLRDC, attend an annual co-ordination meeting to discuss matters of common interest. I would now like to deal with funding arrangements for wool research and their financial implications. At present moneys for wool research are paid into the Wool Research Trust Fund. The financial administration of this Fund is conducted by the Department of Primary Industry under delegation from the Minister for Finance. Under the provisions of the Bill the Trust Fund is to be replaced by a Wool Research and Development Fund which will be vested in, and maintained by, the Australian Wool Corporation. Moneys raised from the wool industry through wool tax Acts and allocated to research expenditure will be paid into the new fund. Along with the Commonwealth's matching contributions up to a limit of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of wool production. This is consistent with the matching arrangement for other RIRFs-rural industry research funds-and the AMLRDC. At present special arrangements exist for the funding from the Wool Research Trust Fund of research carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In particular, CSIRO projects are subject to consultation with the Minister for Science. The Bill does not provide for a continuation of these special arrangements and applications for research grants by CSIRO and BAE will be considered along with all other applications. The Government considers that this is necessary to ensure that all wool research proposals are evaluated in a co-ordinated manner on their merits against objectives and priorities specified in the Wool R and D Council's five-year plan. In addition, it will enable the Council to be fully responsible and accountable for its recommendations on the disbursement of research funds and for the administration of these funds. I am confident that this new arrangement will not disturb the harmonious relationship between the AWC and CSIRO nor significantly affect the flow of funds to CSIRO and BAE for wool research. With regard to the financial implications of the proposed legislation. I do not expect the changes in wool research arrangements to involve additional costs to the Commonwealth. There will in due course be a transfer of the balance of the Wool Research Trust Fund to the new Wool R and D Fund which is to be vested in the AWC. As I mentioned earlier, the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986 represents the third major piece of rural research legislation to be introduced by the Labor Government. It will allow changes to be introduced to wool research arrangements which are consistent with the reform principles underlying research arrangements for other industries. These changes will take place without affecting the special relationship which needs to be maintained between wool research and other promotion and marketing functions of the AWC and the International Wool Secretariat. The Government consulted the AWC and the Wool Council of Australia prior to the development of the wool research proposals. Both bodies support the new arrangements. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Debate resumed from 20 November 1985, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(5.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker, today we are debating legislation which will have a crucial impact on the validity and effectiveness of our social security system in both a domestic and international sense. The pension portability arrangements which operate in this country vary from those of many of our international neighbours. The Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill will make positive steps towards enhancing social security benefits available to Australians who have spent some of their life overseas, and will be of great benefit to migrants who have settled in Australia. Australia is one of the few countries in the world where eligibility for social welfare payments contains contingencies and where welfare recipients enjoy a system which does not rely on their separate or additional contributions to pension schemes such as those in many foreign countries. This legislation aims at providing adequate social security benefits for migrants to Australia, as well as to Australians living abroad, many of whom have no access to the Australian social system, or reduced or no access to a foreign system. The effect of this legislation will be to open up the way to laying a foundation for what will, ultimately, become a world-wide net of social security. Reciprocal social security agreements are the internationally recognised way of protecting social security rights of people who move between countries. Virtually all modern agreements work on the principle of shared responsibility. Sharing responsibility involves each country paying a share of the pension. The pensioner receives a part pension from each country based on the length of time the person concerned has contributed or resided in the agreement country, but these agreements cannot be effected unless a common ground for sharing responsibility is affected. Overseas systems pay pensions on the basis of contributions made; they automatically pay proportional pensions. The Australian system is non-contributory and pays flat rate pensions, subject to a means test. For Australia to participate in agreements it must introduce some mechanism to make the systems comparable to enable proportional pensions to be paid by Australia. The purpose of the legislation is, therefore, to provide a workable basis of co-operation with other countries to appropriately share welfare responsibilities. To do this a formula by which these relevant shares can be measured must be adopted. The legislation provides such a formula based on the most equitable share of responsibility. The means of establishing this arrangement in the legislation are, firstly, a 25-year proportional arrangement for Australian pensions overseas and the postponement of the proportional arrangement for 10 years for pensions beginning after 8 May 1985. The legislation will not cause any current pensioner living either overseas or in Australia to lose his pension. He will continue to receive a full pension. There is also special consideration to those invalided while living in Australia and women who were widowed while they and their spouse also resided here. Mr Deputy Speaker, the difference between the pension arrangements of the Australian social security system and those of overseas countries lies in the format of eligibility criteria. In Australia, welfare assistance is available on the grounds of age, invalid condition, lack of employment, et cetera, and is subject to residence, income and asset criteria. Because in many countries these arrangements are based on previous contributions to a pension scheme many people who have lived overseas, or Australians who now do so, have been left without the full and appropriate assistance available to them. For example, those who have been living here less than 10 years and those who have lived here for a long time but left before retirement have been missing out on Australian social security cover. Those who have paid into an overseas social security fund lose their overseas cover when they come to Australia. (Quorum formed). I have been outlining the problems which have been facing Australians moving to spend some time overseas and migrants in Australia who have been disadvantaged by the lack of agreement and a full network of social security agreements between countries which will enable them to draw their full pension-anomalies which are being addressed by the legislation before the House. Many people who have lived overseas, or Australians who now do so, have been left without the full and appropriate assistance available to them. For example, those who have been here less than 10 years and those who have lived here for a long time but left before retirement miss out on Australian social security cover. Those who have paid into an overseas social security fund lose their overseas cover when they come to Australia. The answer to the disparity between the social security arrangements of Australia and other countries lies in two strategies, both of which are addressed in this legislation. Firstly, as I have already noted, because of the variance between the pension entitlements systems of Australia and other countries there must be a basis on which international agreements can be established for reciprocal pension agreements. Secondly, the network of these reciprocal agreements must be extended beyond the two current agreements with the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Reciprocal social security agreements are the internationally recognised way of protecting social security rights of people who move between countries. There are hundreds of such agreements throughout the world. Australia has two, with the United Kingdom covering some 30,000 people and New Zealand covering some 7,000 people. The New Zealand and the United Kingdom agreements go back to the days when there was no portability of pensions from Australia. They operate on the basis that the country of residence pays. They are now out of date and require amendment. Virtually all modern agreements work on the principle of shared responsibility, the only logical way of looking at the problem. The draft agreement with Italy has been negotiated on this basis and Italian migrants to Australia will be amongst the first migrants who will benefit by this arrangement. Australia is seeking to renegotiate the United Kingdom and New Zealand agreements on this basis and has indicated a preparedness to negotiate with other countries, particularly migrant source countries. I note that at present approximately 20 different nations are awaiting the passage of this legislation to form the basis of negotiations which will then enable Australians abroad to be paid the pension and for a reciprocal arrangement to proceed in Australia. Essentially there are three elements to the desirability of the passage of this legislation. Firstly, there is a welfare consideration. This has arisen from the difficulty faced by those people who, purely for reasons of migration, have been denied the legitimate benefits afforded to others. This situation has been caused by the variance of welfare arrangements between Australia and other countries and the lack of full reciprocal arrangements with other countries. This Government has a commitment to providing assistance to those targeted as the most in need in our society and to eliminating artificial or discriminatory barriers to the provision of equitable welfare assistance. The legislation before us addresses this welfare commitment. Secondly, there is a financial consideration to the legislation. Any welfare assistance involves a financial impact of some sort. Pensions paid overseas through agencies of the Department of Social Security amounted to $87.3m in the last financial year. This involved the payment of approximately 23,000 pensions. While Australia has a definite welfare commitment, both domestically and internationally-I define `welfare' in this context as the global responsibility to people in need based on decency, without which true world peace is impossible-it is yet necessary for the Government to practise cost effectiveness in meeting this commitment. It is as essential to be cost effective in welfare as it is in other areas of governmental responsibility if we are to benefit the largest number of Australian pensioners and meet our foreign aid commitments and commitments to refugees. It is therefore essential that the agreements covered by this legislation represent a just, equitable and appropriate contribution by the Australian Government. The legislation will achieve this by defining the correct share of Australia's responsibility, establishing for the first time an accurate basis for comparison between Australia and other countries involved in reducing the inflexibility and grey areas of present portability through an effective proportional structure. Thirdly, there is an international consideration to the legislation. The high profile adopted by Australia in international migration has ensured a considerable cultural interchange with countries from around the world. This interchange has gone far beyond the traditional origins of British and European settlement and includes many countries in South East Asia and the Third World, where there is little or no welfare assistance. Developed nations have a moral responsibility to underdeveloped nations. Australia must share in that responsibility, and putting forward this legislation to form the basis for a proper sharing between nations which have a social security network is part of our meeting that commitment to underdeveloped nations. Australia is particularly concerned to conclude a network of agreements with migrant source countries. Negotiations with Italy commenced in 1983. Last year the Government initiated detailed consultations with ethnic communities throughout Australia to explain the concept of proportional portability and the benefits for migrants and all Australians flowing from reciprocal agreements. As a result migrant groups have a better understanding of the issues and accept that if the benefits of reciprocal agreements are to be possible and affordable Australia must move to some sort of proportional portability. The agreement with Italy has been negotiated on a different basis from those with New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Each country is to pay pensions in proportion to the length of residence or period of contributions which the individual has accumulated. This is the fairest basis for the agreements. The Australian-Italian agreement is expected to be signed soon. This Bill will provide a basis for the new type of social security agreement to be negotiated. Essentially, it enables the contributory system to be interlocked with the Australian non-contributory system. The introduction of proportional portability was announced by Senator Chaney as a basis for reciprocal agreements in February 1983. I am pleased that this is a matter which has cut across party political considerations and which has been supported by both sides of the House. This Bill will enable Australians to take an active role in partially meeting the responsibility, which I have mentioned, that developed nations have towards those that are underdeveloped. The Bill will enable Australia to take an active role in partially meeting this responsibility by facilitating our participation in a world-wide network of social security, starting with about 20 countries that already have requested a start to negotiations. Migrants from Greece, Italy, Malta, Yugoslavia and other countries of origin now will be advantaged by a two-way flow of benefits as they will receive in Australia the benefits that people outside Australia-those who are travelling around-will receive abroad. Reciprocal agreements neither advantage nor disadvantage migrants. Many migrants have contributed to a foreign social security system and receive no benefit from those contributions. An agreement would enable those benefits to flow. This legislation can only advantage those migrants. Many people now living outside Australia have spent time in Australia but cannot receive any pension. An agreement would enable those people to receive an Australian pension on a proportional basis for the first time. Others who will benefit are many newly arrived migrants, who presently have no access to the Australian social security system and who will become eligible for an Australian payment under an agreement. Assurances of support will no longer be necessary where there is a reciprocal agreement. Under this Bill no pensioners residing in Australia or overseas will be affected or will receive any less pension. Persons residing in Australia on 8 May 1985 who qualify for a pension before 1 January 1996 will receive a full portable pension if they leave Australia before 1 January 1996. That is, the Government is allowing for a ten-year phasing in period, so that people who were planning to move in the expectation of receiving the full pension will not be in any way disadvantaged. Anyone who is unfortunate enough to become widowed or invalided in Australia will not be affected by the proportionality rules. People going to countries with which Australia does not have a reciprocal arrangement will receive the same pension from Australia as at present. This will help some refugees. This is an extremely sensible, logical piece of legislation. It forms the basis for Australia moving into a wide network of social security. There will be no losers, only winners, from the legislation before this House. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.38) —The Opposition supports the Government's proposal for proportional portability of pensions. As the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) said, the Government is implementing a concept which was first flagged by the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, when the coalition Government was responsible for the administration of social security in Australia in 1982. As she said, this measure reflects a growing awareness and concern that Australia, as part of the international community, has provisions for the payment of retirement income and other social welfare benefits which mesh effectively with those provisions that operate in other countries throughout the world. At the present time, where a pensioner leaves Australia to live in another country the pension is generally fully portable. As at June 1983 some 18,621 beneficiaries of the Australian social security system were resident outside Australia and total remittances were some $63,876,000. In 1984 the number of beneficiaries increased significantly to 20,229, with benefits totalling $74,692,000. For the year ended 30 June 1985 there were 22,933 beneficiaries and the revenue remitted was $87,274,000. The categories of social security benefits payable to people domiciled outside Australia are the age pension, the invalid pension, the widows pension, the wifes pension, the carers pension and the supporting parents benefit. The provis- ions of this Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill affect those pensions. The implementation of this Bill raises a number of administrative questions. As I have shown, the benefits paid or remitted to beneficiaries outside Australia are substantial, the numbers involved are considerable. In answer to a question the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has provided me with information which suggests that benefits are paid to beneficiaries in a vast range of countries. In alphabetical order they run from Albania and Austria, Czechoslovakia and Denmark through to Italy and Malta in Europe; the United States, Canada and Argentina in the Americas; Hong Kong, India, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and other parts of Asia; Africa; and of course our own region of Oceania including New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. The fact is there are certain administrative problems in ensuring that the provisions of the Australian social security system are adhered to with benefits paid to people who reside outside Australia. This Government has spent a lot of time enforcing what is known as the assets test. It has gone to fairly extreme lengths in the domestic situation to enforce its proposals for the assets test on Australian pensioners. The Minister has told me in answer to a question that beneficiaries residing outside Australia are required to comply with the same provisions of the Social Security Act as beneficiaries residing in Australia. I accept that statement. Of course, that is the only way that the legislation and the payment of benefits could be administered. The question arises as to how those provisions are actually implemented. I am told that the Department sent assets test forms to the London office and as a result of that a number of pensions were either reduced or cancelled. The real question arises as to how the Department can be confident that its provisions, not only in terms of the assets test and the age pension but also in terms of other social security benefits, are adhered to in those far-flung countries such as Yugoslavia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Sweden, Portugal, Poland, Israel, India and just about every other country throughout the world. It also raises the question of the appropriate level of test to be applied. Before I discuss that, let me say that it might be the ultimate perk within the Department of Social Security or perhaps the Australian Taxation Office, which is responsible for valuations under the assets test, to travel to some of these countries to value the assets of social security beneficiaries. I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to how the particular provisions applying to benefits paid under the Australian system to beneficiaries living outside Australia are enforced, and in particular how they are enforced in those countries which are not part of the mainstream of Australian communications. I suppose it would be relatively easy to enforce them in the United Kingdom, but I should imagine it would be a little more difficult to enforce them in West Africa or some of the smaller or more obscure nations. It also raises a question of equity. This Government has made much play of the need to ensure that millionaires do not receive the Australian pension. Living standards are all relative. What is regarded as a high income in Australia is not necessarily a high income in some overseas countries. Similarly what is regarded as a moderate income in Australia could be a positive fortune in some countries overseas. If we are really talking about equity and ensuring that people do not achieve a benefit from the system as opposed to a financial payment-and that is what we are really talking about-we should be addressing that rather complex question of the effective or real value of benefits paid to recipients overseas. The Minister raises his eyebrows but the question is a real one. Notwithstanding the impact of this Government's policies on the Australian dollar, in some countries, such as India, the Australian dollar is still quite a valuable currency. In some communist countries because of exchange rates, Australian currency being a semi-hard currency these days, the dollar also has considerable value. Therefore we are faced with the fact that some beneficiaries under the social security system who choose to live in other countries at present may be reaping a benefit from the system which was not intended, notwithstanding the fact that they may have returned home to achieve a certain emotional comfort. Of course there is the other side of this question. If the assets test is in fact applied-and I am told that it is-in terms of Australian dollars, some pensioners overseas may be considerably disadvantaged as a result of this Government's policies and their impact on the value of the Australian dollar. If a pensioner's assets are valued in Australian dollars and are in fact held overseas, the same assets have changed considerably in value in Australian dollars during the period this Government has been in office. We could have a situation in which a pensioner who was an immigrant to Australia may have returned to his or her country of origin and purchased certain assets and, when he or she moved to that country, may have been living within the guidelines for the Australian age pension. However, as a result of changing values of the Australian dollar, and in particular the falling value of the Australian dollar, the value of that person's assets held overseas could have increased substantially. A pensioner's circumstances may not have changed physically, but because of the use of the Australian dollar, notwithstanding the lagging mechanism that the Department tells me is used, that person could find himself being assets tested out of a pension and in an invidious situation because of price levels and the cost of living in some overseas countries. There is considerable merit in the Government's proposal for proportional portability of Australian pensions because this would ensure that pensioners in the circumstances to which I have just referred would be entitled to pensions made up by the two countries, or perhaps more countries, in which they have worked during a working lifetime. These pensioners would receive an Australian pension based on the formula proposed in this legislation and they would also receive a pension from the other country in which they may have worked based on the provisions of that country's social security or retirement plan legislation. That of course would overcome many of the difficulties which could arise from changing values in the dollar and from people being excluded because they would not be excluded from the social security systems operating in the countries to which they had returned. I believe there are many people in Australia who have been caught between two stools, so to speak, in terms of their social security entitlements. For example, take the case of a migrant from Italy-we will cite Italy because that country is about to become a party to a social security agreement with Australia. Suppose that person came to Australia early in life and worked here for a period of perhaps 25 years, from the age of 20 to 45, and then returned to Italy to be with his family, perhaps in his parents' declining years. After the death of the parents or the removal of that family support suppose that person then returns to Australia but is not in a position to spend 10 years in the Australian work force prior to qualifying by age for an Australian age pension. This legislation will ensure that that person would not be without support in old age. He would be entitled to payments under the Italian system and to a proportional payment under the Australian system. To that extent I believe this legislation will overcome a considerable difficulty faced by a large section of our migrant community. There are a number of anomalies in this proposed legislation which the Opposition has identified and one relates to single women who come to Australia late in life. The formula proposed under the Bill for determining proportional entitlement to a pension is P multiplied by Q and divided by 300. In this formula is the pension entitlement, Q is the time in months spent in Australia during that person's working life and 300 is 25 years multiplied by 12 months. The anomaly arises because under the Australian social security legislation pensions for men are available at 65, but for women they are payable at 60. In some cases we could envisage a situation in which a woman is not able, because of the arbitrary decision to make that payment at 60, to earn a full entitlement to an Australian pension simply because she is not capable of working for 25 years prior to turning 60. I do not wish to raise the question of entitlements to age pensions for males and females, but I would draw the Minister's attention to that anomaly and ask whether consideration has been given to providing an alternative formula to ensure that women are not caught in a situation in which they just cannot qualify for a full Australian social security pension because they are not capable of working for the full number of years to earn that pension benefit. There is also the question of the entitlement of an Australian resident whose resident spouse actually dies overseas. The widows pension is covered by this Bill and is payable to a person who becomes a widow or a widower in Australia because the person's spouse has died in this country. What of the case where the spouse actually dies overseas, notwithstanding that both partners were Australian residents? I would assume that the administrative arrangements provided for under this legislation would ensure that the person would not be excluded from benefit. I would hope that the Minister would clarify that position and ensure that we are given a statement to the effect that in those rather limited circumstances a person would not be excluded because of a drafting oversight. There is also, I believe, a need to consider the detail of future bilateral agreements. This Bill deals with principles, as well it should. It deals with the concept of proportional portability of pensions. It does not deal in detail with the agreements that Australia will enter into with other countries. The Minister has given us an assurance that those bilateral agreements will, in fact, be brought before this Parliament again for consideration before they are entered into with another country. I hope that the Minister in his concluding remarks, gives another assurance that that will, in fact, occur. In developing this proposal the Minister initially proposed a qualifying period of 35 years. This was in fact the original proposal suggested by Senator Chaney when the measure was first announced. We note that the final proposal brought to the House provides for a 25-year entitlement. We have no argument with that proposal. We are concerned, however, that in the course of the negotiation process to bring the qualifying time from 35 to 25 years, the Government has been the subject of criticism by some sections of the ethnic community. We are concerned that that criticism may have arisen because there was a failure to consult adequately and widely with representatives of ethnic communities throughout Australia. We hope that in the future the Minister will give an undertaking to consult widely with all groups who have a just claim to representing ethnic communities in Australia, and not just a limited number of those communities representatives or peak organisations. It is imperative for the benefit of people who will receive benefits under this proposed legislation that there be no controversy, that there be a bipartisan approach to it and that genuine concerns and reservations about the details of agreements be considered by the Government and by the Parliament to ensure that there are no anomalies, that no one is left out and that there is no discrimination. That is doubly important when one considers that the provisions of social security systems throughout the world are complex and different. Other countries have social security systems, but, in fact, by Australian standards they are far from generous and the benefits that they provide fall a long way short of those benefits available under the Australian system. It would be a major catastrophe if the Australian Government entered into a bilateral agreement, and because of a shortcoming in a system operated by another country, Australian citizens were disadvantaged significantly. There is also the question of cost. In the Minister's second reading speech he made slight reference to the costs of this proposal. It is important, because of the size of the revenues that are potentially involved and because of the migration flows that have occurred to Australia, particularly during post-war years, that there be accurate costings on this proposal and what will be the commitments of the Australian taxpayer and the Australian Treasury in terms of remittances overseas. In commencing my remarks on this Bill, I made reference to the size of payments at the present time. In the most recent year, $87m was paid to some 22,933 beneficiaries. In future years, as those people who migrated to Australia after World War II approach retirement and consider where they will spend their old age, where they will spend their retirement, and whether they will seek emotional comfort and support in the country of their birth, surrounded by perhaps a larger number of their near relatives than live in Australia, it is important that we have some understanding of what Australia's commitment to remittances overseas will be. It is also important that we understand exactly what our commitments may be under the interim provisions that are provided for in this Bill. As the previous speaker said, those people who were resident in Australia as at May 1985, when the Minister made his initial announcement of the Government's intention to introduce this legislation, will not be affected as the pro- visions of this Bill in terms of proportional portability will not come into effect until 1996. However, the interim provisions may have the effect in some cases of making a pension available to an Australian or a person resident in Australia at that time who would not, under some other circumstances, be entitled to a pension. Obviously, the Minister and the Department have considered that, and I believe it would be appropriate for him to make available any estimates the Department has made as to additional cost and any projections that may have been made in terms of our obligations under the proportional portability provisions that will come into effect in 1996. This legislation is truly bipartisan in its approach to a very important problem that affects a large number of Australian people. I do not believe that there is a more important issue confronted by Australians as they enter the second half of their working lives than their security in their retirement. It is absolutely important not only with respect to welfare payments paid under the social security system but also with respect to other retirement income planning that Australians, whether they be migrants returning to their country of origin, migrants living in Australia or Australians born in this country, have confidence that they can plan for their retirement without having the rules of the game changed. It is absolutely important that there be integrity of the system, that people, because they need to plan for their retirement over many years-and we are not talking about 5, 6 or 7 years but 20, 25, 30 and 40 years-know that the plans that they make at one point in time will be valid and still have integrity at the time of their retirement. It is absolutely essential that they have confidence in the system that operates to provide their retirement income. They must have confidence that the laws and the attitude of the government will not change. They must have confidence that those institutions into which they may be making payments will look after those payments in a proper manner. They must have confidence that they will not be used for any other purpose or for any other reason than to provide maximum benefits to the contributor. That, of course, is a question that concerns a great number of Australians at present when reflecting on this Government's proposal to extend superannuation provisions to the Australian community. I do not believe that there are very many people in Australia who have confidence in a superannuation scheme which would be administered by trustees appointed by a trade union movement. There is a potential and a serious conflict of interest for a trustee who has the interests of a trade union at heart, when in fact trustees have only one obligation which must be adhered to above all others, and that is to safeguard and advance the interests of the contributors to that superannuation scheme. I am aware of the time constraints on honourable members. As I said when I opened my remarks, the Opposition supports this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Baldwin) adjourned. