Friday, 14 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —Madam Speaker-it gives me enormous pleasure to be able to say that-I offer my congratulations to you on your well-deserved election. On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 242nd report of the Committee entitled `Government Aircraft Factories-Response'. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Ms MAYER —This report considers the Department of Finance minute relating to the Committee's 198th report on the Government Aircraft Factories. There have been significant changes in relation to the Government Aircraft Factories in recent times. The Factories are now the responsibility of the Department of Defence and have a new General Manager and Finance Manager. The production program of the Factories has also changed considerably in recent times. Production of the Nomad has ceased, with 22 Nomads unsold and stored as at June 1984. The Government Aircraft Factories have now moved into a phase where they are heavily involved in assembling the new FA 18 fighter aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force. Since the Committee tabled its 198th report in May 1982 there have been a series of reviews focusing on various aspects of the Government Aircraft Factories. In August 1983 the then Minister for Defence Support established a recovery plan task force to look at ways of avoiding retrenchments and means by which the Government Aircraft Factories might become more competitive and cost effective. The task force, consisting of representatives from the unions, factory management and external experts, presented a report to the Minister in June 1984. Following the series of reviews and the many recommendations, the Factories are now moving into an implementation phase. Some positive steps have already been taken to improve the Factories' management and performance. The target established by the management of the Factories is to cut out all government subsidies by the end of the 1989-90 financial year. In view of the substantial changes in the Factories the Committee decided to seek current information on a number of matters. The Committee first sought to gain information in writing. However, the Committee found that the answers to these questions were not consistent with information coming from the Factories on levels of productivity. As a result, the Committee held a public hearing on 13 November 1985 to gain evidence from the General Manager and Finance Manager of the Factories and representatives of the Department of Defence. At that hearing a paper from the Factories management to the Recovery Plan Implementation Steering Committee was tabled indicating serious production problems at the Factories. The Factories were found to be falling significantly behind on their targets and were well behind schedule on most of their projects. Major problems are occurring with the production of FA 18 flap and shroud offsets for the McDonnell Douglas company in the United States of America. Deliveries of completed assemblies of flaps and shrouds are seven sets or 10 weeks behind schedule. This means that these offsets are now being air freighted to the United States at a cost of $4,000 per set because the Factories are running behind schedule. As a result of the Government Aircraft Factories running so far behind schedule, they may have to procure 10 sets of flaps and shrouds from McDonnell Douglas (Australia) Pty Ltd at a cost of $3.15m, which is made up of $1.41m lost income and a premium of $1.74m for a special batch at short notice. There is a risk that these problems with the FA 18 offsets may cause the factories to lose credibility with the United States Department of Defense and the Royal Australian Air Force. This would be unfortunate as the FA 18 offsets form the major identified work load for the bond shop, employing 58 people, with the potential of over $100m in future work. However, the Committee was pleased to receive a letter recently from McDonnell Douglas (Australia) Pty Ltd which reassured the Committee in the following terms: The difficulties encountered were not abnormal to the start-up of a complex aerospace manufacturing program, were accommodated in the schedule and have had no significant impact on Aircraft delivery. Aircraft deliveries in 1985 have been on or ahead of schedule. The Committee should note that, in co-operation with the management of GAF and other Australian/U.S. participants, solutions to these early difficulties have been clearly identified and resolved. There is currently no known impediment to a successful future for the Australian FA18 program, and McDonnell Douglas remains fully committed to that success. When the management of the Factories was questioned at the hearing on the reasons for the Factories' recent poor performance they indicated that it was predominantly due to an industrial dispute during August and September of 1985. They indicated that such a problem would not recur as an accord had been signed by management and representatives of unions at the Factories on 30 October 1985 that would resolve matters before an industrial dispute occurred. Because of the nature of this new evidence, the Committee decided to seek the views of union representatives from the Factories at a further public hearing which was held on 18 November 1985. Two of the union representatives were from the joint union group at the Factories. The union representatives were asked to give their views on why the Factories' utilisation rate was falling and why the Factories were so far behind schedule on most of their projects. They dismissed the effect of the industrial dispute in August and September, claiming that only 400 hours were lost, making it a very small scale dispute with a minimal effect on production. The unions had a very different explanation of why the Factories were running late with their projects. They claimed that in relation to the FA18 every major item of tooling sent from McDonnell Douglas in the United States in early 1985 had faults. The master tooling and master references were both deficient for the radome for the FA18. Parts sent from the United States were also faulty and would not fit the jig that had been received previously. Parts that should have taken two hours to make were taking up to 20 hours because of these problems. Kits were sent with only half the required number of parts and materials were out of life. The jig for the flaps and shrouds was also faulty. As an example, from a substantial submission received by the Committee this week on the eve of tabling in this chamber, the Department of Defence has advised that in relation to the offsets program involving flaps and shrouds, productivity at GAF was influenced by `rework' and fell into two categories. I quote from its submission: 1. Where faulty parts are supplied by McAir and require corrective action by GAF: the total of all lead-in parts supplied by McAir for flaps and shrouds represents some 28,000 hours; over and above those 28,000 hours GAF reworked 6,500 hours (or 23%), and McAir met the cost of that rework. 2. Where GAF had provided components to McAir: GAF has delivered 11 sets as offsets, representing some $2.5m in work value; 4 sets required minor rework, which has been invoiced to date at the minor amount of $US154. It is not expected that the cost of rework in this category would exceed $US300. As rework is considered chargeable to the customer this work has not significantly reduced utilisation. Clearly this submission requires further careful analysis. Some of the criticisms raised by the Committee have been answered, and questions posed to the Department of Defence have been completed. It is disappointing that this information could not be used to temper the Committee's judgments in this report. According to the union representatives, problems persisted for three or four months, causing the Factories to run considerably behind schedule. The union representatives indicated that management began to draw people from other projects onto the FA18 project. As a result, other projects at the Factories started to fall behind schedule. The Committee feels that it has, once again, been misled by the Factories' management and the Department of Defence which failed to disclose their problems when the lateness of the FA18 project was discussed. Turning to other matters, the Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the Government Aircraft Factories should report annually to Parliament. The Committee also notes that the Auditor-General has repeatedly referred to the unsatisfactory nature of the Factories' financial statements and the lateness of these statements. The Factories' financial statements do not comply with current commercial accounting standards. Further, they do not comply with the `Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertaking' issued by the Department of Finance. The Committee notes that the Factories have introduced a large number of computer software packages in an attempt to overcome their financial accounting and management problems. The report makes a number of warnings in relation to this exercise. Industrial Relations In its 198th report the Committee indicated that there was considerable scope for improvement in the area of industrial relations at the Government Aircraft Factories where morale appeared to be extremely low. Since then, to the