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I wish to advise the House of new moves by the Government to significantly reduce social security overpayments and to further improve the administration of pensions, benefits and allowances. These moves are part of the Government's fundamental commitment to ensuring that social security payments go to those who need them, in accordance with their need and legal entitlement. Over the past three years this Government has taken a number of steps to reform the Australian social security system, and to ensure that it is more truly and more accurately needs based. These steps include moves to reduce overpayments-actions such as the transfer of some two million payments from cheques to direct deposit, and the introduction of much stricter proof of identity procedures. These and other moves are starting to prove very effective. The net level of overpayments detected by my Department last financial year fell below $20m. It is important to get this figure in perspective. The Department of Social Security runs one of the largest financial institutions in Australia. In the last financial year, the Department paid out $14.175 billion on social security payments. It generates 100,340,000 separate payments each year. Its regional offices considered 14 1/2 million counter contacts, answered 7.3 million phone calls and handled 27.2 million pieces of correspondence. So given the scale of activities the fall in net annual overpayments is pleasing. The Government, however, is determined to achieve better results. The level of social security overpayments also needs to be set against the massive scale of tax evasion and avoidance which this Government has had to confront. At 30 June 1983 the Department of Social Security was owed $76m in accumulated overpayments. At the same time, there was $2.9 billion outstanding in tax. It is interesting to note that those most vocal about social security overpayments tend to be those most silent about this savage erosion of the public purse. This Government has met the challenge of tax evasion. It is also prepared to deal with the problem of social security overpayments. By harnessing many recent technological advances, implementing a range of administrative reforms, removing legal ambiguities in the Social Security Act and committing additional resources to this task, we intend to greatly reduce the level of social security overpayments over the next three years. While an increased emphasis on overpayments can be expected to generate some short term increase, the savings to the Australian public as a result of the campaign could be expected to be in the order of $90m by 1988. The Government's strategy is based on one fundamental precept-that there is no one, simplistic solution to the problem of social security overpayments. Overpayments occur in an extremely complex system for many different reasons, and it is essential to recognise that fact at the outset if there is to be any worthwhile and intelligent debate on this issue. Unfortunately, too many conservatives in this country think and argue that overpayments can be eliminated simply by threatening and bullying people into submission-by abusing the needy as dole bludgers and welfare cheats, by threatening to cut people of whom they disapprove, such as single mothers, out of the system entirely, and by proposing vicious and vindictive measures such as anonymous telephone dob-in campaigns. Years of experience show that these sorts of tactics simply do not work. During the punitive Fraser- Howard years, levels of overpayments mushroomed, more than doubling in relation to the level of expenditure. In contrast, this Government starts from the premise that the vast majority of people on social security need and are entitled to be treated with sensitivity and compassion. We recognise that if overpayments are to be tackled effectively then there must be a comprehensive strategy in place which integrates a wide range of measures, covering all aspects to do with the prevention, detection, calculation and recovery of overpayments. As a result, the Government has decided to implement a three-phase campaign which involves, firstly, reviewing and collecting as much existing debt as possible; secondly, preventing future overpayments; and thirdly, improving the means of identifying and investigating fraud and overpayments. This strategy has six principal points. The first point will be a major publicity campaign to increase community awareness of the Government's commitment to combating fraud and overpayments and of the obligations of people on social security under the Act. It is important we make it clear that reducing poverty is too important a goal for us to tolerate fraud in the social security system. The second point will be to ensure that all clients are better informed of their exact entitlements, thereby eliminating the many overpayments which occur as a result of misunderstanding and confusion. Letters to all clients setting out in clear and simple English exactly how their level of payment has been arrived at will be issued for the first time in May this year and at regular six-monthly intervals thereafter. The letters will also clearly inform clients of their obligations under the Social Security Act to notify the Department immediately of any changes in circumstances which affect payment. The Government is confident that simply by telling people more clearly about the rules of the system and their obligations under these rules the level of overpayments-and also appeals-will drop significantly. At the same time, of course, those who are deliberately cheating the system will also be put on notice that they are running an ever-increasing risk of detection. Review and Collection of Existing Debt My Department is taking action to ensure that it will be much more effective in the future in recovering past overpayments. Already the Department has completed a detailed analysis of existing debts, and is now developing a strategy to target those debts to be collected as a matter of priority. As its third point, action is also being taken to ensure that small amounts of payments are automatically withheld from all existing clients who owe the Department money, unless such action would result in extreme financial hardship. Where there are now no withholdings, these debt repayments will be at the rate of 10 per cent of pension or benefit rate, plus 50 per cent of any private income. From May, all withholdings will be automatically indexed in line with the six-monthly indexation increases in pensions and most benefits. Resources have been increased and administration reorganised at both national and State levels to ensure that the Department is more effectively equipped to collect as much outstanding debt as possible. Preventing Future Overpayments To prevent overpayments from occurring in future, my Department will be making a number of administrative reforms and procedural changes. As the fourth part of the strategy, pre-grant interviews and entitlement reviews will, for example, be more closely targeted to take account of certain categories of clients thought to be more likely to incur overpayments. Interviews and reviews will be more effectively used in ensuring people clearly understand their rights and obligations. New proof of identity procedures introduced over the past 12 months have recently been reviewed, and they will be further refined and improved as a result of that review. Fifthly, improved administrative procedures can reduce overpayments. For example, the fortnightly deadline for processing pension payments will be brought much closer to the actual pension pay-day, which will also significantly reduce incorrect payments. Finally, to highlight the new emphasis on the obligation of clients to advise my Department when their circumstances change, the Government has also decided to declare a three-month amnesty for some categories of people who have been paid more than they were entitled to in the past. The amnesty will take effect from today and will run until 31 May. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of ill-informed and overwrought speculation about the amnesty in recent weeks, most of it based on little more than prejudice and/or self-interest. Without waiting for the terms of the amnesty to be finalised and announced, many people have rushed into print to condemn an amnesty for `thieves and cheats'. The amnesty, I wish to assure all honourable members, will in no way apply to people who have been systematically and deliberately defrauding the social security system. All those who have been morally outraged solely as a result of their overactive imaginations in recent weeks can therefore relax. Contrary to popular mythology, not everyone who is overpaid by the Department of Social Security is a hardened thief or calculating criminal. Too often, overpayments occur simply as the result of misunderstandings or confusion. In fact, most overpayments occur as the result of genuine clients failing to advise the Department when their circumstances change, rather than people deliberately setting out to rip off the system. The amnesty is designed to help only those people who have, or at least originally had, a genuine right to a social security payment but who have subsequently been overpaid because their circumstances changed and they did not inform the Department. It does not, for instance, cover people who register for unemployment benefit in two or 22 different names. It does not cover people who deliberately misrepresented their circumstances in the first place in order to gain a payment to which they were not entitled. It does not cover cases of internal departmental fraud, nor does it cover incorrect payments deliberately initiated during the amnesty period. It covers only those people who come forward of their own free will before 31 May-not people who are already being prosecuted or are under notice of investigation. The amnesty has been very carefully designed to ensure that, as far as possible, it helps only those who may perhaps be described as treadmill cases-genuine clients who have failed to notify of a change in circumstances, who are anxious and concerned about detection, but who are too frightened to come forward because they can not afford to repay the debt incurred and/or may face prosecution. The Government recognises that in a social security system as large and complex as this, there are many genuine clients who in the past could have stumbled almost unintentionally into being overpaid. Even where people have intentionally failed to notify of a change of circumstances, the Government sees little point in forcing people to maintain the deception-continuing to receive payments to which they are not entitled-because they fear the consequences of owning up. As far as possible, the amnesty is designed to help only those people who made an initial mistake and who would welcome the opportunity to set the record straight, not those people who deliberately set out to get money to which they are not entitled and who have every intention of continuing their theft. These people will instead be subject to increasingly vigorous investigative and detection procedures. Before outlining the final stage of the three-phase amnesty strategy, I would like to point out to the House that the amnesty is designed primarily to improve the social security system and reduce overpayments, not primarily to help individuals, although of course many people in hardship or needy circumstances will benefit. Some of the advantages of the amnesty to my Department, and to all taxpayers, include: It will free staff and administrative resources to concentrate on detecting deliberate fraud; it will stop many overpayments immediately that might not otherwise have been detected for some time. Finally, I wish to outline briefly to the House some of the improvements to be implemented in identifying, investigating and recovering overpayments. These improvements will include the installation of a personal computer-based system in all regional offices so that staff can calculate overpayments much more speedily and efficiently. Procedures are also being developed to ensure that the maximum rate of withholding is correctly and automatically applied in all new cases where a debt to the Department is identified. The direct credit method of payment will continue to expand, thereby further reducing the incidence of fraudulent cheque negotiations. Additional staffing resources have been allocated within the Department to deal with and eliminate the backlog of fraudulently negotiated cheques presently awaiting investigation. I am pleased to present this detailed strategy to honourable members because I believe that the long-standing problem of social security overpayments can be overcome only by a comprehensive, integrated program which combines the very latest technological advances with an informed appreciation at both government and departmental level of the complexities involved. I am confident that the strategy I have outlined meets these demands. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —by leave-The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has brought into the House today what purports to be a major initiative to overcome the problem of overpayments within the Department of Social Security. Obviously this initiative is a result of the Government's recognition of growing public concern about the integrity of the social welfare system throughout Australia. In my opinion, at no other time has public confidence in the integrity of our social security system been at a lower point. It is understandable that the Government would seek to introduce some measures to restore confidence in this most important and significant aspect of government activity. As I think every member of this House realises, social security represents some 28 per cent of the Government's Budget. There is a need to ensure that that system operates effectively and efficiently and not only provides benefits to those people in need but also ensures that the funds of the Australian taxpayer are not wasted. I propose to examine in some detail the statement made by the Minister. I draw to the House's attention the fact that, as expected, the Minister said that his proposal would involve `a massive publicity campaign'. I do not think there has been a Government program in recent years that has not begun and finished with a massive publicity campaign. The latest one for which the Government really has no right to claim credit is the campaign for Priority One: Young Australia. It is estimated by many people that this Government spent some $2m on publicity and self-promotion in that campaign. To date not one traineeship has been created; not one tangible benefit for the youth of Australia. Yet the Australian taxpayers have provided some $2m, perhaps more, to publicise the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a disc jockey. What can we expect under the proposed massive publicity campaign outlined by the Minister? Will we see pictures of our Prime Minister, or perhaps the Minister himself, smiling at us from full page spreads in national newspapers, saying: `Come and tell all; all will be forgiven'? Quite frankly, it is a very cynical approach to spend money promoting the Government and its initiatives rather than addressing the real problems and concerns of both the beneficiaries of the system and the Australian taxpayer. The Minister made no reference to and seems little concerned about the fact that while public perception of the social security system is so low, those people who deserve assistance from the Australian community are grouped with those who are taking advantage of the system. It is important to ensure that those people in real need, those who genuinely need the assistance and compassion of the Australian community, do not suffer because a small minority of people are taking advantage of the system. The Minister makes reference in his statement to the net level of overpayments detected by the Department in the last financial year. He says it fell below $20m. I make the point that he refers to the net level, not the gross level, detected by the Department, which means that there is a question as to whether the Department actually knows what the level of overpayment is. Having regard to certain Auditor-General's reports in recent years, I believe there is some question as to whether the Department can effectively detect the true level of overpayment. There is, of course, a slight contradiction between the Minister's statement about the net level of overpayments detected in the last financial year-that is, 1984-85-and the figures quoted by his colleague the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the May economic statement. I refresh the memories of members of this House and remind them that the Treasurer said in the statement he brought down with much pomp and circumstance that the Government would save $25m in overpayments in the Department of Social Security in the financial year 1985-86. It is important to understand exactly what is being said. The Minister for Social Security says that in 1984-85 overpayments totalled only $20m. The Treasurer says that we will save $25m in overpayments in 1985-86. I do not really understand how that can be done unless someone is juggling the figures or the Government expects a massive blow-out in overpayments that it would then rein back because of some other changes to its administrative arrangements. Of course, there is one glaring omission in this statement delivered here today by the Minister: There was no reference whatsoever to the much vaunted, much publicised Australia Card-the national identity card system. The Australian people generally support the proposal for a national identification system. That support arises from two beliefs: One is that it will improve the integrity of the social security system and the second is that it will improve the integrity of the tax system. Today the Minister came into this House and delivered a major statement on overcoming the problem of overpayment and fraud in the social security system. He made not one reference to the use of the Australia Card-a national identity card system-or anything vaguely like it. Quite frankly, those members of the Government who support this proposal are pulling the wool over the eyes of the Australian people. They know that it is not going to be used for social security, they know it will not have any impact on the integrity of the social security system, but they are not giving any publicity to it. They are not doing anything to remove the delusion and misconception the Australian public is operating under. It is instructive to look at the Department of Health submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. In a major document, which obviously has been published with the typical concern for publicity and presentation which evidences all of this Government's initiatives, there are seven paragraphs dealing with the use of the proposed Australia Card by the Department of Social Security. An attachment to the submission includes a letter from the Department of Social Security signed by the the Assistant Secretary, Benefits Control. It is headed `Australia Card Uses-Cost Benefit Analysis'. In that letter, which consists of two paragraphs, the Assistant Secretary said that it was extremely difficult to estimate the value of the Australia Card to the Australian social security system and that for that reason no monetary values had been included in the attached details. When we turn to the attached details, we see, under the heading `Statement of assumptions, at point 6: No additional staffing costs. The reason there will be no additional staffing costs is that the `relevant parts of existing proof of identity procedures will be retained'. What does that mean? It means that the Department has no confidence in the Australia Card. This is perhaps the most telling point: No additional cost to Benefits Control in detection of fraud since this work is being done currently. The only conclusion that one can draw from that is that the Department does not envisage that the Australia Card will be of any benefit to it whatsoever. If the Government were to be morally honest with the Australian people and its constituency it would stand up and say that the Australia Card is to collect tax revenue and will not be of any direct or measurable benefit to the Australian social security system. Let us return to the statement made today by the Minister. Regrettably he has come in here and made a number of quite partisan statements attempting to cast the Opposition in the light of being anti-welfare. Under no circumstances could this Opposition be described as anti-welfare. The quality of compassion on this side of the House is no less than the quality of compassion and concern shown by honourable members opposite. The difference is that we are not wedded to outdated and outmoded concepts of 19th century socialism. We understand the need to treat people as individuals and to ensure that we do not address a problem simply by throwing money at it. This Government has been in power for three years. The social security system which it is administering at present is its creation. It has had three years to make any changes that it needs to make. There have been a number of changes. The Government has pushed Australian pensioners from pillar to post, so that no-one has any confidence in the retirement incomes policy of this Government. The Government has recently changed the incomes allowance system to enforce considerable hardship on those pensioners who are concerned to do something for themselves and to extricate themselves from what is known as a poverty trap. Of course, the Government's commitment to that must be called into question because the reality is that although it introduced legislation in November last year to assist people caught in poverty traps that will not come into effect until November 1986. Of course, the income test changes have come into effect immediately. I wonder about the Minister's genuine concern there. Was he not able to convince his colleagues that he should do something about it a little more promptly? Is the Minister not embarrassed by the situation that exists at present? In terms of his concern, he comes in here and says `in contrast to others'. In contrast to whom, I do not know. We on this side of the House are as concerned about those people who need assistance in this community as anybody else in this Parliament. The Minister seeks to defend his Department by making reference to its size and making comparisons with the Australian Taxation Office. Unfortunately, his use of statistics is quite selective. As I have said the Department of Social Security is a massive department. It is a large bureaucracy with far-flung branches operating throughout this country. It has officers dealing face to face with people in necessitous circumstances and required to make decisions on the spot. However, the figures which the Minister quotes comparing the Department of Social Security with the Taxation Office are quite selective. He suggests that it compares quite favourably. If we were to look at the individual numbers of transactions which occur within the Taxation Office and also the total revenues that it deals with, quite frankly I think the comparisons would be slightly different. The Government also means to have double standards. In terms of social security overpayment, the Government is prepared to accept that it may be accidental and inadvertent. What is the Government's policy in terms of taxation when non-payment of taxation is accidental and inadvertent? Can we except the Treasurer to come into this place tomorrow and make a similar statement offering an amnesty to those taxpayers who accidentally, inadvertently have stumbled into a situation of not paying their full tax? This Government keeps talking about bottom of the harbour schemes and major tax evaders. It will not address the reality of the situation, which is that the major area of tax avoidance in this country is the cash or black economy and that measures introduced by the previous Government effectively eliminated major tax rorts in this country. No, Government members come in here with their double standards and empty rhetoric, and do not address the real problem. The Minister suggests that some people think that there is a simplistic solution to social security overpayments. Under no circumstances do I or any other member of this Opposition think that there is a simplistic total solution. Mr Howe —What about the dob in a dole cheat campaign? That was pretty simplistic. Mr BLUNT —The Minister makes reference to a suggestion that the public be asked to provide information on people who are taking advantage of and milking the social security system. He is totally opposed to this suggestion. I suggest to the House that the Minister does not know what goes on in his own Department. In fact he may not even read the newspapers, because the fact is that the Department currently relies on what is known as public information. If we look at the Canberra Times of 7 February we see that the Department's current procedures have in fact been upheld by no less a body than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It was stated that in a decision handed down in Sydney the Tribunal said that information concerned with the identification of people taking advantage of the social security system was passed to the Department on the assumption that it would be handled confidentially and would in fact remain safe from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It has also been revealed that the Fremantle office of the Department of Social Security kept a register of dob-ins. The article stated: Some of the communications were thought to come from people who thought they were acting in the public interest but others have come from persons with ulterior motives. Such information was not solicited by the department but was not discouraged. I repeat: It was not discouraged. Quite frankly, any suggestion to expand this is simply a formalisation of existing procedures administered by the Minister for Social Security, who is at the Table. The Department of Social Security, just like the Taxation Office, would be hamstrung if it were not able to use public information. The Minister knows that. If he were not so hypocritical he would admit it. Of course, he has the option of standing up in this place and prohibiting his Department from using that information and bearing the consequences of implementing that ban. Of course, he has not done that. He has taken a hypocritical position and suggested he would not have a bar of it, knowing that in the Department it is done every day and that the Department relies on that information. That is so because the number of investigative staff available to the Department under the administration of this Government has slipped considerably. Let us return to the statement. Apart from a publicity campaign, this Government is going to resort to direct mail to ensure that all its clients are better informed about their exact entitlements, thus eliminating any overpayments which occur as a result of misunderstanding and confusion. Quite frankly, that is an admission that the present procedures used by the Department for communicating benefits available are inadequate. Obviously, that is a reaction to a survey on youth attitudes to the Department of Social Security recently undertaken by the Department; a survey funded by taxpayers' money. Some of the findings of that survey are of a fairly partisan nature and would be of potential benefit in any political campaign. The Minister, in a statement made on 21 November, said that 91 per cent of young clients surveyed made negative mentions of the Department, while only 48 per cent had positive responses. On the positive side, people tended to find Social Security offices conveniently located, useful and confidential, but the survey rates the Department poorly on understanding and efficiency. Obviously there is a need to make some changes. Obviously the findings of Auditors-General in previous years have been confirmed by public perception. Obviously the public generally and not only the youth of Australia is concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Social Security. One of the great difficulties with the Minister's statement is that it is not precise, it is not hard and there is no definite information. With regard to collecting the existing debt the Minister has said that from now on the Department will make deductions from benefits paid to beneficiaries. He states in great detail how the benefits will be calculated, but nowhere in his statement does he tell us exactly how much is owed to the Department. I am tempted to suggest that the amount owed is perhaps an embarrassment or that there is no precise figure on what is owed to the Department. The statement also raises the question of equity, which I will address later when I consider the amnesty. At present, if someone has been detected as receiving overpayments the Department will obviously move against that person and require those overpayments to be repaid, because that person was unfortunate enough to have been detected under the existing procedures. However, if a person has been receiving overpayments, under the provisions of the amnesty, which we will discuss in considerable detail later, that person's slate will be wiped clean. Where is the equity in that? If one is unfortunate enough to have been detected one will have to pay it all back, but if one comes into the Department and confesses all out will come the duster or the rubber, or whatever else, and the slate will be wiped clean, unless the amnesty applies only to prosecution and then, of course, repayment will still be required. There is the question of equity for those people who abide by the rules under this Government's recent changes to income exemption levels and who tell the Department that they have increased their income, if only temporarily. They will lose their benefits and will be forced to be confined for a little longer within that notorious poverty trap. If a person does not tell the Department and takes advantage of some seasonal increase in earnings and then comes into the Department some time before the end of the amnesty and says `I am very sorry I didn't tell you', that person's slate will be wiped clean. So those people who are honest and abide by the rules and play the game get penalised. Those people who do not, who will take advantage of the amnesty and will trade on this provision, will reap another benefit. Quite frankly, I do not see how the Government could run a policy that has those sorts of double standards. The Minister has made some preference to ill-informed, overwrought speculation about the amnesty. It is a bit of rhetoric and a bit of heat, but it is the sort of thing that we are used to in social security debates in this place, rather than a genuine attempt at bipartisanship. If that has been going on it is the Minister's fault, because it was his office that leaked the proposal. If he had a proposal which he knew would be controversial and would raise a number of questions, he should have kept it confidential until he had the `i's dotted and the `t's crossed, not encouraged community speculation and debate that caused concern and distress among beneficiaries and gave cause for irresponsible comment from some sections of the media. The reality is that the Minister's approach to this question has left a lot to be desired. He has caused more harm, hurt and concern than have any of the honourable members on this side of the House in any statement that they have made, simply by not having the common sense to keep such a controversial proposal under his hat until he knew exactly what was going on. The amnesty which will come into effect today until 31 May raises the question of who will be eligible and who will not. Two and a bit pages in the Minister's statement directly or indirectly address the question of eligibility for this amnesty. It is riddled with qualifications. It talks about people who could have stumbled almost unintentionally into being overpaid. It talks about people even intentionally failing to notify the Department. It really raises the question that if the amnesty applied to a person and that person knew it applied, and also knew that he was in breach of the provisions of the benefit he was receiving, that person would have been consciously aware of it because by knowing that the amnesty applied he would know that he was in breach of the provisions. It will require someone in the Department with the wisdom of Solomon to determine who accidentally breached the provisions and who did it intentionally. The Minister spends much time in talking about people who collect benefits in 22 names. Of course, that is going from the general to the particular, and, in this case, to the extreme particular. That statement is fine for public consumption and a Press release, and it sounds great; but the reality-the Minister knows this-is that, at the counter, officers of his Department will be faced with a large number of cases that are not black and are not white but are a multitude of shades of grey. If the Minister wanted bipartisan support for this proposal, he should have come into this place today with the operating instructions which are to be sent out to his Department so that we would know exactly how this proposal is to be implemented. He should not have come in with qualified statements, not with statements that are wishy washy and that cannot be pinned down, and not with extreme examples but with precise statements on how this proposal is to work. The Minister also talked about the need to harness technology. The Department has been working on Stratplan for some time. That concept involves a big computer with every office plugged into it. We will now have small computers out in the office, which is a complete reversal of the strategy behind Stratplan-that is, centralised data accessed from offices throughout the country. Individual personal computers will now be provided in the offices of the Department of Social Security because, obviously, Stratplan does not fulfil the requirements of the operating officer at the front line-at the work face, a phrase so many people are fond of using these days-to provide the information and the calculation capacity that is needed in the day to day operation of the Department of Social Security. Mr Howe —Stratplan does not exist in many offices. Mr BLUNT —The Minister interjects that Stratplan does not exist in many offices. Perhaps the reason it does not exist in many offices is that the implementation schedule is behind time. The problem of fraud also raises the question of fraudulent negotiations of social security cheques. In recent months there has been considerable controversy with regard to the fraudulent negotiations of social security cheques. Statements have been made to the effect that some 60,000 people have not been prosecuted, that the Australian Federal Police do not have the manpower to investigate and that it has an arbitrary $20,000 limit below which it will not follow through. The Minister, in an attempt to whitewash this situation, says in his statement that additional staffing resources have been allocated within the Department to deal with and eliminate the backlog of fraudulently negotiated cheques. There is absolutely no comment on what the position will be with respect to the Australian Federal Police. What exactly will happen? Have the Federal Police been told not to follow through on fraudently negotiated cheques? In future, will we rely on officers of the Department of Social Security or, in cases where a fraudulent negotiation is suspected and the person responsible is known, will that person be handed over to the Federal Police for prosecution? What will be the priority attached to this issue by the Federal Police, and will additional staff resources be made available? In view of the answer in this place at Question Time today by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) with regard to drug trafficking in Australia and the inability of the Federal Police to cope with it because of its staff resources, I wonder whether we will see the allocation of the resources necessary to clear the backlog of unfollowed-through fraudulently negotiated cheques of which we are currently aware. I am disappointed, and the Opposition is disappointed, that the Government's response to an important problem, a problem of considerable concern in the Australian community, is little more than a massive publicity campaign which, as I said, will probably benefit advertising agencies more than it will benefit the beneficiaries of the social security system or restore the confidence of taxpayers throughout Australia in the system. We believe that the Minister's statement today is inadequate in its detail and that he is unreasonable to expect the Opposition to support a proposal which has no detail and which is nebulous in its concept unless he is in a position to provide us with the exact detail in black and white as to how it is being implemented. For him to suggest that all cases of overpayment, be they accidental or deliberate, are black and white and easy to determine and will be able to be decided on the basis of the guidelines that he has laid down in this place today is naive in the extreme. There is a strong case for asking the Minister to come back at a later time and tell us exactly what he is up to and how this scheme will be implemented. Debate resumed. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(6.41) —As the preceding speaker on this legislation, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), indicated, so far as this Parliament is concerned the legislation in non-controversial and its implementation or its broad conception is accepted by all parties. In that sense there is no great controversy. There has, however, obviously been a great deal of debate on the legislation within the various ethnic communities that are likely to be affected. When the broad outline of the measures was announced in May last year, what was envisaged was a 35-year period as the basis of working out proportionality. There was certainly a great deal of controversy. I think that every honourable member would have received representations or would have become aware of a great deal of concern amongst members of various communities. Significant numbers of members of those communities would have been worried about what the legislation would entail. I guess that the nature of that response and that reaction simply underlines the importance of one aspect of what was spelt out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)-that is, the importance of consultation and the importance of communicating the Government's intentions accurately. I am quite sure that there are some categories of people who under the existing system would have been entitled to a pension and who under the new system will not receive a pension or will receive only a proportion of the pension. There are some people who undoubtedly will be affected. But I am quite sure that much of the concern about the legislation is based on misconceptions. The legislation clearly will make for a more rational and equitable system so far as portability of pensions is concerned. Again, I think that is accepted by all parties in this Parliament. It will be more equitable for individual people and it will also be more equitable for countries in terms of the sharing of the burden of providing social security payments. It will implement a closer relationship between the payments that have to be extracted from countries, budgets and the amount of contributions that have been made by the people concerned during their working lives. To that extent it is a more equitable system. It is also more equitable in that certain categories of people who are currently excluded from receiving any form of payment will now be able to receive some payment. That obviously includes people who become eligible and who leave the country before they reach pensionable age. That is one very clear category. Another is people who have been here for less than 10 years and who under the existing arrangements are not entitled to any pension if they return to their home country. They will now receive at least some proportion of the pension. To that extent the system will have been improved. With regard to the impact on government outlays, the expectation of the Government at this stage is that at least for the current financial year and the next two the impact will be relatively slight. Further down the track obviously there will be a more substantial impact. It is rather difficult to estimate that impact with any degree of accuracy. There are obviously some offsetting factors in that some people will not receive full pensions who otherwise would. On the other hand some people will receive a proportionate pension who otherwise would not receive any payment through the Australian social security system. It is rather difficult to calculate how those things will balance out. On the one hand it depends on demographic trends and on the other on what assumptions are made about what proportion of people will opt to leave Australia and receive a pension overseas. That is obviously very difficult to estimate. One must make some behavioural assumptions. I do not think it would be at all easy to do so. The honourable member for Richmond talked about the need for more accurate estimations of the revenue impact a long way down the track. I do not think it will be easy to make those calculations. It is a little much to expect the Government to be able to produce that sort of data. The net effect of the proposals, assuming that further reciprocal agreements are made-in addition to the one with Italy, which is shortly to be signed-will be that generally speaking people will get a pension package consisting of a part payment from Australia and a part payment from an overseas country or their country of origin. That will be the norm for people whose circumstances are envisaged in this legislation. As I said earlier, that will make for a more equitable distribution of the burden between countries. I understand that under the proposal people in Australia who are receiving a part Australian pension and a part pension from an overseas system will have that amount topped up so that they at least receive the basic level of the Australian pension. So people in that category will not be worse off. This is a most significant part of a package of measures. This piece of legislation is part of a package of measures which will in due course include specific legislation relating to the reciprocal agreements with, in the first instance, Italy and later with other countries. It will certainly be one of the most significant changes to the social security system in recent times. It addresses what is undoubtedly a rather complicated problem, that is, marrying the Australian social security system, which is based on a flat rate pension which one becomes entitled to under certain criteria-either age or invalidity and subject to an incomes and assets test-with what is the norm throughout the Western industrialised world which involves some form of contributory system. That key difference between our system and that of most overseas countries has been the main technical impediment to implementing schemes of this type. Hopefully, as a result of what has been done in regard to the forthcoming reciprocal agreement with Italy, we will have some kind of a model that will facilitate a much more widespread use of this sort of approach. It will be quite significant. Some million people stand to gain some benefit as a result of the implementation of a system of this type over the next 20 years, if one assumes that most of the reciprocal agreements are made with the migrant source countries that provide most of the migrants to Australia. If that is done, a very significant number of people stand to gain some benefit. Consequently, it is a significant piece of legislation and it is to be hoped that we will be able to see this type of approach implemented on a fairly widespread basis. I hope that we have gone beyond the stage of there being a great deal of fear within the various migrant communities in regard to the consequences of the legislation. There has been a little attempted point scoring by the Opposition at various stages of the consideration of this legislation. There has been some suggestion that the Government had not consulted adequately with ethnic communities. I do not think that that is a reasonable criticism. The fact is that whatever is done it is always possible to say that a higher level of consultation could have taken place. Reasonably extensive consultations have taken place. Over 50 meetings have been held throughout Australia in every capital city and quite a few provincial centres to discuss these matters with the various ethnic communities. A five-person ethnic liaison committee was appointed to assist in planning and conducting these consultations. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, after that inane interruption, which simply underlines the seriousness being given to the procedures of the House, to put a stop to all this crap, I will just briefly conclude. As I said earlier, the legislation is non-controversial and accepted by both parties. In that sense, the need for a protracted argument is obviously non-existent. The legislation will, undoubtedly, make for a more reasonable, equitable system of portability for pensions; it will benefit a significant number of people who, in some cases, do not receive a reasonable pension; it will have some other implications for Australia, mainly beneficial, in terms of balance of payments. We will be receiving some payments from overseas contributory schemes. They will be flowing into the country. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I delayed a fraction in drawing your attention to this particular incident because you were distracted. I draw your attention to a comment made by the honourable member for Sydney. He used language which has previously been ruled as unparliamentary. Mr Hand —When? What did he say? Mr Tim Fischer —I am not prepared to repeat it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite you to ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The complication that the honourable member for Farrer causes is that one now must ask the honourable member to withdraw it, which gives him more notoriety than if the point of order had not been raised. The Chair did not hear the comment but, if the honourable member for Farrer is offended, would the honourable member for Sydney withdraw the remark. Mr BALDWIN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot begin to imagine what term he could possibly be referring to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member for Sydney probably does. He might assist the House by withdrawing it. Mr BALDWIN —I unreservedly withdraw any suggestion that the behaviour of the Opposition could be described as crap or in any like terminology. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sydney just compounds his offence. He will withdraw unreservedly. Mr BALDWIN —I withdraw unreservedly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member proceed with his remarks. Mr BALDWIN —I was just about to conclude, in any case. I obviously support this legislation. I am sure it will have a quiet passage through the House when it comes to the vote. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(6.55) —I want to take part in this debate because I think the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill-which is bipartisan, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin)-has taken a long time to be brought before this Parliament. I am particularly pleased that progress has been made, although I think it is a pity for a lot of Australian citizens, Australian residents and many former Australian residents that it was not previously possible for governments in this country to conclude the legislation and negotiations with overseas countries now finalised. Some years ago, on 31 March 1977, I spoke in a grievance debate. I stated: I bring to the attention of the House the urgent need for an examination of the circumstances under which Australian pensions are payable to migrants. The completion of reciprocal arrangements on social security with countries such as Italy is a matter of high priority. . . . . . . . . . Migrants would have been better served if they had been given entitlement to pensions after, say, 3 years residence in Australia so long as they continue to live in this country and if portability of pension entitlement had been granted to those who leave Australia permanently only if they had spent considerably longer periods of their working lives in Australia than the 10 years residence which now applies. I said that in the light of the introduction in 1973 of some portability arrangements. It was thought at that time that those portability arrangements were really going to address the problem that confronted many migrant Australians and many former migrant Australians. But, in fact, the announcement that was made in a policy speech of the Party of the now Government limited the benefits that were then to be conferred on Australian residents. It stated: All Australian residents who have gained the right to receive any Australian Social Service will continue to enjoy that right wherever they choose to live. Many voters at that time believed that the portability then promised would be conferred upon all people should they choose to move and set up their residence in another country or go back to the country of their birth, but they missed the point that was, no doubt, carefully put into that statement that said `all Australian residents who had gained the right to a pension'. In other words, portability was conferred on those who had a pension at the time they chose to move back into the country of their birth. That right conferred upon people a pension after a very limited period of residence in Australia. I did not object to that limited period of Australian residence any more then than I do now. We are a country that receives many migrants. Because we are a country that welcomes migrants it is proper that we should give to Australian permanent residents the right to income security when they are resident in this country. The sad thing was that when portability was introduced it was not recognised that we were really dealing with a different problem, because had we been like many other industrialised countries and European countries, the migrants would have come here and not qualified for an Australian pension for at least 15 years and, for maximum pensions, for some 40 years' residence. But we in Australia, albeit having a flat rate pension system, gave to people of eligible age the right to a pension after five years residence in the case of an age pensioner. The way in which that decision of the Whitlam Government to give portability was applied resulted in great hardship being imposed upon many people who had returned to their home countries. In the grievance debate in March 1977 I went on to say a number of other things about this matter, and I think it is worth drawing those comments to the attention of the House today. The report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty confirmed the view I have just outlined that in a country such as Australia the decision to give Australian residents pensions on the basis of years of residence was based upon the outdated philosophy that benefits must be earned. I then went on to say that when it was a matter of determining the rights of Australian residents who choose to take up residence in another country, we should have a different approach. I said: We need to define clearly our approaches, firstly, to pension eligibility for Australian residents and, secondly, to pension portability for those who cease to be Australian residents. It is my view that we need to apply different criteria in each instance . . . I do not for a minute begrudge the right to receive those pensions to those who spent a large proportion of their working lives in Australia, but I fear that there are many who spend but a limited time here and become entitled to a full Australian pension . . . In any event, is 10 years-a quarter of the working life of the average Australian-a sufficient period in which to confer entitlement to an age pension which can be taken overseas? If a number of countries were to adopt an approach similar to that which we have in Australia at the present time it would be possible for people to move from one pension haven to another, accumulating in each the entitlement to a full pension after spending only a short period in each country. As a result they could end up retiring in the country of their choice, being entitled to an income equivalent to the full pension paid in 4 different countries, while in each of those countries there could be resident migrants with insufficient incomes. On the other hand, pensions should be payable to those who are permanent residents in Australia and who have been here long enough to be entitled to become Australian citizens if they are otherwise qualified. In the case of permanent residents in Australia, Australian benefits should not be paid only to those who are deemed to have earned them. They should be paid to them on the ground that they are permanent residents of this country. Portability of those pensions to overseas countries should however be based upon the earnings principle. The eligibility period for a full pension should be extended and part pensions should be payable to those not fully qualified but who wish to go overseas after but a short period in this country. Two years later I had the opportunity, when this House had its Estimates committees, to raise the same matter and I expressed a similar view. A question had been asked in that Committee as to the difference between the contributory scheme in other countries and the non-contributory scheme here. I said: One of the problems that some former migrants face is that when they return to the countries of their birth, having worked here for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years and choose to leave before they acquire their rights by residence at the age 60 or 65 years, they lose their benefits and they have not contributed in some other countries. I think that we could reach a situation in respect of those people we assumed had notionally contributed as taxpayers to the tax-based benefits that they would receive if they had remained in Australia. We should be looking at ways and means of providing to those former migrants who return to the countries of their birth, a pension based on an earnings principle. If we assume that the work span in Australia is 40 years and we then find someone who has been here 20 years, that person should be able to carry with him a pension representing half the Australian pension, whether or not he was resident in Australia at the time he received it. I am very pleased that this legislation picks up that principle. As pointed out by the honourable member for Sydney, one of the perceived problems of negotiating these agreements has been that we have said we have a tax funded scheme that is available on a categorical basis-qualification by age or invalidity and subject to income or means test-whereas we say that in European countries they have contributory schemes. It is really a bit of semantics because many of those contributory schemes depend for their financial viability on very substantial subventions out of the general Budgets of those countries and the contributions pay only a relatively small proportion of the total cost of the pension schemes. Yet we have seen this as a difficulty. I am delighted that we have been able to recognise that these differences are more perceived than real and that those who spend significant parts of their working lives in this country have in fact, by being general taxpayers, earned a right to an Australian pension. We should bear in mind that those migrants who choose to spend their retirement years in the country of their birth may go back to that country and find that they are entitled, say in Italy, having worked there for only 25 years of a 45-year working life, to a part Italian pension. Under the previous and present arrangements they suffered in many instances very severe financial hardships, and in many instances were supported by relatives who remained in Australia. I believe that was totally unfair to those migrants who have gone back. In many instances in this debate reference has been made to the number of people resident in Australia who will benefit under this legislation. It is wonderful that they should benefit, but it is equally significant that there are many thousands of people who have made a very real contribution to Australia and in many instances have left their children as Australian citizens and Australian residents and have returned to the countries of their birth, only to find that under present arrangements they are not entitled to any pension. As a result of this framework legislation, the agreement that is about to be finalised with Italy will give to many thousands of people, in the case of returning Italian migrants, the right to pensions and part pensions. Under the arrangements that have been entered into here, there will be pro rata payments based upon a 25-year working life. I commend the work of an association that is based in Italy, the Association of Ex-Migrants from Australia, in its English translation. Its abbreviated title is AMEA and its president is Dr Aldo Lorigiola. I met Dr Lorigiola when he was in Australia some years ago and introduced him to the then Minister for Social Security. His organisation currently represents some 80,000 people who have spent varying numbers of years as permanent residents in Australia. Of that 80,000, a significant proportion would now be qualified for a part Australian pension, by virtue of age, invalidity, widowhood or one of the other categories to be dealt with in the agreement. They were here during their working lives and many of them made substantial contributions to our work force and paid substantial taxes, quite apart from the great contribution they made to the social fabric of this country. I am very pleased that as a result of the efforts of that organisation representing the interests of Australian Italians or Italian Australians who are now back in Italy, the Australian Government, together with the Italian Government, has been able to conclude an agreement that will recognise their needs and give them a pro rata payment of pension entitlement. I hope that once the agreement is signed the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) will ensure that appropriate publicity is given in Italy. I hope that appropriate offices will be set up in our Embassy in Rome and elsewhere in Italy to ensure that people who, under this legislation and the following agreement, have a legal right to an Australian part-pension will be informed of it. It would be unfair if we took a stance whereby we kept the information from those who are entitled to such a part-pension. If we pass this legislation we should do so on the basis that everyone who has an entitlement should have the opportunity of taking up that entitlement. I urge the Minister that he and his Department give sensitive and careful consideration to ensuring that all who have an entitlement are able to take it up. I also hope that in his consultations and discussions with the Italian Government the Minister will ask that Government to do what it can to assist Italians who are resident in Australia to take up their entitlements to Italian pensions. As I understand it, the Italian Government pays its pensions, or many of them, through the provinces and not all the provinces or regions in Italy are as efficient as others; nor are some of their pension schemes as financially viable as others. I will instance one area-the region of Reggio Calabra. There are many people in my electorate in South Australia as well as other parts of Australia-and I presume also in your electorate, Madam Speaker-who have come from Reggio Calabra. It seems to be recognised within the Italian community and even among Italian officials, that there are difficulties with Reggio Calabra. It is the story of the long wait. If one can wait long enough one will get a pension but if one does not survive long enough one does not receive it. That is unfair. If we are making efforts to ensure that Italians who have spent time in Australia as residents get their pensions when they return to Italy, I would hope that the Italian Government would use the same diligence and concern to ensure that permanent residents in Australia who are entitled under the contribution schemes operating in Italy receive their Italian pension entitlements. There is one other area on which I wish to touch, where I think we could face some difficulties in the future. This relates to the decision by the Government that invalid pensions will not be subject to proportionality. If one looks at the figures in relation to invalid pensions one finds that a very large number of those pensions are granted to men and women who are aged 60 and over. For example, in 1984-85 some 27,280 invalid pensions were granted to people who were aged 50 and over. But of that number, 9,025 were granted to men aged 60 and over. There are invalids and invalids. Some are the tragic victims of road accidents, others are cases of people who have been struck down by illness at a very young age. Of course the full portability of those pensions is humane and compassionate. However, I am concerned that there are a lot of people who, as they approach retirement years, battle on. They will be entitled to only a proportional pension. Had they given in and claimed an invalid pension and satisfied the authorities that they were 85 per cent incapacitated for work, they could get full portability. This is an area that needs to be looked at because I think it would be unfair on those who battled on and who had been here a relatively short period and were only going to receive a small proportion of pension- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Before I call honourable members, I shall reply to an honourable member's query. Earlier today the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) referred to the delay in the delivery of the Daily Hansard. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter has advised me that all the Hansard copy for yesterday's sitting was processed by the Hansard staff on schedule and forwarded to the Government Printing Office by 10 o'clock last night. As is usually the case on the first day of a period of sittings, the copy included a very large number of answers to questions on notice provided by Ministers during the recess and an unusually large number of petitions presented by members. The answers to questions on notice accounted for 223 pages of the Daily Hansard and the petitions for 13 pages. Nevertheless, the typesetting was completed by the Government Printing Office on schedule. However, the size of the volume made it necessary for it to be perfect bound and that requirement, together with a shortage of staff in the bindery area, caused the delivery of the advance copies of the Daily Hansard to be delayed until 4 o'clock this afternoon. The perfect bound copies are expected to be available before the House rises this evening. The Director of Printing has assured the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that the typesetting equipment problems experienced during the Budget session last year have been overcome and he is confident that in normal circumstances-that is, with normal numbers of answers to questions on notice and normal demands for the printing of Bills and explanatory memoranda-the Printing Office will be able to deliver the Daily Hansard on schedule. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(7.18) —Madam Speaker, since this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak since your election yesterday to the position of Speaker, I take the opportunity to extend to you my congratulations on your elevation to a very high office. I well recall when we were both elected for the first time in May 1974-you and I and two other senators-the media circus that accompanied our election and how we felt about the way they treated the matter on occasions. Of course it was not even a record number of women in the Parliament as at that time, although your election as the first Labor woman in this House was history making. A similar kind of media attention was paid to your election yesterday. I would only make the comment that I know very well that you were elected to your position by your colleagues because of merit and if you had not been elected to that position it would have been despite your merit. Having said that, I wish to speak on the adjournment tonight on the subject of women. Together with all other members and senators, I received today a copy of a media release from the Women's Electoral Lobby headed `WEL's Alternative Constitutional Commission' in which WEL expresses its outrage at the fact that only two women are among the 39 community leaders appointed by the Government to its new Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees. WEL rightly points out that there are many very accomplished and eminent women in Australia today and that the composition arrived at by the Government of only two women out of 39 does not reflect the role, experience and the contribution of Australian women. For myself, I am tired of mere words on the subject of women's participation in Australian life and their equality. These words fall into one of two categories. First, there are those pious words from people who clearly do not know what they mean but say what they think they ought to say, and secondly there are those who say that women get equal treatment and opportunities in Australia now and if they are equally capable they will receive equal treatment. It is clear that, whatever the circumstances, Australia still needs groups like WEL to keep whoever is in government up to the mark. I refer tonight to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in November last year in the Parliament on what he called the National Agenda for Women and I wish to quote very briefly from it. Amongst other things he said: 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. . . . . Since coming to office, we have in the short space of less than three years- I am quoting selectively- established an affirmative action pilot program . . . given high priority to the representation of women on Government boards, authorities and instrumentalities, appointing more than 120 women to such boards. I interpolate at this stage to say that the Prime Minister omitted to mention how many people there are in total on all those boards, and that if that figure were known it would show that 120 out of the total is very small. I continue to quote from the Prime Minister's statement: 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. Under the heading `Giving Women a Say' the Prime Minister said: The Labor Government places a very great importance on the need to seek the views of women on matters of concern to them. . . . . The Labor Government takes 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. I ask the Government: Did the Office of the Status of Women submit to the Government a comprehensive list of women who had the potential to serve on the Commission and on its advisory committees? My own view is that I have no doubt that the Office did so and that it would have been an extensive list. If so, why did the Government make a deliberate decision to include only two women in that Commission? Attached to the Women's Electoral Lobby media release was a list of 35 eminent Australian women-and the Lobby points out that it is by no means an exhaustive list-who were well qualified to serve on such a constitutional commission and who were overlooked. I seek leave of the House to table that list. Leave granted. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(7.23) —I take this opportunity of congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on your elevation to the high office of Speaker. I comment tonight on the development of the new Right within Australia. The House has probably heard a lot about the development of the new Right led by such eminent characters as John Stone and Katharine West who seem to be very good at getting columns in the newspapers and putting out a lot of propaganda to try to hearten some of the people in the Opposition. Mr Beale —Have you read those columns? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I have, indeed. They pretend to give a philosophical guise to a philosophy which is already discredited. I am talking about the neo-conservative policies of Margaret Thatcher and, to some degree, Ronald Reagan in the United States. Mr Beale —Is not Thatcher in the middle of her third term? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I suggest to the honourable member that Mrs Thatcher might be lucky to remain the leader of the British Conservative Party by the end of that third term. In fact, her fate might be similar to that of the previous Leader of the Opposition here. Mr Hand —And the current one. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Yes, and possibly the current one as well, as the honourable member for Melbourne interjects. Let me say something about the pretensions of this new Right philosophy. Having lost the debate in relation to the running of the economy as a whole because of the excellent performance of the accord in giving this country substantial economic growth without inflation, what we have had from the mouths of the new Right is an attempt to do away with aspects of the old monetarist philosophy. It has done away with that and has now turned to various popular slogans in an attempt to revive the discredited conservative policies. For example, we have had Katharine West talking about the new poor. This comes from a person who wants to reduce the level of welfare in Australia. She dares to talk about the new poor in this country. She is asked to identify the new poor. Well, who is it? Supposedly, it is the small businessmen, not the unemployed, not the pensioners or others. When we look into what she is on about, we find that what she is really on about is condemning the Hawke Government for doing deals between the unions, the business sector and the Government. That is what she condemns. Any agreement between those three sectors of the community is to be condemned, according to Katharine West's new analysis, because, after all, small business people are being left out. Of course, we see part of that further development when we see the complete and utter breakdown of the business sector, and public divisions of the business sector in relation to the dealings with the Liberal Party of Australia. It appears that the big business sector is concerned to sustain the prices and income accord because it knows what that accord has developed. Certain people who put themselves up, like Katharine West, as spokesperson for the small business sector, without having any support from the sector itself, say: `Go ahead and deregulate wages and bring in some of the other nonsensical neo-conservative policies'. That is economic nonsense. It would result in a new deregulated system of wages- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Which would lead to a wages explosion. Madam SPEAKER —I tell the honourable member for Calwell that he should not do that again as he will be pushing me a bit too far. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(7.27) —Talking about nonsense, we heard a substantial degree of nonsense from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). In 1985 I brought to the attention of this House some of the current failings of Telecom Australia within the Fisher electorate and, in particular, the Caboolture area. Tonight, I would like to bring to the notice of the House further inefficiencies of another government monopoly-Australia Post. In particular, I believe this instrumentality needs to develop a more consumer oriented and flexible approach towards the provision of services. It is, after all, a service that many people rely heavily on for business and for news from family and friends. On 22 May 1985, I received a letter advising that Australia Post was refusing to deliver mail to a townhouse development known as `The Groves' at Lawnton, a residential area within my electorate and just a few kilometres from the City of Brisbane. Understandably, the residents were greatly concerned at this shocking dereliction of duty. The letter revealed that the developer had approached Australia Post at the planning stage to inquire about the ruling concerning delivery of mail. He was advised that mail could be delivered where milk and paper deliveries were made. Unfortunately, once the project was completed, Australia Post did an about-face and reneged. It pursued a different policy under which it now claims to be unable to make the promised deliveries to individual letter boxes within the complex. The letter to me ended with an expression of hope that I may be able to help residents receive the same service as other Australian citizens. I then sought the advice of both the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the State Manager for Australia Post. Australia Post was the first to reply to my inquiry, beating by two months the reply of the Minister. Australia Post's reply claimed that there was a need to reassess mail delivery policies due to, and I quote: the changing nature of residential accommodation in Australia. Basically, its policy is that the point of delivery of mail should entail the least possible deviation by delivery staff from the public roadway or footpath. In regard to cluster developments, this policy is: If the delivery point is in a laneway or private access roadway, deliveries are to be made into a suitable box or nest of boxes at the entrance to the laneway or private access roadway; and, where access to a number of premises is from a common driveway, mail will be delivered to a group of boxes at the junction of the access road and the common driveway. That is rather complicated wording and represents a very difficult situation for these constituents of mine. Australia Post also advised that, within this policy, postal deliveries will be made if deliveries of milk and papers are also made, recognising that, if access to the development is allowed to other service organisations, Australia Post will also enter the development. If access to service organisations is denied, Australia Post will deliver to a point at the entrance of the development. At present, notwithstanding the fact that milk and papers are delivered, mail is still not being delivered despite representations being made to Australia Post. In July I received yet another approach from the body corporate of the complex. It appeared that Australia Post had not only implemented the strict policy of not delivering to individual residences-and there will be at least 200 residences in this complex-but also adopted a policy of dropping mail at the sales office. Mail had even been left on the steps of the office, which had on occasion resulted in packages and mail being damaged by the weather. This certainly is not a very satisfactory arrangement, as honourable members would well agree. The fact of the matter is that the town houses are not high-set or multi-storey buildings, and in fact they have easy access for both residents and services. What I would like to know is the reasoning behind Australia Post's continuing refusal to service these town houses. Australia Post seems quite adamant on this point. A high-handed post office official informed a committee from the complex that Australia Post was not compelled to deliver mail to anyone. Mr Hodgman —Shame. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Denison has indicated, it is shameful. According to this official, it is just a service-but it is a very necessary service that is being denied to people. Australia Post has been given a privileged position by this Government. Australia Post insists that it should be the only body able to provide a postal service. If we intend to permit this to continue Australia Post should pull its socks up and provide to my constituents at Lawnton the service which people in other areas of Australia take for granted. It is a national disgrace which I wish to expose in this Parliament. I hope that Australia Post and the Minister for Communications will take on board what I have said and, that the citizens of the Groves townhouse complex will be able to receive an ordinary postal service like other Australians. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(7.32) —In 1987 the Penguin Club of Australia, which is an incorporated body, will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary. Founded on 2 December 1937, it was the brainchild of the late Mrs Jean Ellis. It is a fine organisation that exists as a non-sectarian, non-political and non-profit public speaking club for women. It is designed to assist women by coaching them in how to express themselves clearly, effectively and with confidence in public and in private life. In the almost 50 years since its foundation, this club has helped thousands of women and given them the confidence and ability to take their place in State and Federal government, in local administration, in service and community groups across the nation. Many distinguished women have been members, including Mrs Margaret Whitlam and Lady Court. An excellent illustration of its quiet and effective activities is the `group of the air' meeting held amongst women thousands of kilometres apart in the Northern Territory. This activity is the only one of its kind in the world, and gives women in isolated areas of Australia an opportunity to develop their personal skills. The Penguin Club of Australia will be marking its fiftieth anniversary with a week-long program held simultaneously in all States and will be publishing a biography of its founder. The Penguin Club has also made representations to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to ask whether it would be possible for it to be granted a commemorative stamp some time in 1987. I was pleased to support the Penguin Club's approach to the Prime Minister and wrote to him to this effect on 8 March last year. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) replied on 9 May advising that the Penguin Club fell within the guidelines for consideration and that Australia Post would reply in due course directly to the club. On 14 August of the same year the General Manager (Marketing) Australia Post advised the Federal organiser that a place amongst the commemorative stamps would not be available to the Penguin Club. The club consequently asked that its anniversary be commemorated with a pre-stamped envelope. I again wrote to the Minister for Communications to support this request. On 21 January this year I was advised that the club's application had been unsuccessful. I am aware that there are only a limited number of stamps and pre-stamped envelopes available for commemorative purposes in any year, including 1987. However, I sincerely ask the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is now at the Table, to convey to his colleague the Minister for Communications my request that the matter be reviewed. The Penguin Club has done a marvellous job in the past and continues to do so. That is well worth honouring in its fiftieth anniversary year in the manner I have suggested. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(7.37) —Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your election. There are many in this chamber who are very pleased to see you in the chair. I wish to comment this evening on the election held last Saturday in Western Australia, and I know that many people present will have studied its outcome quite closely. I raise three matters in that context. First, it is clear that in terms of metropolitan seats it was an endorsement of the performance of the Burke Government. It is important to recognise that that Government has performed very substantially at the economic level. One issue which it has been successful in addressing is the question of co-operative management in Western Australia. The Western Australian Development Corporation has shown great ability to harness private capital and some public initiative in addressing many economic issues in that State. I believe that the Western Australian Government deserves a great deal of credit in that connection. There has been a successful partnership between the Western Australian Government and the private sector, and the Burke Government has taken some significant initiatives. The second matter that needs to be addressed is the question of the performance of the Labor Party in rural seats in Western Australia. In the last couple of days a good deal of analysis has been put about on how Labor has done and the impact of rural votes has been canvassed. It is pretty evident that right across Australia in the rural sectors there is concern on the market side among primary producers, particularly those in the wheat industry, as well as on the cost side. The Federal Government is aware of those issues and is addressing them at the moment. We need to interpolate into the debate that the Western Australian Labor Party performed well in the country. If one is to undertake two-party preferred analysis across all the seats one sees a swing to the Labor Party. The two seats that caused Labor some trouble were the seats of Avon and Geraldton. Some seats changed hands among the Opposition parties, particularly following the success of the National Party in taking Liberal seats. The Western Australian Government deserves some credit for addressing the rural problems in Western Australia, and should be given some recognition for the sensitivity with which it has faced those issues. The third issue which needs to be addressed and which has been understated in the context of the Western Australian campaign is the great attention given by the Burke Government, and I might add by the Federal Government, to housing. One area in which the Burke Government has been very successful is in delivering substantially on public housing in Western Australia. Great credit is due to the Western Australian Minister for Housing, the Hon. Keith Wilson, who has taken a sensible and realistic approach to housing needs. The Burke Government has been very successful in that respect. The Federal Government for its part in its first home owners scheme has been able to underpin that housing effort. The Western Australian community was aware of those important issues. We saw in the campaign an attempt to mislead the electorate on land rights in the State. It is important that we place that fact on record. It is important to recognise that we on our side were very happy with the success in the Subiaco electorate, which was won by Dr Carmel Lawrence. Opposition members might also reflect that they themselves have a little to answer for because their candidate, Ross McLean, who will be known to some people here, missed out. Brian Burke has also echoed the fact that the Liberal Party has to address the reasons why someone of the calibre of Ross McLean has been shut out of the parliamentary process. The so-called Collins Street clique of the Liberal Party has to address this matter. The electors of Subiaco are blessed in having both a very good member-there is no doubt that Carmel Lawrence is excellent-and also an opponent who one would have thought would have had a seat in Parliament had his party been more representative. To sum up the Western Australian electorate from the point of view of this chamber, I think the people of Western Australia have been afforded sustained, sensible government. The Burke Government campaigned with a sensible policy. It had to address many issues. I believe that we on this side of the House would want to congratulate the Burke Government on its success in establishing sane and responsible policies. However, I believe that we can all learn something from what has taken place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.41) —On Saturday last, Australia's finest Premier, the Hon. Robin Gray, scored a resounding and historic victory in the Tasmanian election. At a time of very great joy in this Parliament, I thought it was appropriate that tonight I should share with my colleagues on both sides of the House some of the joys of the Tasmanian Liberal Government's resounding victory. I am saddened, however, that the numbers of the Hawke socialist Government appear to be somewhat depleted this evening. It is a remarkable achievement in its own right for a government just four years old to be re-elected with an increased vote of 5.5 per cent. But it was the strength and the character of the leadership of the Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, the excellence of the candidates who represented the Liberal Party, and the pragmatic quality of the policies placed before the electors of Tasmania which guaranteed this magnificent victory. Mr Conquest —Excellent. Mr HODGMAN —I acknowledge the support of my honourable colleague from Queensland. I thought it would be appropriate, to give some indication of the devastating and resounding victory of Premier Gray and his Tasmanian Liberal Government, to read out the votes polled by the Australian Labor Party candidates in the five electorates of Tasmania. Being quite impartial in these matters, I will start with the electorate of Bass. In that electorate Peter Rae, a former very distinguished senator from Tasmania, topped the poll with a magnificent vote. The Labor Party vote in Bass was 37.91 per cent. Mr Beale —How much was that? Mr HODGMAN —It was 37.91 per cent, but wait until we get to Denison. I am sure the Parliament would be delighted to know that in the electorate of Braddon, which is so ably represented in this Parliament by my colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), the Liberal Party's group percentage-that is, its percentage of the total vote-was 60.31 per cent, compared with a group percentage for the Australian Labor Party of 34 per cent. Five of the seven seats in Braddon will be won by the Liberal Party. I know that honourable members are anxious to know the position in Franklin. I have a personal interest in Franklin because my brother Peter, a former member of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, decided to stand for that electorate. I am pleased to inform the House that he topped the poll and actually polled more primary votes than the Leader of the Opposition and alternative Premier, the Hon. Ken Wriedt. Modesty prevents me from going further than just pointing out that in the seat of Franklin, a Labor stronghold federally until converted to liberalism by my colleague the little Aussie battler, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the Labor Party received 36.53 per cent. In Lyons, where the star performer was, of course, the finest Premier in Australia, the Hon. Robin Gray, who incidentally polled 19,645 votes, the Liberal Party scored 59.1 per cent of the vote and the Labor Party 37.3 per cent. I come now to Denison. I do not want to overstate the case, but I thought all honourable members would be pleased to note that in the electorate of Denison, which we all know was changed dramatically with the Hawke-Young-Professor Hughes redistribution of 1984, of which I will speak on another occasion, the Labor Party achieved a sensational vote of 31 per cent. That shows that fewer than one in three of the constituents in the electorate of Denison were prepared to vote for the Australian Labor Party. Mr Beale —You must have helped them, Michael. Mr HODGMAN —Modesty prevents me from going into detail but I would simply like to say that the vote in Denison gives me particular pleasure. There we had a magnificent mandate. What was it for? It was for a fine Premier committed to making Tasmania the finest State in the Commonwealth. Madam Speaker, Tasmania might be small but you know from your own life that what we lack in quantity we make up for in quality. We now have the quality State of Australia leading forward into the 1990s and beyond led by the quality Premier of Australia. I do not want to take any more of the time of the House except to thank all those who recognise that in Tasmania we know how to do it. I think that is important. In fact I offer as advice to my colleagues in the chamber to just have a look at good, honest, pragmatic politics, to take the bit in their teeth and do as Robin Gray has done in Tasmania. Tasmania leads this nation. We have the finest State economy in the whole of the Commonwealth and we are going from strength to strength. The people on the north island should beware as Tasmania is on the march and we will damn well overtake them. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(7.46) —Madam Speaker, I also take this opportunity of warmly congratulating you on your election to your important office. A number of the contributions in tonight's adjournment debate have concerned election results so I propose also to make some brief comments about the Western Australian election results and to follow up some remarks about the Tasmanian election results because, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has remarked, the results in Tasmania were remarkable. There was a swing of almost 6 per cent to the State Liberal Government but, in my mind, I suppose the most remarkable factor about that result is that the Federal Liberal Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) never put his foot in Tasmania, and that is because Premier Robin Gray would not let him. If we look at the results in, say, South Australia or Western Australia where there was a contribution by the Leader of the Opposition and we compare those with the results in Tasmania where he did not set foot because he was not wanted, we see a decreased vote for the Liberal Party of Australia. I just wanted to make that remark but I also want to make some remarks about the Western Australian election because an enormous amount of information which is not factual has been reported in the Press and in this House concerning the results in that State and particularly concerning the vote of the Labor Government in rural areas. I want to make it clear at the outset that the overall Labor primary vote in Western Australia was 53.4 per cent and that was an increase of 0.2 per cent on 1983. By contrast, in total percentage terms, the Liberal vote dropped 2.1 per cent. In metropolitan Perth the major parties vote was unchanged but the real kick in the shins for the Liberals emerged in the primary producer areas of the State where their vote dropped by a massive 10 per cent. That has not been widely reported in the Press and, of course, it has not been widely mentioned in this House. It has not been widely mentioned because it is extremely embarrassing to the Liberal Opposition. I just repeat that, in the primary producer areas of Western Australia, the Liberal vote dropped by a massive 10 per cent. As for the Labor vote in those areas, I think it is worth pointing out that that vote actually increased in farm belt areas by 0.3 per cent. That fact alone gives a complete lie to the assertions that have been made that there was some kind of rural backlash against Labor in Western Australia. The only real backlash that occurred in those elections was against the Liberals whose vote declined from 56 per cent in 1983 to 46 per cent in this election. I just want to conclude by saying that the other great myth which is being perpetrated by the National Party of Australia in this place is that there was a big swing to the National Party in the Western Australian election. I point out that the National Party vote across the State increased by about 1.8 per cent. Although it is true to say that the Nationals in Western Australia hold six seats it needs to be emphasised that five of the six seats are held purely because of Labor Party preferences. In summary, the Western Australia result obviously was a very good result for the Labor Party and Premier Brian Burke. I think it will go down in history as the substantive beginning of the end for the Liberal Party throughout Australia. It was a decimating result for it. That Party's vote was down by 10 per cent. When we look through the policies which the Liberals are offering people in rural areas that is no wonder. I do not have time now to go into its record in government because it would take 10 or 15 minutes to list and detail all of its failures. Needless to say, I can repeat and emphasise that under the Fraser Government farm costs increased by an average of 13 per cent. Those costs have increased by a rate of 7 per cent under this Government. As we look to the future, because no government should ever stand on its record or look to the past, we see that it is no wonder that people in rural areas are not interested in the policies of the Liberal Party. One of the main planks of the Liberal Party election policy in 1984 was income splitting. That was to be at a cost to the revenue of $2 1/2 billion. Genuine farmers who already have access to income splitting ought to ask themselves what sort of benefit they would get out of that policy of the Liberals. The answer is that they would get none, because it is a policy aimed fairly and squarely at middle class, suburban Australia. One of the other policy features of the Liberal Party was to abolish the tax on lump sum superannuation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(7.53) —Madam Speaker, may I, as have previous speakers tonight and yesterday, extend my congratulations on your elevation to what we know is the most important role here in the chamber. May I say that we look forward to many wise decisions from the Chair-decisions which are both fair and equitable to all members in the chamber. Last Thursday the town of Cowra, which happens to be very fortunately placed in the electorate of Gilmore, was graced by a visit from no less a person than the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke). The visit to Cowra by the Prime Minister was done without any prior announcement. In fact, it was done in secret. Normally, as would be the case with a visit from the Prime Minister to a town such as Cowra, a gala day would be called-crowds would gather prepared to welcome the Prime Minister. That was not the case. The Prime Minister was visiting rural Australia. He was doing it in secret, but he was also doing it in the company of a television crew from one of the Sydney television stations in order to record every moment of his visit. The reason the Prime Minister did not make an announcement of his visit was not because he does not like crowds, not because he does not like meeting people or even that he did not want to see some of the many splendid features of the town of Cowra. The Prime Minister did not announce his visit to that town, and indeed earlier in the day to another town, Moree, because he knew that if he did announce his visit it would be marred by a large and hostile crowd greeting him with placards and cries of `shame' and `disgrace' for the disastrous Government which he is the Leader of in this country. This is the government which is placing rural Australia in the deepest crisis it has ever been in. We have heard many speakers tonight talk about election results. We have heard the claim that the Western Australian election result was a good result for the Labor Government in Western Australia. However, I think that the Prime Minister and members of the Labor Government know that the message sent from Western Australia to the Federal Labor Party here in Canberra was that the bush is sick and tired of the policies of the Labor Government, that the bush recognises that the policies of this Government are causing the very demise of what was once our proudest and strongest industry. The very message that people in the town of Cowra and surrounding district would have given to the Prime Minister if he had made an announcement of his visit would have been that petrol prices are cruelling the agricultural industries in Australia. Right around the world oil prices are falling-in many cases they are falling by half. Agricultural producers in other countries-these are countries our own agricultural producers have to compete with on the world market-are now enjoying the benefits of reduced fuel prices. However, it is not so here in Australia. In the last three or four weeks in Young, just 30 or 40 miles away from Cowra, the price of fuel has not decreased; it has increased by nearly 2c a litre. Three separate price increases in three weeks have added 2c a litre to the price that motorists in the south-western portion of New South Wales have to pay and farmers have to pay-a burden that is further adding to the crippling situation in rural Australia at the moment. The Prime Minister has stated that he is very reluctant to pass on these reduced fuel prices to Australian motorists and Australian agricultural producers. But if the Prime Minister were to allow these reduced fuel prices to be passed on to Australian agriculture people who happened to be unfortunate enough to be wheat and beef producers, we would find that they would benefit immediately by $1,930 as a result. The average motorist would pay $160 a year less for his petrol than he currently does. It has been brought to my attention that the average price of petrol in Cowra is 61.9c per litre. The average retail price of petrol in Sydney is 51.9c a litre. This Government is allowing the fuel companies to have fuel price wars in Sydney and the people who are paying for it are the rural consumers of petrol in towns such as Cowra, Young or any other town in the electorate of Gilmore. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(7.57) —I rise to take up a few of the issues that have been raised, particularly the issues raised by our colleague from the National Party of Australia who has just sat down. He spoke of a visit by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to a couple of country areas. The Prime Minister's action in going to those areas unannounced was very sensible because today in Australia we have a very distorted view as to what is actually going on in country areas. Over the last few weeks in my electorate there was one of these so-called new demonstrations of what would happen in country areas by a small business group and some farmer groups were out to show the Government that people were concerned. They organised and advertised the demonstration. The Age rang me and said it and all the media were coming. The big demonstration took place. There was a tractor, an effigy of me hanging from the yardarm and an effigy of Hawke. And a whole 15 people turned up! That was a very amazing outcome. The problem behind this is that the National Party of Australia, on the one hand, is trying to get control of country electorates which it is losing and the Liberal Party of Australia, on the other hand, very often through the National Farmers Federation, is taking over the mantle that the National Party believes is its. All the time we in the Australian Labor Party are winning more seats. We hold more rural seats than the Liberal and National parties, and we hold them by better margins. They are concerned that the committee in the Labor Party, with 22 members is much stronger than they can muster. The situation is quite clear. We have this difference of opinion from what is supposed to be a coalition. We have seen it tonight from some of the figures that have been mentioned. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) talked about Tasmania. We know that the man whom he warned and who sits in the front seat and leads the Opposition was not allowed to go to his State. Maybe the message tonight from the honourable member for Denison was not to the Labor Party or to the public but to the leadership of his Party. It is quite clear that when the Prime Minister has to speak people in the country want to get their message across, but very often their spokespersons do exactly what they did in my electorate. Twelve months ago when this Government tried to put through legislation to deregulate some of the problems in the dairy industry the same people organised a massive so-called demonstration against the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Fifteen or 16 of them kicked cars and made a fuss. Television played it up. Six months later the very same farmers at their own State conference voted to support the Kerin plan and the dairy industry. The farmers had to get out of their own conference and tell their National Party Leaders: `Lay off fellows. You are on the wrong tram. We want some de-regulation of those industries'. Where is the problem here? We have one section, the honourable member for Denison and the National Party, one side. They do not know what their policies are but we do. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.00 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Hayden to move- That the House take note of the statement relating to foreign policy made in the House by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 November 1985. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 12 February 1986: Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1986/1-Part-time holders of public offices on the Committee to review Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 404) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What have been the tonnages of (a) beef, (b) mutton, (C) lamb and (d) other meat products, imported during each of the last five years and from where do the imports come. (2) What has been the value of these imports. (3) What trade barriers prevail to protect Australia's meat industries. (4) What limitations are placed by other countries on the export of Australian meat or meat products. Mr Kerin —Further to the answer to the honourable member's question which was published on 15 May 1985 in Daily Hansard on page 2494, I have now been advised of amendments to some of the statistics relating to meat imports. The updated/corrected statistics are attached in Tables 1 to 4: Table 1 BEEF IMPORTS-TONNAGE AND VALUE Country of origin 1979-80 Quantity Value 1980-81 Quantity Value 1981-82 Quantity Value 1982-83 Quantity Value 1983-84 Quantity Value (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) New Zealand... 1,501.7 4,039.9 2,176.2 5,867.7 1,646.5 4,009.9 3,583.5 9,489.8 1,788.8 5,021.1 Singapore... . . . . 2.9 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Total... 1,501.7 4,039.9 2,179.1 5,876.1 1,646.5 4,009.9 3,583.5 9,489.9 1,788.8 5,021.1 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Import Statistics, AICC items, 011.11.00 and 011.12.00. NB: Totals may not add due to rounding. Re-imports are excluded. Table 2 MUTTON IMPORTS-TONNAGE AND VALUE Country of origin 1979-80 Quantity Value 1980-81 Quantity Value 1981-82 Quantity Value 1982-83* Quantity Value 1983-84* Quantity Value (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) New Zealand... 0.8 1.0 . . . . 81.4 64.0 445.3 421.9 3,465.5 2,488.4 Total... 0.8 1.0 . . . . 81.4 64.0 445.3 421.9 3,465.5 2,488.4 * Includes imports of lamb. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Import Statistics, AICC items, 011.20.00 and 011.20.05. NB: Totals may not add due to rounding. Re-imports are excluded. Table 3 LAMB IMPORTS-TONNAGE AND VALUE Country of origin 1979-80 Quantity Value 1980-81 Quantity Value 1981-82 Quantity Value 1982-83* Quantity Value 1983-84* Quantity Value (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) New Zealand... 6.5 11.9 15.5 3.1 0.2 0.4 . . . . . . . . Total... 6.5 11.9 15.5 3.1 0.2 0.4 . . . . . . . . * Lamb imports for the period not separately recorded but are included in mutton import figures. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Import Statistics, AICC item 011.20.01. NB: Totals may not add due to rounding. Re-imports are excluded. Table 4 OTHER MEAT PRODUCTS IMPORTS-TONNAGE AND VALUE Country of origin 1979-80 Quantity Value 1980-81 Quantity Value 1981-82 Quantity Value 1982-83 Quantity Value 1983-84 Quantity Value (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) (tonnes) (A$'000) New Zealand... 103.3 263.3 37.5 207.2 64.8 446.3 122.4 724.8 239.8 1 028.7 India... 86.9 180.3 5.4 11.5 24.2 70.2 31.1 138.3 0.3 0.3 USA... 66.2 109.3 21.2 29.2 2.8 10.1 59.8 177.4 11.3 30.7 Yugoslavia... 428.1 903.9 324.4 652.7 659.8 1 744.1 109.4 230.5 177.6 427.8 China... 91.9 119.0 39.7 38.2 30.1 37.9 16.4 39.5 98.0 161.0 Japan... 85.9 54.2 11.2 62.3 7.9 36.1 14.1 79.9 13.0 70.3 France... 2.7 48.4 4.4 52.8 10.2 98.0 19.0 140.4 13.2 116.5 Fed Rep Germany... 7.9 17.1 11.6 43.0 11.6 54.9 59.4 187.9 58.0 220.2 Hong Kong... 9.9 14.2 0.7 1.9 4.4 2.8 0.1 2.0 9.2 9.3 Switzerland... 12.4 24.3 11.9 28.4 10.4 24.6 7.4 21.8 19.0 76.7 United Kingdom... 677.1 1 297.1 207.7 499.1 363.0 733.4 474.7 1 049.0 652.7 1 504.7 Romania... 309.1 862.6 321.7 907.7 455.8 1 637.4 . . . . 52.2 163.0 Singapore... 4.4 8.8 4.6 11.5 3.3 10.5 10.1 32.2 10.0 28.0 Denmark... 48.6 149.7 62.2 188.9 . . . . 13.5 27.9 293.1 686.0 Hungary... 36.3 57.3 22.7 54.0 18.3 30.1 12.6 27.3 14.8 27.2 Italy... 482.9 730.8 38.7 147.5 68.7 162.3 144.0 300.0 71.2 294.0 Malaysia... 1.5 3.3 0.2 0.7 . . . . 2.0 4.1 15.0 41.9 Canada... 29.8 50.4 248.4 862.5 132.0 393.8 36.6 89.8 37.6 97.5 Norway... 44.7 74.8 19.4 37.0 26.2 53.0 31.2 95.9 44.5 111.3 Brazil... . . . . . . . . 142.2 442.7 325.5 906.4 310.0 697.4 Spain... . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.7 183.1 0.2 0.3 Israel... . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.5 153.6 0.3 1.1 Bangladesh... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 32.3 Ireland... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161.4 483.0 Other countries... 2.0 10.9 0.2 2.5 11.5 29.6 0.7 5.3 2.8 4.5 Total... 2 531.7 4 980.3 1 393.8 3 838.3 2 047.2 6 017.9 1 599.1 4 617.5 2 311.4 6 313.8 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Import Statistics, AICC items 011.60.00 to 014.90.39 inclusive, excluding item 014.10.09 (fish extracts) NB Totals may not add due to rounding Re-imports are excluded (Question No. 850) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 April 1985: (1) Is he able to say what the NATO standards are which constrain activities which may be carried out in proximity to Army ammunitions dumps. (2) What are the legal or administrative procedures which are used to enforce this standard. (3) At which locations in Australia is this standard currently being applied. (4) Are there schools and other public institutions within these NATO zones; if so, where and how many. (5) Is there public or private housing within these zones; if so, where and what amount. (6) What is the estimated cost of removing the activities which currently occur within these zones. (7) Since the adoption of the standard by Australia have any new structures of either a public or private nature of a substantial kind been constructed within a zone and what is the estimated value of these constructions. (8) Has a time been set for the total compliance with the NATO zoning and what moves are envisaged to move towards this compliance. (9) Is there any danger to persons who may be living, working or gathering within the NATO zoning before this compliance and what steps does the Commonwealth propose to take to safeguard their safety. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Department of Defence has adopted as guidelines the NATO Principles which set down recommended quantity/distance requirements in relation to the storage of ammunition and explosives. The Principles are included in the UK Explosives Storage and Transport Committee's D/ESTC/10 series of leaflets. Leaflet 5 details the Quantity/Distance Tables that form the basis of the Australian policy. The guidelines supersede the explosives classification system which dealt with Safety Distance Categories, Government Explosives Groups and Fire Fighting Classes. The prescribed quantity/distance is related to the density of the population in the vicinity of the explosives storage area. The quantity of explosive ordnance stored is varied to the extent practicable to achieve the recommended requirements of the NATO Principles. (2) The policy and procedures are promulgated in Defence Instructions (General) SUP 20-1 of 4 May 1981, SUP 20-2 of 12 September 1984 and Navy, Army and Air Force instructions. The licensing policies and procedures for Defence explosives storage and handling facilities in respect of the maximum quantity of explosives which may be stored are set out in those instructions. (3) The policy guidelines are applicable to all Defence ammunition and explosives storage areas. (4) and (5) No public institutions or private housing are affected on account of their location within zones established by the NATO principles in proximity to Army ammunition dumps. (6) See answer to (4) and (5) above. (7) No new structures of a substantial kind have been constructed in proximity to Army ammunition dumps since the NATO Principles were adopted. (8) A date by which total Defence compliance with the guidelines can be achieved has not been set. The substantial investment in terms of facilities particularly in the Sydney area built up over many decades, makes it impossible to completely comply with the guidelines and undertake required operational tasks until the relocation of the Navy armament installations outside Sydney. (9) There is obviously a level of risk for personnel engaged in work activities associated with explosives ordnance. The progressive application of the NATO guidelines will not reduce that level of hazard. Where the application of the NATO guidelines would extend the degree of risk beyond Commonwealth controlled land a review of available remedial action is undertaken including the options of adjusting operations or re-locating activities. Following such action a Public Risk Waiver may be sought at Ministerial level. The purpose of seeking a Public Risk Waiver is to permit activities to continue until longer term solutions can be implemented. If a potential problem is recognised involving land use outside the boundaries of property owned or occupied by the Commonwealth, liaison and continuing cooperation with State and Local Government authorities can usually forestall conflict with the NATO guidelines. If a hazard is identified in an area within Commonwealth boundaries, a risk waiver may be issued whilst a pre-determined solution is being introduced. The safeguards in place have operated to provide an acceptable safety history in relation to ordnance depots. That result is in no small measure due to the stringent procedures in ammunition areas to maximise the safety of operatives and others presently employed in adjacent areas. (Question No. 974) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: (1) Does the ABC carry insurance for costs involved in defamation cases; if not, has it obtained quotes from commercial insurers for this insurance. (2) Have costs and awards in 1985 already exceeded $300,000. (3) What proportion of costs consists of legal fees. (4) What action is taken by the ABC to prevent malicious defamation by its employees. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is: (1) Statutory Authorities, if they fall within the Audit Act 1901, are self-insurers. In the case of the ABC, the Corporation has not been prescribed for the purposes of the Audit Act and therefore has the option to either self-insure or insure commercially. In relation to Defamation, although in rare instances some broadcasters and publishers choose to insure commercially, the costs are usually unacceptably high and for this reason the ABC self-insures for defamation actions. (2) Costs and awards for the financial year 1984/85 exceeded $300,000. (3) The ABC has supplied information regarding Defamation Costs and Awards for the period 7.7.84-29.6.85. They are as follows: ABC Costs Other Party $ $ 377,637.23 264,101.00 56,013.10 66,833.33 386,947.43 (awards) (costs) (all inclusive) (4) It is not considered that the ABC publishes malicious defamation. The ABC endeavours to train and educate its reporters in the ABC's legal obligations and in good journalistic practice. (Question No. 1238) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 May 1986: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BETWEEN 1 MARCH 1983 AND 30 JUNE 1985 Name of consultant Purpose of consultancy Details of working plan Cost Date Start Finish Amount over quote $ $ Reserve Bank of Australia (1) Obtaining Advice on Policy Matters etc. D. P. Drayson Perth-Abatement of glare Nil 787 21.1.85 15.3.85 Nil K. Poulten & Co. Perth-Abatement of glare Nil 35 per hour 16.5.85 20.6.85 Nil (2) Carrying Out Research Projects University of Sydney-Professor R. J. Enright Melbourne-Paper dust re waste disposal 2,000 8.5.85 Nil Department of Industrial Relations Melbourne-Fire hazards re waste disposal 865 19.4.84 Nil P.A. Management Systems Pty Ltd Development office systems and management information systems 143,000 (plus expenses) Aug. 1984 . . Nil (5) Work Inside/Part Outside Price Waterhouse Associates Pty Ltd Costing and budgeting Review and report on the development of the Bank's costing and budgeting systems 23,625 plus out of pocket expenses 15 July 1985 Nil Karl Keeps Upgrade Bank's accounting systems Assist Bank in the business and technical analysis of the Bank's financial accounting systems and in developing computer assistance for those accounting systems. $43,197 (to 1.7.85) 2.10.84 1.10.85 Nil Vonaldy Pty Ltd (Dr Leslie Lawrence) Contingency planning To develop contingency plans and procedures to provide computer operations back-up $5,175 (to end-June) 6.11.84 31.12.85 (for a total of 160 hours) Nil Australian Bureau of Statistics DP Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd To train Computer Systems Officers in analysis techniques for developing computer systems Conduct systems analysis training course 5,850 28.3.83 30.3.83 . . Ms Judy Cannon Production of information material to publicise results of Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage Write articles and news releases 150 March 1983 March 1983 . . DP Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd To improve the project management skills of staff involved in computing projects Conduct project management training course 3,900 6.4.83 8.4.83 . . Jean Pascal Communications Production of information material to improve response in selected ABS statistical collections Prepare text of press articles. Design and arrange production of display material, audio-visual aids, in consultation with relevant officers 12,245 April 1983 April 1984 386 DP Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd To improve skills of ADP systems designers Conduct systems design training course 5,850 2.5.83 4.5.83 . . Prof. G. Kalton, Survey Research Centre Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan To improve ABS officers' skills in designing household surveys Conduct workshop with senior ABS officers involved in household survey design 420 23.5.83 25.5.83 . . Kinetic Productions Production of information material to improve response in Northern Territory Retail Census and Transport Industry Survey Prepare text of press articles and outline design for publicity campaign 1,469 May 1983 October 1983 . . Richard Croll and Co. Pty Ltd To improve liaison skills of Senior Executive Service officers in handling television and radio interviews Conduct training sessions in Sydney on media liaison 3,750 May 1983 June 1983 . . Dr C. Forster and Dr C. Hazelhurst (Joint consultancy) To advise on the preparation of, and to write special material for incorporation into the Bicentenary Edition of Yearbook Australia Assess the feasibility of, and research and write, a history of official statistics in Australia, to be the ABS's major contribution to the 1988 Bicentenary Celebrations 65,000 May December 1986 (anticipated) . . Dr R. Wilkins, Western Australia Institute of Technology To improve staff counselling skills of supervisors in ABS Perth Office Conduct counselling workshop for middle management personnel 725 24.6.83 24.6.83 . . Steiner Wilson and Associates To improve leadership skills of supervisors Conduct seminar on leadership skills 1,965 27.6.83 28.6.83 . . D. Paris To improve time management skills of middle and senior management Conduct seminar on time management 525 15.7.83 15.7.83 . . P. von Wolfe Production of information material to publicise results of Motor Vehicle Census, Victoria Prepare text of news release 115 August 1983 August 1983 . . J. D. & J. M. Grigsby, Editorial and Public Relations Services Production of information material to improve response in Census of Private Superannuation Funds, Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage, Household Expenditure Survey, Agricultural Census, 1986 Census (ethnicity question), shipping and air cargo commodity statistics, overseas trade statistics; and production of a draft design/layout for a booklet on the use of statistics by small businesses Write articles, news releases, brochure texts. Arrange placement in media. Advise AHS officers on handling of media and public inquiries and prepare material to assist in this 2,907 August 1983 February 1984 . . Dr I. Lynagh, Lecturer, Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education To improve stress management skills of staff in ABS Brisbane Office Conduct lecture on stress management 279 August 1983 August 1983 . . R.L.S. Starling Pty Ltd Production of information material to improve response in 1982-83 Manufacturing and Mining Censuses Write articles to publication collections in consultation with ABS officers 750 September 1983 October 1983 . . Ms W. Munday Production of information material to launch 1981 Atlas of Population and Housing and promote 1984 Graduate Recruitment Campaign Write articles, arrange placement. Write brochure texts in consultation with recruitment officers 1,424 September 1983 January 1984 . . Keenan Communications Production of information material to improve response in ABS agricultural collections Write copy for display and handouts 115 September 1983 September 1983 . . DP Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd To improve the project management skills of staff involved in computing projects Conduct project management training course. 3,900 31.10.83 2.11.83 . . E. Spratt Production of information material to publicise results of 1981-82 Survey of Foreign Ownership and Control of Mining in Australia Prepare text of news release 231 October 1983 October 1983 . . D. Baker Production of material for a publicity brochure: `How to Use Statistics' Write brochure text. Develop guidelines for a future series of brochure 231 October 1983 October 1983 . . Dr Robyn Penman, Centre for Communication Studies, Canberra College of Advanced Education Evaluation of instructions for interviewers engaged for the 1984 Household Expenditure Survey Provide improved wording for training manual 1,305 October 1983 October 1983 . . Integrated Systems Technology To improve Computer Systems Officers' skills in analysis techniques used in developing computer systems Conduct a systems analysis training course tailored specifically to ABS needs. 3,150 7.11.83 9.11.83 . . Integrated Systems Technology To improve Computer Systems Officers' skills in design techniques used in developing systems Conduct a systems design training course tailored specifically to ABS needs 3,125 21.11.83 23.11.83 . . Aspect Computing Pty Ltd To improve Computer Systems Officers' understanding of complex programming languages, in particular, PL/1 Conduct advanced programming language training course 3,750 21.11.83 25.11.83 . . P. Collins To improve staff counselling skills of supervisors in ABS Brisbane Office Conduct counselling workshop for middle management personnel 605 29.11.83 1.12.83 . . Aspect Computing Pty Ltd To improve management of data storage under the `VSAM' system Conduct advanced software/programming training course 1,000 15.12.83 16.12.83 . . Neville Sloss Public Relations Production of information material to promote the South Australian Year Book, 1983 Write news release, and design and produce brochure and other publicity material. Arrange news conference 808 December 1983 December 1983 . . Keenan Communications Production of information material to promote the Queensland Year Book, 1983 Write and disseminate articles and news releases 721 December 1983 December 1983 . . DP Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd To improve the project management skills of staff involved in computing projects Conduct project management training course 3,985 7.3.84 9.3.84 . . Integrated Systems Technology To improve Computer Systems Officers' skills in analysis techniques used in developing computer systems Conduct a systems analysis training course tailored specifically to ABS needs 2,250 20.3.84 22.3.84 . . Centre for Applied Behavioural Science To improve management skills of senior management personnel in ABS Brisbane Office Conduct management skills course 7,128 23.3.84 25.3.84 2,028 Australian Institute of Management To prepare senior management in ABS Perth Office for Joint Management Review Conduct senior management workshop 600 23.3.84 28.3.84 . . Touche Ross Services Pty To conduct an external and independent Joint Management Review of Management Services in Central and State Offices and Top Management in State Offices To examine and report on the purpose, functions and activities of units providing management services in the Central and State Office of the Bureau, including the appropriateness of structural and functional arrangements for present and future needs, say over the next five years, and the adequacy of support provided for planning and priority setting and corporate decision-making generally 55,359 March 1984 September 1984 . . Ms T. Hardy Production of a brochure on confidentiality of ABS foreign trade statistics Write text, advise on design 241 March 1984 March 1984 . . Integrated Systems Technology To improve computer Systems Officers' skills in design techniques used in developing systems Conduct a systems design training course tailored specifically to ABS needs 2,225 2.4.84 4.4.84 . . Warwick Hamill and Associates To improve supervision skills of officers in ABS Sydney Office Conduct supervision workshop. 1,150 3.4.84 4.4.84 . . Robin Owen Associates Production of a draft brochure explaining ABS household surveys, and preliminary design/layout work for brochure: `How to Use Statistics'. Draft material in liaison with relevant ABS officers 722 April 1984 April 1984 . . Touche Ross Services Pty To examine risks in computer service centre environment. 1. Conduct risk analysis study for the ABS computer installation and its operations. 2. Suggest methods for lessening the risks identified. 80,000 April 1984 24.10.84 13,364 (to cover follow-up work) Executec International To improve time management skills of officers in ABS Sydney Office. Conduct seminar of time management. 900 1.5.84 2.5.84 . . Aspect Computing Pty Ltd To improve Computer Systems Officers' understanding of complex programming languages, in particular PL/1. Conduct advanced programming language training course. 4,500 27.5.84 31.5.84 . . J. D. and J. M. Grigsby Editorial and Public Relations Services Production of information material to improve response in selected ABS statistical collections, including the 1985 Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage, the shipping and air cargo statistical collection, and the agricultural census. Write articles, news releases and other material. Seek media placement. Advise on handing of media and public inquiries. 9,427 May 1984 June 1985 . . Robin Owen Associates Production of information material to improve response in selected ABS statistical collections, including the 1983-84 Manufacturing Census and the 1983-84 Transport Industry Survey. Write articles and news releases. Write and design brochures. Advise on placement in media and dissemination. 13,954 May 1984 June 1985 . . C. Phillips To improve management skills of middle management personnel. Conduct residential workshop with ABS officers. 3,000 9.7.84 13.7.84 . . Peter Quarry To improve management skills of middle management personnel in ABS Melbourne Office. Conduct management skills course. 500 23.7.84 24.7.84 . . Peter Quarry To improve management skills of middle management personnel in ABS Melbourne Office. Conduct management skills course. 500 30.7.84 31.7.84 . . Prof. L. Kish Survey Research Centre Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan To improve skills of officers engaged in application of sampling theory and techniques. Employed essentially as a visiting lecturer. A program of seminars and discussions was drawn up in conjunction with the consultant prior to his visit to the ABS. 752 10.9.84 11.9.84 . . Integrated Systems Technology To improve Computer Systems Officers' skills in analysis techniques used in developing computer systems. Conduct a systems analysis training course tailored specifically to ABS needs. 2,250 17.9.84 19.9.84 . . Software Pty Ltd To improve Computer Systems Officers' command of the `ADABAS' data storage and retrieval system Conduct `ADABAS' training course. 2,750 20.9.84 21.9.84 . . Integrated Systems Technology To improve Computer Systems Officers' skills in design techniques used in developing computer systems. Conduct a system design training course tailored specifically to ABS needs. 2,225 24.9.84 26.9.84 . . Software Pty Ltd To improve Computer Systems Officers' abilities in more advanced uses of the programming language `NATURAL'. Conduct advanced `NATURAL' training course. 3,600 2.10.84 4.10.84 . . Executec International To improve time management skills of officers in ABS Sydney Office. Conduct seminar on time management. 900 3.10.84 5.10.84 . . Personnel and Corporate Training (PACT) To improve leadership skills of officers in ABS Hobart Office. Prepare and conduct half-day leadership course. 100 5.10.84 5.10.84 . . Warwick Hamill and Associates To improve supervision skills of officers in ABS Sydney Office. Conduct supervision workshop. 1,150 13.11.84 14.11.84 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train ABS Sydney Office senior data entry staff in use of new computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 2,000 26.11.84 30.11.84 . . Control Data Australia To improve skills of ABS staff in using the ABS's Cyber 72 computer. Design and present appropriate training course. 2,350 28.11.84 30.11.84 . . Neville Sloss Public Relations Production of information material to promote the South Australian Year Book, 1984 Write news release, and design and produce brochure and other publicity material. Arrange news conference. 500 November 1984 November 1984 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train Computer Systems Officers in use of new computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 800 3.12.84 5.12.84 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To modify existing record formats and produce ABS-specific `housekeeping' programs. Convert nominated ABS record formats under ABS guidance and assist ABS staff as required. 4,000 3.12.84 7.12.84 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train Computer Systems Officers in use of new Computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 1,485 5.12.84 7.12.84 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To modify existing record formats and produce ABS-specific `housekeeping' programs. Convert nominated ABS record formats under ABS guidance and assist ABS staff as required. 3,000 24.12.84 9.1.85 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To modify existing record formats and produce ABS-specific `housekeeping' programs. Convert nominated ABS record formats under ABS guidance and assist ABS staff as required. 6,000 24.12.84 11.1.85 . . Richard Croll and Co. Pty Ltd To improve liaison skills of Senior Executive service officers in handling television and radio interviews. Conduct training sessions in Sydney on media liaison. 900 December 1984 December 1984 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train ABS Brisbane senior data entry staff in use of new computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 5,356 21.1.85 25.1.85 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train ABS Melbourne senior data entry staff in use of new computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 2,405 21.1.85 25.1.85 . . R. P. Wilson Pty Ltd To increase awareness and prevention of repetitive strain injury (RSI) in ABS Hobart Office. Conduct RSI awareness seminar. 100 29.1.85 29.1.85 . . Keenan Communications Production of material to promote the Queensland Year Book, 1984. Write and disseminate news releases and articles. Arrange media interviews for senior ABS officers. 500 January 1985 January 1985 . . Dr D. Rice, Director, United States Centre for Health Statistics To improve skills of ABS staff involved in health statistics. Employed essentially as a visiting lecturer. A program of seminars and discussions was drawn up in conjunction with the consultant prior to her visit to the ABS. 346 11.2.85 11.2.85 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To modify existing record formats and produce ABS-specific `housekeeping' programs. Convert nominated ABS record formats under ABS guidance and assist ABS staff as required. 3,000 11.3.85 25.3.85 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train ABS Hobart senior data entry staff in use of new computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 2,877 20.3.85 24.3.85 . . Rwyth Stukey, Vocational Rehabilitation Service Pty Ltd To provide a specialised occupational therapy service to ABS Melbourne staff suffering from occupational health problems. Design programs to reduce the incidence of occupational health problems and provide on-site ergonomic and occupational therapeutic services. 60 per hour 4 hours per week over a 6 month period commencing on 21.3.85 . . Jim Hurley, Technisearch, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology To improve staff management skills of middle management personnel in ABS Melbourne Office. Conduct residential management course. 2,500 25.3.85 28.3.85 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train ABS Adelaide and Perth senior data entry staff in use of new computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 6,034 25.3.85 29.3.85 . . C. Brammall Production of information material for introduction, by the ABS, of the Harmonised Trade Data Coding/Description System. Draft text for brochure. 190 March 1985 March 1985 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To modify existing record formats and produce ABS-specific `housekeeping' programs. Convert nominated ABS record formats under ABS guidance and assist ABS staff as required. 12,000 1.5.85 12.6.85 . . Nixdorf Computers Pty Ltd To train Computer System Officers in use computer equipment. Conduct training course to provide theoretical and practical training for programmers and supervisors. 625 28.5.85 30.5.85 . . Personnel and Corporate Training (Pact) To improve management skills of supervisors in ABS Hobart Office. Prepare and conduct management training course. 2,275 28.5.85 30.5.85 . . R. L. S. Starling Pty Ltd To obtain an independent evaluation of the usefulness of the Victorian Pocket Year Book, with a view to improving its relevance to public needs. Assess contents of book and suggest inclusions or exclusions aimed at improving its usefulness and appeal. 850 May 1985 May 1985 . . W. Smither, Majura Enterprises To oversight the production and supply of display panels for use in ABS State Offices. Refurbish existing display material. Draft designs for new material. Reproduce additional copies to meet demand for display material in other ABS Offices and at public venues. 7,750 May 1985 June 1985 . . Communication Advisory and Research Enterprises To advise on the design of ABS statistical collection forms. In the first instance, to advise on the design of the forms to be used for the 1985 Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage. Consult with ABS subject matter officers on all aspects of layout, typography and wording of particular questionnaires and associated documents. Prepare final text and specifications. Advise on future requirements. 5,000 (a) May 1985 ongoing . . Dr R. Groves, Survey Research Centre, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan To improve ABS officers' understanding of the use of telephone interviewing in household surveys. Employed essentially as a visiting lecturer. A program of seminars and discussions was drawn up in conjunction with the consultant prior to his visit to the ABS. 938 4.6.85 15.6.85 . . Dr N. A. Thomas To increase awareness of problems associated with repetitive strain injury (RSI), including prevention of RSI and management's role in rehabilitation. Train management and groups at risk in recognising and dealing with RSI, in ABS Perth Office. 450 6.6.85 13.6.85 . . (a) Initial year's fees. NOTE: Except where otherwise stated, training courses, lectures, seminars and workshops were conducted in Canberra. Commissioner of Taxation K. Tasker P. Kemp P. Levick M. Goode M. Grover E. Pragier D. Mavor R. Wilson Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists Occupational physiotherapists To provide, as appropriate individual assessment and recommend courses of action on officers suspected of/and suffering RSI and to report to management on factors in both the physical and non-physical working environment which may be causing or aggravating RSI and to advise management on new developments in RSI detection, treatment and prevention. $50 per hour $50 per hour $50 per hour $50 per hour $50 per hour $50 per hour $50 per hour $50 per hour 2.4.84 26.3.84 12.4.84 9.4.84 26.3.84 30.3.84 26.3.84 30.3.84 to date to date to date to date to date to date to date to date $200 report N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A M. J. Peacock To oversight the preparation of urgently needed legislation. Prepare Health Insurance Levy Legislation. 10,256 6.6.83 30.9.83 N/A R. A. Wilson To advise on and provide training in aspects of criminal investigation procedures 12,809 21.11.83 21.5.84 N/A D. Yerbury To conduct seminars on Management matters and on industrial Relations. Industrial Relations-trends and issues. 2,500 26.2.84 1.3.84 N/A S. Mugford Conduct training courses. Training course on the ATO and the economy 300 14.2.84 15.2.84 N/A N. Norman Conduct training courses. Training course on role of Taxation in Government 500 16.2.84 17.2.84 N/A K. Sims Conduct training courses. Training course re ADP. 5,300 April 84 April 84 N/A T. De Marco Providing specialist advice on A.D.P. problems Provide specialist consultancy services on specific A.D.P. problems 6,900 27.7.83 8.8.83 29.7.83 8.8.83 N/A N/A R. Gibbs Seminars on lifestyle and health. Provide seminar on lifestyle and health. 1,100 2.11.83 3.11.83 N/A J. Inglis Livestock valuation for taxation purposes. Value livestock 300 Sept. 83. Sept. 83 N/A D. Nettleship Management training courses. Provide management training courses. 2,250 7.2.84 28.3.84 8.2.84 28.3.84 N/A N/A W. Hamill Management training courses. Provide management training courses. 2,750 15.9.83 29.9.83 30.3.84 15.9.83 29.9.83 30.3.84 N/A N/A N/A P. Battersby Management training courses. Provide management training courses. 5,200 24.9.83 29.9.83 N/A J. Potts Management training courses. Provide management training courses. 780 14.10.83 9.12.83 14.10.83 9.12.83 N/A N/A P. Walker Management training courses. Provide management training courses. 2,000 6.4.84 8.4.84 N/A B. Sealey To conduct session during Industrial Relations Seminar. Face to face relationships, conflict situations, supervisor/subordinate relationships. 400 29.2.84 29.2.84 N/A V. Taylor To conduct session during Industrial Relations Seminar. Introduction to collective negotiations. 400 28.2.84 28.2.84 N/A J. Brown `Design Resources' Pty Ltd Design of document holders for data processing operators. Design appropriate document holders. 4,000 Oct. 83 Jan. 84 N/A R. Caccioppe Management consultant. Training and development 87.50 13.4.83 15.4.83 13.4.83 15.4.83 N/A N/A R. Prince Management training Program of Effectiveness for areas within Management Branch 3,390 15.6.83 19.6.83 N/A G.J.B. Management Service Pty Ltd J. Hanley, G. Bitomsky and P. Little Seminars on trusts. Provide technical staff with information on legal aspects on Trusts. 3,000 24.1.84 7.3.84 26.1.84 9.3.84 N/A N/A P. Maranta Residential management and human relations workshops Responsibilities of manager in relation to people-development of leadership ability. 1,950 29.5.83 3.6.83 N/A Computer Sciences (Aust) Pty Ltd Examine Technical strategies in ATO ADP strategic plan Examine, report on appropriateness of (b). 80,273.50 19.9.84 14.12.84 1773.50 Koranya K. Petrasek Data Base Management system Provide a definition of data base requirements. Assist in the evaluation of data base products. Implementation of the first application on the new host. Estimate 47,840 22.4.85 No yet completed Est cost not exceeded Koranya M. Pilgrim Data Base Management system Provide a definition of data base requirements. Assist in the evaluation of data base products. Implementation of the first application on the new host. Estimate 47,840 30.4.85 No yet completed Est cost not exceeded P. A. Management Consultants Assist/Manage the efficiency review of the ATO Implementation of major initiatives directly leading to higher rate of revenue collection Estimate 95,000 4.6.85 Not finalised Est cost not exceeded Prime Computer Australia To develop Registry and Compliance information retrieval system Detailed briefing of outcomes expected. 11,008 -.6.84 -.8.84 No Prime Computer Australia Software support services for the Status system. Not available 38,820 -.9.84 -.2.85 No Control Data Australia Provide data transport service including protocol and data stream gateways for existing peripheral equipment. To provide project planning, software development and installation and oversight additional hardware installation. Estimate 200,000 1.12.84 Not yet completed Est cost not exceeded Prime Computer Australia Provide data transport service including protocol and data stream gateways for existing peripheral equipment. To provide project planning, software development and installation and oversight additional hardware installation. Estimate 260,000 1.12.84 Not yet completed Est cost not exceeded Jertom Holdings Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Maintenance of a Data Entry Management System. Preparation, testing, implementation and support of necessary software. Estimate 250,000 Feb 84 Not yet completed Yes 112,400 Control Data Australia To advise on the feasibility of UPS systems for computer systems in Branch Offices. To advise if this equipment is required and if so to provide technical specifications of equipment for use in purchasing documentation. 5,000 7.2.85 23.7.85 No Prime Computer Australia Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Maintenance of Network System extensions for the ATO Preparation, testing, implementation and support of necessary software. Estimated 463,000 9.1.84 Not yet completed Estimated cost exceeded Control Data Australia Preparation of user brief for new computer installation. Provision of technical information as well as sketch drawings of power distribution and proper equipment layout and layout drawings. 11,026 29.10.84 27.11.84 No Control Data Australia Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Maintenance of Operating System Extensions for the Cyber Environment. Preparation of necessary software to utilize the hyperchannel and provide job accounting. 115,517 1.12.83 15.12.84 No Augment Pty Ltd M. Auger Project Management Selection of micro-computing facilities for project management. Selection of suitable ADP system development methodology. Training and assistance of staff on use of selected facilities Estimated 42,065 1.7.84 Not yet completed Estimated cost exceeded P. Kell Executive development Develop objectives. Nil to date 1.5.85 To date N/A P. Battersby Communication seminars. Briefing session with executive 4540 31.7.84 10.10.84 1.8.84 11.10.84 N/A J. Collis Management conference. Briefing session with executive 875.60 16.6.84 16.6.84 N/A Woodhead Assoc. (J. Woodhead) Management conference. Production management program 26,020 13.6.84 29.8.94 N/A F. Guilhaus Improve communication negotiation skills. Briefing session with executive 300 5.11.84 6.5.85 6.11.84 7.5.85 N/A Effective Negotiation Services Negotiation skills workshop. Session leader. 7200 23.7.84 26.7.84 N/A Effective Negotiation Services Negotiation skills workshop. Training course. 7200 6.5.85 9.5.85 N/A S. Mugford Aust. Taxation Office and society. Session leader 350 15.2.85 16.2.85 N/A N. Norman Role of taxation in government and economy. Session leader. 800 20.2.85 20.2.85 N/A S. Mugford Technological and Social Change. Production of Video 350 19.6.85 19.6.85 N/A Capital Territory Health Commission (W. Hare) Stress management. Training course. 700 13.9.84 18.10.85 N/A K. Poulton Advise on lighting in VDU based data entry area. Acceptable lighting criteria. 1,522 27.9.84 4.4.85 N/A R. Caccioppe Management training. Training and development. 88 11.5.84 11.5.84 N/A Disc Internation G. Stacey Project manager services for network implementation. Co-ordinate execution of Software Development tasks. Installation and commission of equipment. Changeover from existing to new network. Estimated 62,400 11.3.85 Not yet completed Estimated cost not exceeded American Communications Consultancy Network Decisions (J. Houde) In House Data communications course. Network design and performance. 5,209 4.3.85 4.3.85 N/A D. P. Education (Seminars) Pty Ltd R. Thomsett Management Seminar. Present critical success factors in managing an information systems effort. 4,895 24.6.85 29.7.85 N/A Parity People Acquisition of additional computing capacity. Determination of the amount of additional computing capacity required, preparation of a `Request for Tender' and associated documentation, Evaluation of responses to the `Request for Tender'. Estimate 111,706 1.7.85 still in progress Estimate not exceeded Aspect Computing Acquisition of additional computing capacity. Determination of the amount of additional computing capacity required. Preparation of a `Request for Tender' and associated documentation. Evaluation of responses to the `Request for Tender'. Estimate 36,903 2.7.85 still in progress Estimate not exceeded R. Owen and Assoc., R. Owen Provide editorial services. Specifically to receive and integrate into an Annual Report format various contributions from Operational areas and to produce introductory sections. 2,400 24.8.84 12.9.84 N/A L. Bloom Research new simpler Tax Return. Produce prototype form-interview respondents-report to ATO. 33,600 18.2.85 10.4.85 N/A Communication Advisory and Research Enterprise (CARE) Provide expertise in Tax form design. Develop appropriate layout and design of new form. 5,000 11.3.85 to date N/A Professor R. Eagleson Provide language expertise for simpler Tax form. Develop plain English form whilst retraining legal content. 6,780 3.8.84 31.1.84 N/A D. Sless Provide expertise in Tax form design. Develop appropriate design logic and layout for new Tax form. 5,310 3.8.84 11.3.84 N/A Commonwealth Banking Corporation J. S. Turnbull Representing Bank on an interbank task force and providing technical advice to Bank's corporate banking division. Working to an interbank brief. 2000 per week 25.3.85 Incomplete Consultancy Agreement Expires 25.9.85 NIL P.A. MGT Consultants Market Survey. Working to an accepted programme. 12,500 May 1985 Incomplete Approx 12 weeks Fixed Quote M. M. Gibbs (Psychologist) Professional advice on implications of extended trading hrs for g/c assessment procedures. (shared cash etc) . . 2hrs x$50 March 1983 Sept 1983 . . M. M. Gibbs (Psychologist) Advise on development and implementation of personel communication programme. (About Change Programme) . . 3000 July 1984 Dec 1984 . . Dr R. Collins (Psychologist) Advise on development and implementation of personnel communication programme. (About Change Programme) . . 6235 July 1984 Dec 1984 . . Coopers & Lybrand Services To research the attitudes of corporate executives to Banks & Banking. Written Terms of Reference GT share of cost 8,337 (Total shared with Corp/Int'l) 2.10.84 22.3.85 NIL International Management Institute Geneva, Switzerland Money Market Seminar. Foreign Exchange Money Market workshop with emphasis on the practicalities of dealing. 29,390 18.2.85 22.2.85 NIL Saatchi & Saatchi, Compton Gough Waterhouse Advertising Written Briefing Merchant & Partners Media Placements Written Briefing 258,714 1.84 Ongoing N/A Media Consultants Pty Ltd Additional expert opinion on press advertising format. Detailed written briefing-statement of objectives. 2,403 7.84 9.84 N/A Mandrake Productions Programme Budgeting and Production of video programmes. . . 1,000 10.84 12.84 . . Film Australia Technical and creative advice on production of video programmes. . . 3,611 8.84 . . . . Westdell Technical advice on video tape distribution. . . 5,000 8.84 2.85 . . Enterprise Marketing Technical/creative advice on design and layout of Bank's monthly staff magazine. On a monthly basis, to prepare design concepts and layouts from brief. 9,700 2.84 Ongoing . . Bottrill, Knight & Associates Media relations and publicity. Purpose is to alert media regarding news releases, press conferences and general publicity. Company hired on pay-as-you-go basis. 20,985 6.84 Ongoing . . Aves Group Pty Ltd Development of `Focussing on Selling Skills' video and accompanying notes. Written specification. Video 117,650 Notes 32,613 5.85 6.85 Video Notes under $12,680 $4,171 quote Film Australia Technical advice on production of videos. On call as required. 2,488 1.85 4.85 . . The Aves Group Pty Ltd Development of `In Focus' Staff Training programmes aimed at improving customer service standards. Written specification. 7,385 9.82 12.83 . . R. Spillane Conducting of `In Focus' training session. Oral briefing. 150 3.83 3.83 . . Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-Credit and Debit Cards. Research brief with objectives. 13,200+ Expenses 759.45 9.83 10.83 . . Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-Attitudes to branch closure (Telephone survey) Research brief with objectives 3,000 -.11.83 -.12.83 . . Consumer Contact Market Research-Youth Market Research brief with objectives 19,800 -.12.83 -.1.84 . . Dangar Research Group Pty Ltd Market Research-Mature Age Market Research brief setting out objectives 22,400+ Expenses 860 -.1.84 -.3.84 . . Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-TV Ads Research brief with objectives 30,950 -.6.84 -.8.84 . . Communicator One Pty Ltd Product Development Research brief with objectives 2,500 -.7.84 -.7.84 . . Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-Electronic Funds Transfer Research brief with objectives 9,930 -.9.84 -.11.84 . . Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-Account Facilities Research brief with objectives 2,360 -.9.84 -.11.84 . . Coopers & Lybrand Services Ltd Market Research-Corporate Banking Attitudes Research brief with objectives 28,388 -.10.84 -.1.85 4,200 Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-Electronic Funds Transfer Research brief with objectives 9,250 -.12.84 -.1.85 . . Bennett Research Pty Ltd Market Research-Product Development Research brief with objectives 7,000 -.12.84 -.1.85 . . Reark Research Pty Ltd Market Research-TV Advertising Research brief with objectives 4,500 -.2.85 -.2.85 . . Bennett Research Pty Ltd Market Research-Branch Promotions Research brief with objectives 1,800 -.2.85 -.3.85 . . Bennett Research Pty Ltd Market Research-TV Advertising Research brief with objectives 3,750 -.4.85 -.6.85 . . Spectrum Research (NSW) Pty Ltd Market Research-Credit Cards Research brief with objectives 39,650+ Expenses 300 -.3.85 -.6.85 . . John Faulkner Management Services Development of `Focussing on Selling Skills' video programmes Written specification 5,500 -.5.85 -.6.85 . . Paul Budde Communication Product Briefing and Training * Training * Product Development * Graphic Design * Marketing briefing 20,750 3,680 4.12.84 1.3.85 1.3.85 29.5.85 1,300 . . The Mast Organisation Staff Training Provide training in negotiation skills 5,400 10.9.84 12.9.84 . . Agrimark Market research into rural finance and banking Syndicated study into farmers' financial and banking requirements 7,000 25.5.83 19.3.84 . . Coopers & Lybrand Services Assist the Bank's Insurance Scheme in determining an appropriate policy for establishing catastrophe reserves and reinsuring catastrophe exposures (i) Outline the general techniques of risk management; (ii) Outline the legal framework within which the Scheme operates; (iii) Assess its solvency and reinsurance requirements; (iv) Make recommendations appropriate to the Scheme 5,000 7.5.84 5.9.84 . . Noble Lowndes International Holdings P/L incorporating Cullen Egan Dell Australia Pty Ltd Provide advice to Corporation Management on appropriateness for the present and future of existing remuneration arrangements * Interview wide cross section of Corporation Management; * Job evaluate work functions and responsibilities of interviewed positions; * Survey attitudes of staff to existing remuneration arrangements; * Compare job evaluated positions for internal relativity and external relativity to consultants' remuneration data bank; * Report findings to senior Corporation Management. 133,759.38 -.8.84 Report rec'd May '85 cont. 15,000 partly due to an increase of staff inter-viewed and need for additional enquiry and invest- igation Mr D. E. Bain Mr M. Brown Dr R. R. Collins Dr K. Davis Mr M. Easson Executive Fitness Lectures Marketing Lectures Management Lectures Industrial Relations Lectures Industrial Relations Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker Verbal guidance and discussion with other marketing consultants Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker Content left to discretion of speaker. Content left to discretion of speaker. 3 courses 760 8 courses 2840 19 courses 12 525 2 courses 800 4 courses 250 Consultants involvement entails tutorial sessions conducted on courses of mainly two weeks' duration. As their commitment is on-going and the lectures given on various courses are repetitive specific dates of start and finish for each individual lecture have not been given Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Mr J. Faulkner Marketing Lectures Verbal guidance and discussion with content determined by speaker 54 courses 27 882 Nil Ms M. M. Gibbs Human Behaviour Lectures Verbal guidance and discussion with Dr R. R. Collins 4 courses 1450 Nil Mr D. J. Gwynne Management and Organisation Theory Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker. 4 courses 3225 Nil Mr W. Hamill Marketing and Time Management Lectures Verbal guidance and discussion with Mr J. Faulkner 29 courses 13 612 Nil Mr G. Hutton Human Behaviour Lectures Verbal guidance and viewing of video tape of session 3 courses 1625 Nil Mr W. A. Jarvis Management Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker 11 courses 13 990 Nil Mr N. Keene Executive Fitness Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker 1 course 120 Nil Mr D. Kehoe Human Behaviour Lectures Verbal guidance and viewing of video tape of session 4 courses 1953 Nil Prof. R. Lansbury Management Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker 2 courses 918 Nil Mr R. O'Leary Marketing Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker 6 courses 2400 Nil Dr P. Saul Human Behaviour and Management Lectures Verbal guidance discussion with Dr R. R. Collins and viewing of video tape of session 16 courses 9585 Nil Mr Z. Sieradski Problem Solving and Self Development Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker. 2 courses 1112 Nil Dr R. M. Spillane Management Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker 38 courses 26 115 Nil Mr V. G. Taylor Industrial Relations Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker. 2 courses 750 Nil Prof D. Yerbury Industrial Relations Lectures Verbal guidance but content left to discretion of speaker 3 courses 900 Nil John Faulkner Development of Marketing and Selling Skills Training Programme for Corporation Staff Australia-wide * Comprehensive needs analysis * Project briefing * Approved course structure * Development of action plan (Management by objectives) concept 358 000 January 1984 June 1985 Nil Warwick Hamill and Associates Development of Course for Promising Young Officers * Project briefing * Programme analysis and design considerations * Report presentation * Tutor training and review 2540 February 1985 June 1985 Nil Classroom Video (John Davis) Training and Development of Bank Employed Video Production Staff Project briefing * On-the-job training two production 2000 March 1985 June 1985 Nil Computer Power Pty Ltd Technical and Educational Support for Development and Implementation of Hogan Computer Systems Direct support in terms of Licence Agreement covering maintenance of Software, Implementation Planning, Education and training and on-going development support. Consultants available to work on a full time or part time basis. 390,659 December 1983 Still in progress . . Arthur Anderssen and Co Provision of regular management assurance reviews A senior Consultant to undertake a regular detailed review of Hogan developments, working with the various Projects managers and submit reports direct to the General Manager, EDP after each review. 69,000 January 1984 Still in progress . . Hogan Systems Inc. 5080 Spectrum Drive, Dallas, Texas, USA Direct technical support and education To carry out regular technical reviews of Hogan developments and to provide on-site education and practical workshop training using expert Hogan educational instructors. 148,970 January 1984 Still in progress . . Arthur Anderssen and Co Confirmation of Computer Hardware requirements and planned development To review strategic planning for computer hardware for 1984 and confirm conclusions were correct. 51,000 October 1983 Dec. 1983 . . Telecom EFT/POS Plan and Implement EFT/POS Network 57,900 22.5.84 5.10.84 . . Telecom Data Communications Planning Define Data Communications plan for next two years. 38,200 19.11.84 30.6.84 . . Telecom PABX National Communications network Feasibility and design re voice network 19,700 30.1.85 26.3.85 . . Arthur Anderssen and Co To modify and install the FDR credit card software package To develop working specifications 733,000 February 1984 30.6.85 303,450 Arthur Anderssen and Co To modify and install the FDR credit card software package To specify functional technical specifications of modifications required 110,000 November 1984 30.6.85 . . DP Education Pty Ltd General consultancy on DP matters including methodologies and presentation of in house training courses in Project Management, Structured Analysis, Structured Design. Consultancy on 1 to 3 day duration 62,425 April 1983 June 1985 (62 days) . . Coopers and Lybrand Development and presentation of Executive Computer Awareness Seminars Initial agreement for development for development and presentation-subsequently extended by further 12 sessions 35,000 July 1984 June 1985 . . Mr A. Majikoff Automatic Tellers Machine traffic flows and management of ATM networks. Designing improved management techniques 36,827 March 1983 October 1984 . . The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has advised that the requested information is not readily available for the Property Department. The Bank is continuously involved in several hundred building projects of various sizes and complexity in respect of its premises throughout Australia, and engages consultants such as architects, quantity surveyors, structural engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers and programme planners. The fee basis is always agreed prior to the engagement of each consultant and strictly adhered to. On the rare occasions when, subsequent to the initial engagement of a consultant there is a significant change to the concept of a project, consideration may be given to renegotiating the fee basis. Royal Australian Mint Consultants engaged between 11 March 1983 and 30 June 1985 Logica Pty Ltd Provide advice on the most appropriate means to introduce ADP based systems at the Mint and the preparation of specifications for these systems Written brief given 22,372 March 84 June 84 . . Logica Pty Ltd Assist in evaluating tenders for the supply of ADP systems Written working plan given 35,380 August 84 January 85 . . Prices Surveillance Authority Consultants engaged between 1 March 1983 and 30 June 1985 Nil Return Department of the Treasury Consultants engaged between 11 March 1983 and 30 June 1985 Koranya Date Base Intelligence Information analysis of Treasury Divisions leading to preparation of an ADP strategy Detailed terms of reference setting out requirement for information model 33,346 4.4.84 15.6.85 . . Northern Computing Services Train ADP Staff in use of application development package Conduct a training course in the use of SPEED II 1,870 20.2.84 23.2.84 . . Northern Computing Services Train ADP Staff in use of application development package Conduct a training course in the use of SPEED II 2,456 21.5.85 24.5.85 . . Ms Di Keddie Reduction of risk of RSI in keyboard-using staff Advise staff on ways to reduce risk of RSI 60/hr 4.6.85 continuing . . Prof. N. Brooks Assist in taxation reform proposals To comment on the draft of the White Paper on taxation reform matters and to advise on specific tax reform issues 32,900 23.5.85 9.8.85 . . Mr K. Sieper Assist in taxation reform proposals To comment on the draft of the White Paper on taxation reform matters and to advise on specific tax reform issues 997 4.4.85 30.6.85 . . Prof. J. Sandford Assist in taxation reform proposals To comment on the draft of the White Paper on taxation reform matters and to advise on specific tax reform issues 230 10.4.85 10.4.85 . . (Question No. 2113) Dr Theophanous asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: In relation to the new programs being implemented by the Minister, what mechanisms is the Minister going to implement to ensure equal access by ethnic communities to those programs. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government is committed to ensuring that mainstream Community Services' programs meet the needs of all Australians irrespective of their ethnic origin. Mechanisms implemented to ensure equal access to new programs are as follows: (1) Community Programs (a) Home and Community Care-The Home and Community Care (HACC) program was announced in the 1984-85 Budget as the Commonwealth Government's initiative to re-structure support for home and community services primarily for the aged and the younger disabled in need of home care services. Mechanisms which will facilitate access by ethnic communities are: Giving priority to the funding of innovative services and encouraging providers to be sensitive to the particular needs of special groups (a recent example of an ethno-specific service is the project financed through the unmatched $10m Commonwealth funds to provide a part-time welfare worker for the Polish community in the Hobart region). Consultative mechanisms, facilitating the involvement of community organisations representing both service providers and users in planning decisions. Development of a comprehensive HACC data base, which will enable both effective planning and efficient utilisation of resources to identify the needs of ethnic and other groups, and work towards meeting these needs. (b) Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP)-The Supported Accommodation Assistance Act was proclaimed on 15 May 1985, and the program commenced operation on 1 January 1985. SAAP aims to provide a range of supported accommodation and related support services to assist men, women, young people and their dependants, who are either permanently homeless or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who need such assistance to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. Mechanisms which will facilitate access by ethnic communities are: Advisory structures set up in each State and Territory to provide advice to the State Welfare Minister and the Commonwealth Minister for Community Services on funding needs and priorities. Ethnic service providers have an input via these mechanisms. The National Guidelines specify that services are not permitted to discriminate against clients or residents. (c) The Department of Community Services administers the Handicapped Persons Assistance Program. A major review of this scheme resulted in a number of recommendations which are presently under consideration by the Government. New program developments will continue to ensure equality of access to ethnic groups. (2) Residential Programs-The Minister for Community Services recently announced Guidelines for the provision of nursing home accommodation for the ethnic aged. The Guidelines will help to ensure that approvals for recurrent funding of nursing homes recognise the special needs of ethnic groups. As part of this initiative, the Minister also announced an allocation of some $4m to be set aside from the capital funds available under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act to provide ethno-specific nursing home accommodation. In addition, existing guidelines for capital funding under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act give special emphasis to facilities (especially hostels) directed towards meeting the needs of ethnic aged. Funding initiatives the Government has taken to date in relation to the institutional care needs of the ethnic aged include: (a) a special initiative in the 1984-85 financial year of an amount of $3m for assistance to particular need groups such as migrants. (b) In 1984 grants were announced totalling approximately $5m for ethno-specific aged persons' accommodation and upgrading of existing accommodation. So far this financial year, grants totalling $1,071,980 have been announced to assist ethnic organisations to provide new accommodation for their aged or assist in the upgrading of existing facilities. (c) An amount of $13.5m was provided in 1984/85 by way of recurrent expenditure for ethnic nursing home accommodation. (d) The establishment of the Office for the Aged to advise on the needs and priorities of aged people in Australia and the likely impact of current and proposed Commonwealth policies and programs upon aged persons and their families, will assist Government to adopt appropriate measures to meet the needs of the ethnic aged. The Office is committed to seeking the views of aged people through close communication with consumer and advocacy groups. The development of a range of consultancy links with organisations representing the interests of ethnic aged people. (3) Child Care-While there are no new programs relating to Children's Services over the three years 1985/86 to 1987/88, the Government is committed to providing 20,000 new child care places under the Children's Services Program (CSP). Under the Children's Services program a planning approach (including statistical analysis and community consultation) is employed to identify the need for children's services, including specific needs of ethnic communities. It is recognised that ethnic communities are not always in a position to avail themselves of standard child care services and assistance may therefore be provided to ethnic based groups to establish child care centres which are open to both ethnic and other children. In addition access and relevance of child care services to ethnic children is actively promoted by the following means: (a) Supplementary Service Grants. Sponsors of child care centres or family day care schemes may apply for a supplementary services grant to cover some or all of the costs incurred in providing the extra programs or facilities to cater for the special developmental or cultural needs of ethnic children. (b) Children's Services Workers. Organisations may apply for all or part of the funds required to employ a children's services worker to assist families of ethnic groups to obtain access to funded services and/or to sensitise services to the needs of ethnic communities. (c) Ethnic Child Care Development Units. Funds are provided for these units to enable them to assist ethnic groups to establish and operate child care services funded under the CSP. (d) Casual Ethnic Worker's Pools. Organisations may apply for assistance with all or part of the costs associated with these pools. The aim of the staff employed in the pools is to make existing services accessible to facilitate communication between parents of ethnic children and staff of the centres. (e) Multicultural Resource Centres. One centre each in Sydney and Melbourne receives a grant to offer an advisory service on multicultural approaches to early childhood education. (Question No. 2123) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) How many government regulations are involved in the production and distribution of (a) a kilogram of butter, (b) a bale of wool, (c) a bottle of wine for domestic consumption and (d) a selection of lamb meat cuts in a supermarket. (2) Can the number of regulations be reduced in each case without affecting the marketing efficiency. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The answers provided to parts 1 (a) to 1 (d) of the question relate primarily to regulations administered within my portfolio. Production and/or distribution of foodstuffs is also regulated by legislation administered by other Commonwealth Ministers e.g. Trade Practices and taxation legislation. Regulation of production and/or distribution of foodstuffs is also a responsibility of State Governments eg in respect of food standards. (a) The following regulations and Ministerial Orders concern the production and distribution of butter for domestic consumption and export: Regulations under the Dairy Produce Act 1924 Dairy Produce Regulations Regulations under the Diary Produce Export Control Act 1924 Dairy Produce Export Control Regulations Dairy Produce Export Control (Banking) Regulations Dairy produce Export Control (Licences) Regulations Regulations under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977 Dairy Industry Stabilization Regulations Regulations under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977 Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Regulations Regulations under the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Regulations Regulations under the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Act 1972 Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Collection Regulations Regulations under the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958 Dairy Produce Research and Sales Promotion Regulations Regulations under the Dairying Industry Act 1962 Dairying Industry Regulations Regulations under the Dairying Research Act 1972 Dairying Research Regulations Regulations under the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962 Processed Milk Products Bounty Regulations Orders made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations of the Export Control Act 1982 Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Dairy Produce Orders (b) The following regulations concern the production and distribution of a bale of wool: Regulations under the Wool Industry Act 1972 (administered by the Minister for Primary Industry) Wool Industry (Apportionment of Wool Tax) Regulations Wool Industry (Sampling Sites) Regulations Wool Industry (Market Support Fund-Refunds) Regulations Regulations under the Customs Act 1901 (administered by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations Regulations under the Wool Tax (Administration) Act 1964 (administered by the Treasurer) Wool Tax (Administration) Regulations (c) There are no regulations within my portfolio concerned with the production and distribution of a bottle of wine for domestic consumption. (d) The following regulations and Ministerial Orders concern the production and distribution of a selection of lamb meat cuts in a supermarket: Regulations under the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 Livestock Slaughter Levy Regulations Regulations under the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Act 1954 Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Regulations Orders made under the Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations of the Meat Inspection Act 1983 which apply in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory Meat Inspection (General) Orders Meat Inspection (New South Wales) Orders Meat Inspection (Australian Capital Territory) Orders. (2) As part of the Government's process of business deregulation, all Commonwealth primary industry legislation is being reviewed on a continuing basis. More specifically, my Department has recently reviewed all existing regulations and is in the process of removing those judged to be no longer cost-effective. These relate primarily to a number of export regulations. In addition the Government currently has before the Parliament legislation which, if enacted, will implement new marketing arrangements to improve marketing efficiency in the dairy industry. Deregulation is an essential element of the proposed new arrangements. As regards the legislative provisions referred to in 1 (a) and 1 (d) above concerning inspection of dairy and meat products, these have been developed in consultation with relevant industry groups and are considered by the Government and the industry groups to be the minimum necessary for ensuring these products are fit for human consumption, export and/or the purpose intended by the processor. (Question No. 2298) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so, (a) who provided the assistance, (b) what payments were made and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Department-(a) Nil. (b) $69,405.39. Australian Bicentennial Authority-(a) $16,184. (b) $37,595. (2) Department-The expenditure was for the engagement of two consultants and for the production of publications. Australian Bicentennial Authority-The expenditure was for salaries of staff employed in public relations work. (3) Department-(a) and (b) (i) Mr R. Lloyd, Consultant-$12,774.24. (ii) Robin Owen and Associates, Consultants-$11,430.00. (c) To provide high level journalistic and public relations expertise for International Youth Year. Australian Bicentennial Authority-No. (Question No. 2339) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 1983-84 Departmental-First Home Owners Scheme, $533,245.83. Home Deposit Assistance Scheme, $15,008.27. Joint Venture for More Affordable Housing $1,672.08. Authorities under Minister's control-Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, $13,130.00. (b) 1984-85 Departmental-First Home Owners Scheme, $69,424.00. Authorities under Minister's control-Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, $18,339.00. (2) Departmental-First Home Owners Scheme/Home Deposit Assistance Scheme-(a) and (b) Housing Policy Division. Joint Venture for More Affordable Housing-(a) Joint Venture Steering Committee (b) Industry Policy Division. Authorities under Minister's control- Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-(a) The Chairman (b) The Chairman. (3) The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of information campaigns, such as those listed above, is determined according to these criteria. (4) The basis of remuneration was work value. (5) Departmental-First Home Owners Scheme, (a) Yes. (b) Yes. Home Deposit Assistance Scheme and Joint Venture for More Affordable Housing, (a) No. (b) No. Authorities under Minister's control-Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, (a) No. (b) No. (Question No. 2376) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: Has Mr John Elliott of Elders-IXL Pty Ltd proposed the establishment of a Soviet dry-dock facility in Western Australia? Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am not aware of any proposal by Mr John Elliott of Elders IXL to establish a Soviet dry-dock facility in Western Australia. However, in August 1984, the Minister for Transport received correspondence from a Mr Herman, Manager Shipping and Commercial, of Elders East Europe (Australia), a division of Elders IXL Ltd, seeking approval in principle to import two floating dry-docks for use in Western Australia. Officers of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce sought a meeting with Elders East Europe to discuss the Shipbuilding policy aspects of the request, however, this meeting never eventuated. On 4 January 1985, the Minister for Transport wrote to Mr Herman asking if he still wished to proceed with the request and as no reply has been received the application has been regarded as lapsed. (Question No. 2401) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Terri- tories, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What are the objectives of the proposed social planning unit to be established within the National Capital Development Commission. (2) What is the projected annual cost of the social planning unit. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Social Planning Section of the National Capital Development Commission was established as part of the Social Planning and Development Branch in March 1985. (1) The objectives of the Social Planning Section are: to broaden the criteria for Commission decision-making to include appropriate social objectives and needs taking into account human activities to foster effective communication and response to community needs and the development of an associated data base identify, assess and where appropriate meet the needs of the ACT community participate in the Commission's planning process, including social impact assessments prepare with other Commission Branches, an integrated needs assessment The establishment of the Section was in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the NCDC that: ``. . . the restructured Commission should develop and implement appropriate structures and methods to ensure that social aspects are given greater prominence in planning, thereby enhancing the Commission's ability in co-operation with welfare organis- ations and community representatives to achieve agreed community goals.'' (2) The Section has four full time staff. The pro- jected annual costs for salaries is approximately $130,000. (Question No. 2446) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) What was the (a) estimated and (b) actual, expenditure by his Department on entertainment and hospitality within Australia for (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) the period 1 July to 30 September 1985? (2) What amount did his Department spend on entertainment and hospitality outside Australia each of those periods. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) $6,200. (ii) $11,000. (iii) $3,000. (b) (i) $6,185. (ii) $9,773. (iii) $2,802. (2) (i) Nil. (ii) $800. (iii) $200. (Question No. 2452) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) How many officers and employees in his Department have been on (a) strike, (b) a go slow or work to regulations campaign, or (c) other restrictive actions in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) the period 1 July to 30 September 1985. (2) How many man hours were lost in each period. (3) Were many officers or employees on strike paid for the strike period. Mr West —The following answer to the honourable member's question has been compiled following a thorough review of departmental records. It reflects the best estimate of persons involved and man-hours lost. (1) (a) (i) 29. (ii) 331. (iii) 22. (b) (i) Nil. (ii) Nil. (iii) Nil. (c) (i) *. (ii) 70. (iii) 3. * Staff working on the Home Deposits Assistance Scheme in the New South Wales, Western Australian and Tasmanian offices imposed bans on ministerial correspondence and processing of Scheme applications on 3-4 January 1984. Because of the nature of the action taken it is not possible to precisely indicate the number of staff involved. (2) (i) 104. (ii) 2391. (iii) 22. (3) There were no payments made to officers or employees engaging in strike action. (Question No. 2457) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: What amount was spent on (a) television and (b) print media advertising by his Department and its instrumentalities in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) the period from 1 July to 30 September 1985? Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Nil. (b) (i) 1983-84, $664,378. (ii) 1984-85, $421,633. (iii) 1 July to 30 September 1985, $123,948. (Question No. 2467) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) What were his Department's (a) rentals, and (b) fitting out costs in (i) 1983-84 and (ii) 1984-85. (2) What are the estimated rentals and fitting out costs for 1985-86. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (i) 1983-84 (ii) 1984-85 (a) Rentals... $5.1m $6.0m (b) Fitting out costs... $0.62m $1.0m (2) Estimated rentals 1985-86-$7.4m. (2) Estimated fitting out costs 1985-86-$2.25m. The rental figures are provided by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and include some estimated figures where accommodation is shared. (Question No. 2500) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Details of grants available to organisations operating in the ACT are set out below. Office of the Status of Women (1) Under the National Consultation and Assistance Program for Women administered by the Office of the Status of Women in my Department, grants will be provided to national women's organisations to meet costs related to administration and activities (operational grants), and to individuals and groups/organisations for `one-off' projects of benefit to women (project grants). Both operational and project grants can be made to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) There is no requirement for an organisation to be incorporated as part of the eligibility criteria for project grant funding. National women's organisations applying for operational grants, however, must be registered or incorporated under relevant State or Territory legislation. The 1985-86 financial year is the first year of funding for the National Consultation and Assistance Program for Women and no grants have yet been made under the Program. The Office of the Status of Women is aware, however, that the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission maintains a register of incorporated ACT organisations and intends to consult that register prior to approving grants to bodies which claim to be incorporated in the ACT. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. Office of Youth Affairs (a) Program of Assistance To Youth Organisations (PAYO) (1) Under PAYO, administered by the Office of Youth Affairs, grants are provided to a number of national youth organisations. Two of the grants made in 1985-86 have been to bodies with executives based in the ACT. (2) At present there is no such requirement existing under PAYO. Virtually all PAYO grantees are, however, incorporated institutions. In assessing grant applications attention is paid to the nature of the proposal and whether incorporation is necessary for a successful outcome. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) Under PAYO, organisations are required to supply statements of expenditure, accounting for the use of funds in one of the following ways: by independent audit statements forming part of the organisation's annual financial accounting, or by independent audit statements separate from the organisation's annual financial accounting, or by separate statements supported by vouchers. The ACT organisations which have been funded in 1985-86 publish annual reports with audited statements of income and expenditure. (b) Youth Services Development Program (YSDP) (1) Under YSDP, money will be provided for documentation and pilot projects, and training initiatives to organisations throughout Australia, including the ACT. (2) Organisations receiving grants for pilot projects and training initiatives are required to be incorporated and must provide evidence of this, e.g. a copy of their constitution. Organisations taking part in the documentation project are not required to be incorporated as this requirement is not seen as desirable or appropriate for this component of the program. Further grants made under the documentation project component are only to offset the costs to organisations of being documented. To date grants have only been made in the ACT under the documentation projects. The first grants for pilot projects and training are expected to be announced early in 1986. (3) No. See (2) above. (4) Not applicable. (5) Organisations will be required to satisfy the regular financial and accounting requirements, i.e. to certify that the purposes and conditions of the grant have been complied with and to supply a statement of expenditure which shows that the grant was used for the purposes for which it was given. This statement is required to be accompanied by an audit certificate given by a qualified public accountant who is not an officer of the sponsor organisation. (c) International Youth Year (IYY) (1) Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have provided funding for IYY projects in 1985. The Commonwealth has provided some financial support to national organisations and to State and Territory Governments. In the ACT, funds have been allocated to the ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee through the Minister for Territories. The ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee is not an organisation, but a Ministerial Advisory Committee. (2) Grants for IYY to organisations in the ACT are provided by the ACT IYY Co-ordinating Committee. (3) Not Applicable. (4) Not Applicable. (5) Not Applicable. The Australian Bicentennial Authority (1) No grants have yet been made to ACT organisations by The Australian Bicentennial Authority. It is currently proposed that in the financial year, 1985/86, grants will be made to ACT organisations through: (a) Local and Regional Bicentennial Heritage Program; and (b) Local and Regional Bicentennial Commissionings Program. These monies are made available through the Commonwealth Government funded National Program of Projects and Events. (2) Yes-for recipients of Heritage grants (see (1) a. above). As part of the terms and conditions of these grants, recipient bodies are required to submit evidence of compliance with the Ordinance. Failure to do so would negate any offers made. No-for recipients of Commissionings grants (see (1) b. above). However, all organisations applying for assistance under this Program must demonstrate the viability of their organisation before payments will be made. (3) No-see (2) above. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (Question No. 2564) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: (1) How many people in nursing homes in the local government areas of (a) Orange, (b) Cabonne, (c) Blayney and (d) Bathurst at 18 November 1985 had their place of residence, before their admission, outside the local government area of their nursing home. (2) How many people in nursing homes in Canowindra are from (a) Cowra, (b) Weddin, (c) Parkes, (d) Forbes and (e) Blayney Shire areas. (3) How many people in Eugowra Hospital nursing home beds are from the local government areas of (a) Parkes, (b) Weddin, (c) Forbes and (d) Cowra. (4) How many people in Bathurst nursing homes are from the local government areas of (a) Oberon, (b) Blayney, (c) Lithgow, (d) Evans, (e) Mudgee and (f) Rylstone. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (4) The information sought by the honourable member is not available from records kept by my department. (Question No. 2581) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Why was the Qantas interline right withdrawn in 1979. (2) What compensatory arrangements were made for passengers affected by the withdrawal of that right and are the arrangements still in place. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The decision to withdraw international passenger interline rights from Qantas in 1979 was taken by the then Government as part of arrangements for the introduction of special Australian domestic fares for use in conjunction with new low international air fares. The effect of the decision was that, while Qantas could continue to carry over Australian domestic sectors those international passengers it had carried into or out of Australia, it could no longer carry passengers brought into or out of Australia by other international carriers. (2) Since 1979, the domestic airlines have introduced a wide range of domestic fares at reduced prices, a number of which are available only to international travellers. As a result, no direct comparison can be made between the situation of today and the situation existing prior to 1979, when international passengers only had the benefit of being able to interline from one international airline to another in the course of a journey to or from Australia. (Question No. 2590) Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Com- munications, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Will overseas surface mail, posted in Australia by the advertised date for Christmas delivery but delayed by the NSW mail sorters' strike which finished in October 1985, be sent by air mail so that it is delivered by Christmas; if so, what will be the additional cost to Australia Post; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: No. Overseas surface mail posted by the advertised dates for pre-Christmas deliveries but delayed by industrial action in Sydney mail centres during October 1985 was forwarded on the first available ships after the industrial action had ceased. Airlifting of the delayed surface mail was not pursued because of the limited spare capacity on international flights during the November/December peak season and the additional transport costs, which would have exceeded $300,000. Instead, in those instances where the ships conveying the mail were not due to arrive at their destination ports until shortly before Christmas Day, the postal administrations concerned were alerted to the situation and asked to expedite the collection and delivery of the mail. Nevertheless, some mail would not have been delivered until after Christmas Day. (Question No. 2667) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) Is it usual for airmail letters posted in Australia to take one month to be delivered to South Africa; if not, what is the usual delivery time. (2) What was the impact of the trade union ban on mail services to South Africa and how many articles were delayed. (3) What action did he take to ensure that Australia Post honoured its contract to deliver mail. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (1) The South African administration does not provide Australia Post with information on the time taken between postmarking in Australia and delivery of airmail letters in South Africa. Based on regular tests conducted by Australia Post on outgoing airmail to a number of other countries, it would be expected that airmail to South Africa normally would be available for processing in that country by the fourth day after posting. (2) The ban by the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (APTU) applied from 21 October 1985 to 14 November 1985, inclusive. During that period, no mails were despatched to South Africa. When the ban was lifted, on 15 November 1985, approximately 110,000 articles of mail to South Africa were on hand. (3) Following implementation of the ban on mails to and from South Africa, Australia Post pursued the matter with the General Secretary of the APTU seeking to have the Union reconsider urgently its position and lift the ban. I publicly supported Australia Post's handling of the matter and also called on the APTU to lift the ban. The Federal Executive of the Union agreed to lift the ban on 15 November 1985. (Question No. 2668) Mr White asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) Is it Government policy to purchase homes in private residential areas for Government Housing. (2) Is he able to say whether the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services has purchased a home in Kaleen, ACT, to house students; if so, is it a fact that (a) the house will be sub-let by the Government to the Secondary Students Association, (b) the Government paid $94,000 for the house, (c) the house was on the market for a considerable length of time and (d) the purchase was recommended to him by the Community Tenancy Scheme Advisory Committee and approved by him. (3) Who are the members of the Community Tenancy Scheme Advisory Committee and who is the departmental representative on the committee. (4) Is it a fact that (a) the house was purchased and transferred to the Commonwealth on 3 July 1985 and (b) no tenants have been located in the house to 20 November 1985; if so, why have tenants not been located in the house and has rent been paid for this period. (5) Who will be responsible for the maintenance and up keep of the house and where will the finance for the maintenance come from. (6) How many students will occupy the house at any one time and for what period will the lease run. (7) What age will the students who occupy the house be and who will be responsible for their supervision. (8) Will both male and female students occupy the house at the same time. (9) How many similar purchases are planned by the Community Tenancy Scheme Advisory Committee and in what suburbs. (10) What action can the Government take if the terms of the lease are not adhered to. (11) Is the house located in an area where previous buyers were informed no Government housing was to be placed; if so, is this consistent with Government policy. (12) Will local residents be advised if housing is to be purchased for group housing. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Government does administer programs under which private dwellings may be purchased for government use. (2) The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services did not purchase the house in Kaleen; it was purchased by my Department under the Community Tenancy Scheme. (a) Yes, the house has been sublet to the Post Secondary Students Association. (b) $94,400 was paid for the house. (c) The length of time for which the house was on the market is unknown. (d) Yes. (3) The Community Tenancy Scheme Committee consisted of representatives of the following organisations and groups: Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of Disabled. Council on the Ageing. Youth Accommodation Group. Australian National University Students Association. Council of Social Service of the A.C.T. Shelter. Migrant Resource Centre. Womens Services. The Department was represented by an officer of Housing Branch. (4) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. This was the first house purchased under the program and the delay in occupancy of the house was due in part to the drafting of a lease that was appropriate to the tenancy arrangements under the Scheme, and due also to the Post Secondary Students Association's desire to obtain suitable tenants. After the lease was signed the association was given a period of grace during which no rent was payable while they found tenants. Occupants moved into the house on 24 November 1985 and rent has been paid since that date. (5) The Post Secondary Students Association will be responsible for the routine maintenance and upkeep of the house. (6) The Acknowledgement of Tenancy provides for no more than six students to be resident in the house at any one time. The lease will run for as long as the Post Secondary Students Association complies with its terms. (7) and (8) These are matters for the Post Secondary Students Association to decide upon. (9) Funds were not provided for the Community Tenancy Scheme in 1985/86 and the Scheme has ceased to operate. (10) The tenancy will be terminated and the house returned to general rental stock. (11) At the time that buyers purchased the land; they would have been able to ascertain that the National Capital Development Commission had no intention of constructing government dwellings in that area and in fact no government dwellings were constructed. However residential zoning does not establish any distinction between government and private dwellings and there has never been any barrier to the acquisition of privately constructed dwellings for government use in the area. (12) The Department exercises considerable care to ensure that as far as possible, government owned facilities are located so as to minimise disruption to their neighbourhood. Consultation with residents is however, undertaken if it appears that the location of a particular facility in an established area could have a specific impact on that area. Under normal circumstances the Department does not see that there are any qualitative differences between a house occupied by a group and one occupied by a family; which would warrant such consultation. (Question No. 2698) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) A.C.T. Shelter, (d) A.C.T. Squatters Union, (e) A.C.T. Youth Accommodation Group, (f) A.C.T. Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the A.C.T. Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Not directly. However, an annual Grant-in-Aid is provided to National Shelter. The national body promotes consumer participation in the development of national housing policies and co-ordinates the work of State organisations. During 1984-85 the Grant-in-Aid was $35,000 and out of this National Shelter made available an amount of $300 to ACT Shelter to help fund housing seminars and related educational material. (3) No. (4) The Grant-in-Aid to National Shelter is con- ditional on the submission of an annual audited statement of accounts and a commitment to use the funds for the intended purposes. (5) No. I am advised that all of the funds provided by National Shelter to ACT Shelter were used for the approved purposes of housing seminars and educational material. (6) National Shelter is an entirely voluntary organ- isation. It represents mainly low income earners and disadvantaged persons and has very limited capacity to obtain funds from its membership. Its state organisations have, however, received some financial assistance from State Governments. (7) National Shelter will be applying for a grant-in-aid in 1986-87. Checks are made on each year's Grant when the audited statements are received. (Question No. 2755) Mr Hodgman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Sun-Herald of 17 November 1985 in which it is stated that a senior Minister recently told a meeting of Sydney businessmen that the Government may have to seek a further deferral of the proposed productivity case following dramatic worsening of the balance of payments and the dollar's decline. (2) Is he able to say whether the senior Minister also said that this would be the most likely initial action to help bring the labour cost structure into line by renegotiating the Prices and Incomes Accord. (3) Was the senior Minister quoted in the article the Minister for Finance; if so, do the remarks of the Minister for Finance represent Government policy. (4) Are the remarks of the Minister for Finance consistent with statements on the subject by the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; if not, what action does he propose to take to reconcile the differing statements. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Not other than as a result of the honourable member's question. (2) No. (3) and (4) See (1) and (2) above. (Question No. 2813) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Communications participates in the Public Service Board's Clerk (Aboriginal Services) and Clerical Assistance (Aboriginal Services) recruitment schemes. The Department's 1985-86 Equal Employment Opportunity Plan expresses concern at the low levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation within the Department and includes two programs specifically related to their recruitment and retention. (2) At 30 November 1985, two members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population were employed by the Department of Communications, and at 31 March 1983, one was employed. (Question No. 2884) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) When were statistics on the level of foreign ownership of particular sectors of the economy first tabulated and have they been continually compiled and made publicly available since that time. (2) What is the level of foreign ownership in percentage terms in the (a) manufacturing industry, (b) service industries, (c) primary production, (d) real estate holdings in central business districts of the capital cities of Australian States and Territories and (e) mining industry, within Australia. (3) What are the comparative figures in percentage terms for the industries in part (2) at (a) December 1972, (b) December 1975, (c) March 1983 and (d) November 1985. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Official statistics on the level of foreign ownership of particular sectors of the economy were first compiled in the 1960s when the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conducted studies on foreign participation in Australian industry. Statistics on foreign ownership and control in the manufacturing industry were published for the years 1962-63 and 1966-67, and on the mining industry for each of the years 1963 to 1968. This program of studies ceased in 1971. Studies of foreign ownership and control resumed in 1973 and continued until 1978, when an assessment of relative priorities within the ABS again led to their discontinuation. During this period statistics were produced more or less continuously (twenty publications in all) for a range of industries, primarily the mining, manufacturing, finance and insurance industries. The studies were reinstituted in 1982 at the request of the government of the day. Statistical information from these studies in respect of the following industries or economic activities has thus far been published: the mining, manufacturing, agricultural, life insurance and general insurance industries; registered financial corporations; and new fixed capital expenditure by private businesses in Australia Current publications are listed in the ABS ``Catalogue of Publications, 1986'' and these, as well as earlier publications, are publicly available. (2) Of the industries specified, information relating to the level of foreign ownership is available only for the manufacturing and mining industries, and for agricultural activity (statistics are not compiled for all primary production). The latest available figures are as follows: (i) Manufacturing industry: 32.9 per cent based on value added, for 1982-83. (ii) Mining industry: 50.4 per cent based on value added, for 1982-83. (iii) Agricultural activity: 1.8 per cent based on gross value of agricultural commodities produced, for 1983-84. (3) The only comparative figures available (relating to the manufacturing and mining industries) are shown below. (i) Manufacturing industry: 31.2 per cent based on value added, for 1972-73. (ii) Mining industry: 48.7 per cent based on value added, for 1971-72. (iii) Mining industry: 51.8 per cent based on value added, for 1974-75. (iv) As detailed in part (2) above. (Question No. 2904) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What is the current status of negotiations in relation to the Cyprus problem. (2) What role has Australia been able to play as a member of the Commonwealth Action Group to encourage negotiations between the parties. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Secretary-General of the United Nations is continuing his mediation mission on the Cyprus question. He is in contact with both sides in an attempt to reach agreement on proposals to settle the problems between the two communities of Cyprus. Representatives of the Secretary-General met officials of the Turkish Cypriot side in London on 18-19 November and the Greek Cypriot side in Geneva on 30 November-1 December. A further round of discussions is expected to take place early in the new year. The Australian Government is giving the Secretary-General its full support. (2) Australia has participated in the Commonwealth Action Group (CAG) on Cyprus. The CAG fully supports the Secretary-General's proposals and efforts to bring both sides to negotiations as the best prospect for resolution of the dispute. Australia's longstanding and active concern for a solution to the complicated tragedy of Cyprus is well known, and is demonstrated not only by the Government's participation in the CAG but also by the contribution to UNFICYP. Australia has consistently upheld the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic and has given its support to the search for a just and durable settlement. It will continue to do so in the expectation that all parties will exercise restraint, moderation and flexibility. Australia supports negotiations and dialogue in the search for an early settlement. (Question No. 2936) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What is the estimated time to double the available housing stocks from the level existing in mid 1984 based on the estimated level of expenditure by the States and the Commonwealth on housing in 1985-86. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: If total Commonwealth and State funding for public housing is maintained in real terms in future years, and if the proportion of funds going to public rental housing remains about the same as in 1985-86, and if the standard, style and size of public rental dwellings remains about the same as current practice, it will take about 15 years to double the mid 1984 stock of public dwellings. (Question No. 2937) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Is it a condition of funding to the States under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement that people be given access to public housing regardless of marital status or age? Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The recently renegotiated Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement signed by all State Premiers and the Prime Minister in 1984, states for the first time, that ` . . . housing assistance provided under this agreement will be available to all sections of the community irrespective of age, sex, marital status, race, religion, disability or life situation. However priority in granting assistance shall be determined by the need for assistance.' (Question No. 2947) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Do any privately owned factories manufacture arms and munitions in Australia; if so, which factories. (2) Where is each firm located. (3) What does each firm manufacture. (4) How many people does each firm employ. (5) What were the (a) export earnings (b) domestic earnings and (c) employment levels of each firm each year since 1979. (6) To what countries has each firm sold products and what was the value of the sales. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Commercial firearms and ammunition for target shooting and sporting use are produced by a number of local companies in Australia, for example: Omark (Adelaide), and Norton (Melbourne) produce rifles; Olin Winchester (Geelong), Myra (Broken Hill) and Super Cartridge (Melbourne) produce ammunition for .22'' rifles and/or shotguns. Firearms and ammunition for military purposes are currently produced only in the Government factories. (4), (5) and (6) Export approvals are not required for commercial firearms and ammunition and the Department of Defence has not in the past been required to maintain records on the value and country of destination of private sector exports. No information is available within Defence on employment levels or domestic earnings. (Question No. 2967) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Do either State or Federal tourist information offices exist at all Australia's international airports and major railway and bus terminals. (2) Do all places where such offices exist display foreign language information and signs. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. At present information services are provided where appropriate by State and/or local tourism authorities or in certain cases by private entrepreneurs e.g. Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport-Travellers Information Centre. The types of information facilities provided in part reflect differing perceptions of need both in terms of traveller requirements at particular airports and the most cost effective ways that visitor information needs can be met. Several States have abandoned or curtailed their involvement in providing tourist information offices due to high costs associated with their operation and lack of sufficient public demand. (2) In accordance with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) recommendations the primary form of communication at all airports are standard signs based on easily recognisable symbols for terminal functions. Also in line with ICAO guidelines, it has been determined that choice of languages to be used on airport signboards is determined by the appropriate national or local authorities. Presently the Department of Aviation's policy for Australian airports is that all signs be in English. The provision of information facilities at major railway and bus terminals is considered on the basis of established needs and the availability of adequate resources. (Question No. 2987) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What were the staffing levels and budget of the (a) research and (b) manufacturing functions of Telecom Australia in each of the years since 1979-80. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (a) The actual staffing levels and annual operating costs of Telecom Australia's Research Laboratories from 1979-80 to 1984-85 are tabulated below. Year Staffing Levels Budget $m 1979-80... 498 16.7 1980-81... 498 20.0 1981-82... 488 25.0 1982-83... 480 27.4 1983-84... 495 29.1 1984-85... 510 32.4 (b) Telecom Australia purchases the major part of its telecommunications technical equipment and material from Australian industry. It has Engineering Workshops in each State which are only engaged in manufacturing activities to a small extent as part of their overall activities. (Question No. 2988) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Com- munications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has been taken to recognise and support the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia as the representative council of public broadcasters. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Formal consultation procedures are established under Section 125 D (2) of the Broadcasting Act 1942, by which the Minister is required to consult with the Broadcasting Council in relation to matters generally affecting broadcasting and television in Australia. The interests of public broadcasters are represented on the Broadcasting Council by the Executive Director of the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia (PBAA). The Council meets at approximately two-monthly intervals and is serviced by the Department of Communications. The Public Broadcasting Foundation (PBF) was established in 1984 by the PBAA to raise and disburse funds for the public broadcasting sector. The Board of Directors includes representatives from the PBAA and the Department of Communications. The Government has decided that the Foundation should be responsible for the disbursement of Budget funds for licensed and prospective public broadcasters including aboriginal programming subsidies and grants to encourage ethnic programming on public radio stations. The PBF also seeks to raise additional funds from the private sector. My Department sees the PBAA as the body representing the interests of all public broadcasters. As such it has regular contact with the PBAA on a wide range of matters relating to the development of broadcasting policies and services, particularly those which have direct relevance to public broadcasters. There is also direct contact between myself and the PBAA including meetings with their representatives as appropriate. (Question No. 2991) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Com- munications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has his Department investigated ways of ensuring ratings for television and radio are conducted 52 weeks per year. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The ratings of broadcasting stations are undertaken as a result of commercial arrangements between licensees and survey companies. It is not the responsibility of my Department nor within its power, to intervene to ensure that ratings are conducted throughout the year. (Question No. 3033) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Do (a) the ABC or (b) other sections of the electronic media regularly broadcast programs in Aboriginal or Islander languages to areas where such languages are spoken; if so, what programs have been broadcast during 1985 and on what dates. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Aboriginal Affairs assists Aboriginal broadcasting groups to gain access to the electronic media. However, once they have gained access it is up to the groups themselves to negotiate with the ABC and other organisations regarding the content of the programs they produce. I have, however, ascertained the following information concerning broadcasts in Aboriginal and Islander languages: (a) ABC The ABC Broadcasts regular programs in Aboriginal and Islander languages in the following areas: Alice Springs-90 minutes per week, produced by the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (CAAMA), in several Aboriginal languages and English; Torres Strait-10 hours and 45 minutes per week, produced by the Torres Strait Islander Media Association (TSIMA), in three Islander languages and English. (b) Public Radio 8KIN-operated by CAAMA-broadcasts approximately 80 hours of programs a week in several central Australian Aboriginal languages and English to communities in Alice Springs and surrounding areas. Fifteen other public radio stations regularly broadcast programs produced by Aboriginal people which may include material in Aboriginal languages. (Question No. 3035) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has been taken to establish a Museum of Aboriginal Australia. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government has passed legislation to establish a National Museum of Australia in which there is to be a gallery of Aboriginal Australia which will portray Aboriginal history both prior to and since 1788. The Gallery of Aboriginal Australia will be developed and managed by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on the Museum's staff, under the guidance of the Museum's Aboriginal Advisory Committee. Responsibility for this matter rests with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (Question No. 3039) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What has been the increase in real terms of the level of expenditure on the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals in each year since its establishment. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member`s question is as follows: The National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals was established in 1977. The strategy is the joint responsibility of the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and for Employment and Industrial Relations. Expenditure in 1977-78 and in 1978-79 was not differentiated for Aboriginal participants under the then National Employment and Training Scheme (NEAT). Since 1979 the combined expenditure by the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Employment and Industrial Relations has risen from $17.9 million to an estimated $91.1 million in the current Budget. Inflation for this period has totalled 65.3 per cent whereas expenditure has increased 408.9 per cent. In real terms this has meant an expenditure increase of 343.6 per cent. (Question No. 3104) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What provision has been made or will be made for (a) security, (b) grounds maintenance and (c) fire prevention at the Commonwealth land at Portsea, Victoria, from January to March 1986. (2) What provision of funds for (a) manpower and (b) equipment has been or will be made to the School of Army Health for, (i) security, (ii) grounds maintenance and (iii) fire prevention after 1 March 1986. (3) How many (a) employees and (b) contractors will be employed in these tasks (i) from January to March 1986 and (ii) after 1 March 1986. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Army will maintain continual security arrangements for the Commonwealth land at Portsea, Victoria, from January to March 1986. Appropriate grounds maintenance and fire protection will be included in such arrangements. (2) The manpower ceiling of the School of Army Health has been increased to meet additional responsibilities for management of the Portsea area. However, additional manpower requirements are being met from within the Army's existing overall staffing level and therefore no additional funds are required. The necessary equipment is either already available at Portsea or will be relocated there from Healesville. (3) From January to March 1986, 17 military and 4 civilian personnel will be engaged in security activities, 1 military and 11 civilian personnel in grounds maintenance and 15 military personnel will be responsible for fire prevention patrols. Of the 15 civilian personnel one is employed under contract. It is envisaged that similar arrangements will apply after 1 March 1986. (Question No. 3109) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Does the Office of Road Safety have any evidence that the walking beam suspension fitted to many trucks in Australia is unsafe, or could be unsafe, in certain circumstances; if so, what is the evidence. (2) Has the Office expressed the view that it is inadequate for Australian conditions. (3) What does the Office consider to be the safe tonnage rating for this suspension. (4) What is the current legal tonnage rating. (5) Is a change being considered for this rating; if so, to what rating. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There have been reports of failures of bush ends and beams on walking beam suspensions. State Authorities have been contacted but so far they are not aware of any abnormal incidence of failures. Enquiries are continuing in conjunction with State Authorities, industry and the Australian Automobile Association. There is concern about maintenance aspects of bush ends. The Federal Office of Road Safety is liaising closely with the manufacturer to ensure maintenance instructions are adequate and that the trucking industry is aware of the safety implications of not following procedures. Beam failures reported appear to be attributable to either overloading or high speeds or a combination of both. Enquiries are continuing on alleged beam failures. (2) This type of suspension used within its manufacturers' ratings and correctly maintained is considered adequate. However Australian conditions vary considerably and maintenance procedures and manufacturers' load ratings may not always be followed. (3) Walking beam suspension units are supplied in a number of tonnage ratings to suit the various market requirements. Provided the units are not overloaded and are properly maintained they should provide satisfactory service. (4) There is no legal tonnage rating as such for suspensions. Manufacturers specify a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) for trucks and each State and Territory has legislation specifying the maximum axle group load for a given number of axles irrespective of suspension type or make. This maximum varies from State to State. (5) In December 1985 the Australian Transport Advisory Council received a National Association of Australian State Road Authorities report on the Review of Road Vehicle Limits. This report recommended some increases in load and dimension limits. The report is being issued for public comment before any decisions on new limits are made. (Question No. 1863) Mr Jacobi asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Does electronic funds transfer technology cause problems for the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in the investigation of financial transactions evidencing major fraud and narcotics offences (a) currently and (b) in the foreseeable future; if so, what are the details. (2) What proposals does (a) the AFP or (b) his Department have to deal with the transitory and far-flung nature of the records of financial dealings that result from electronic funds transfer. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised by the AFP that while they are not aware of any large scale frauds having been committed involving the use of electronic funds transfer (EFT), they are aware of the potential which such technology provides for criminal abuse. The AFP anticipates that EFT will, in the future, cause problems in the investigation of financial transactions involving major fraud and narcotic offences because: (i) such criminal activity would generally only become evident from the examination of bank records when a person, company, bank etc made a complaint; (ii) such transactions are technically complex and may make difficult the obtaining of sufficient information for the issue of search warrants for the purpose of seizing records of transactions held by banks and other financial institutions; and (iii) the question as to what extent computer data may be seized by virtue of search warrants and admitted as evidence in court proceedings is being constantly tested in such proceedings with the advent of all new computer technology. (2) I am advised that the whole question of police access to records of banks and other financial institutions is currently being examined by officers of my Department and the AFP. (Question No. 2068) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of the Special Minister of State appointed new master advertising agencies for the placing and charging of Government advertising from 1 October 1984. Monahan Dayman Adams Sydney Pty Ltd was appointed for urgent and minor advertisements on radio, television or cinema. Since 1 October 1984 the following radio advertising has been charged through the above company to 31 December, 1985. $ Action Service (Public Transit) ... 12,068.00 Unleaded Petrol ... 4,207.00 Phillip Testing Station ... 3,050.00 New School Zone Laws ... 504.00 19,829.00 (Question No. 2285) Mr Hunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) What was the cost of parliamentarians tax free travelling allowances administered by his Department in 1984-85. (2) What was the cost to the taxpayer of all transport provided to (a) Ministers and their families and (b) other parliamentarians and their families by (i) RAAF aircraft, (ii) Commonwealth cars, and (iii) other means of transport in 1984-85. (3) What was the cost to the taxpayer of all transport overseas provided to Ministers and their families in 1984-85. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department is responsible for meeting the travelling allowance claims in Australia of Ministers and the 4 Opposition Office-holders only. Payments made in 1984-85 were: $ Ministers... 385,010.36 Opposition Office-holders... 57,882.30 Total... 442,892.66 (2) Expenditure in 1984-85 for transport in Australia for Ministers, other Senators and Members and their families was: Ministers and Families Other Senators and Members and Families $ $ Official car transport... 1,511,303 2,644,292 Air fares... 1,047,185 4,210,578 Private vehicle allowance... 6,079 68,438 Charter transport... 186,882 576,840 Other... 88 4,171 The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has advised that the costs of Ministers and of Senators and Members travelling in Australia by Special Purpose Aircraft of RAAF 34 Squadron are not readily separable but are charged to appropriate Division 504 together with those of other users (the Governor-General, Royal Visitors and other official guests of the Government). Expenditure recorded against Division 504 in 1984-85 totalled $4,412,000. Details of Special Purpose flights are tabled regularly in Parliament. (3) Accounts paid by my Department to 24 October 1985 for airfares, hire cars and air charter for Ministers and their spouses travelling overseas on official business in 1984-85 were $1,469,247.60. This includes transport payments for a visit which commenced on 15 June 1985 and concluded on 15 July 1985. There are several visits where all accounts have not yet been received. (Question No. 2535) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives? Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Minister's Office has not received any petitions. Procedures for responding to petitions depend on their subject matter and its relevance to my portfolio's responsibilities. (Question No. 2552) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives? Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Petitions referred to my office by the House of Representatives are noted and passed to my Department for information. (Question No. 2760) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) How is an extreme weather condition defined. (2) What effect does an extreme weather condition have on fighting a bushfire. (3) What positive results does research into, or the monitoring of, such weather conditions have for the people of Australia. (4) Does the Bureau of Meteorology monitor extreme weather conditions. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There is no formal definition of an `extreme weather condition'. However, extreme weather conditions are considered to be conditions which are likely to endanger human life or cause extensive damage to property. Examples are destructive winds associated with tropical cyclones and tornadoes, very heavy rainfall which results in flooding and the combination of high temperatures, low humidity and strong winds which create dangerous bush fire conditions. (2) The rate of spread of a bushfire is strongly influenced by wind strength, air temperature and humidity. Extreme weather conditions with regard to the spread of fire are a combination of strong wind, high temperature and low humidity. Under such circumstances fires may become uncontrollable, regardless of the fire fighting resources available. Changes of wind direction are also critical as these change the direction of movement of the fire front. Such wind changes are often associated with the passage of cold fronts which require very detailed data to enable adequate monitoring and prediction. (3) Research into and monitoring of extreme weather conditions provides a better understanding of these conditions and an improved ability to predict their occurrence. Accurate and timely prediction of such events enables action to be taken to minimise damage and to ensure safety to life. Potential savings are of the order of tens of millions of dollars annually. Climatological records and published reports of extreme weather events are very important for applications such as the development of standards for buildings and constructions and for urban planning. Effective monitoring systems are essential to build up this bank of climatological data and to produce these reports not only for present day use but for future generations. (4) Yes. The Bureau monitors extreme weather conditions in order to discharge its statutory responsibilities under the Meteorological Act 1955 including the responsibilities to issue warnings of gales, storms and other weather conditions likely to endanger life or property, including weather conditions likely to give rise to floods or bushfires. The Bureau's warning systems have been developed over many years and operated with great dedication by the Bureau staff. The great value of these warning systems has been demonstrated on many occasions, for example with severe cyclones such as Tracy at Darwin in 1974, floods such as those in Brisbane in 1974 and outbreaks of bushfires such as those on Ash Wednesday in 1983. The Bureau has a large bank of climatological data relevant to extreme weather events and has published many reports. These have had very important economic applications on building design and urban planning and in other related fields and in research. However, we are by no means complacent. It is evident from the reports that followed the Ash Wednesday bushfires and from representations from many organisations and community groups, particularly in cyclone-prone areas of Australia, that the Bureau warning systems need to be upgraded. Advantage needs to be taken of modern technology to make the systems more effective. There are calls for more accuracy and greater precision in warnings, for example to define more precisely the coastal areas that are expected to be struck by a cyclone so that adequate precautions may be taken but, at the same time, unnecessary evacuation and shutdowns of industry may be avoided; to provide more precise information on the timing and intensity of wind changes so that the resources can be deployed more effectively in fighting fires. In order to achieve these ends a submission is being prepared, in the budget context, to upgrade the Bureau's warning systems for bushfires, floods, cyclones and severe storms. This submission will cover recommendations made in reports of Inquiries that followed the Ash Wednesday bushfires and will include provision for upgrading of the Bureau's monitoring (observing) systems through measures such as: upgrading of the surface observing network, particularly through installation of automatic weather stations and deployment of drifting buoys; replacement of obsolete radar and other equipment with modern systems; introduction of sophisticated satellite reception and processing equipment to take advantage of the ever increasing capability of satellites. The importance of these programs is recognised by the Government. The pace at which they can proceed will, of course, depend on the funds that can be allocated to the task but I can assure the honourable member that they will be accorded as much priority as is practicable. (Question No. 2797) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department of Finance supports initiatives to increase career opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and to this end has participated in the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program and the Training for Aboriginals Program (formerly NESA) for some years. The Department has also provided work assignments for Aboriginal trainees from other agencies and recently provided an officer from Aboriginal Hostels Limited with a secondment for a period of twelve months to enable him to gain experience in the examination of estimates and financial policy matters. The Department's Equal Employment Opportunity Program also contains specific initiatives aimed at increasing the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders employed in the Department and providing secondment opportunities for staff employed by other agencies. (2) (a) 5; (b) 2. (Question No. 2805) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-aboriginal population; (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1983 the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has participated in the following programs to provide career opportunities for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders: the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program which involves the recruitment and development of clerks and clerical assistants; the National Employment Scheme for Aboriginals; the Aboriginal Staff Sponsorship Program which enables Aboriginal staff to attend tertiary education institutions at Departmental expense to obtain higher educational qualifications. At present the Department employs 19 staff (including trainees and staff employed under the Public service Act) who have identified themselves as Aboriginals or Islanders. This is equal to approximately 0.9% of the Department's full time operative staff. At least 25% have undertaken some form of long term development program under the sponsorship of the Department. (2) Figures are not available for 30 November 1985 and 31 March 1983. However, as the Public Service Board conducts an annual survey of Aboriginal and Islander Employment as at 1 October each year, figures at these dates are given below: (a) At 1 October 1985 Aboriginals and Islanders employed under the Public Service Act, 15; Trainees, 4; Total, 19. (b) At 1 October 1983 Aboriginals and Islanders employed under the Public Service Act, 10; Trainees, 2; Total, 12.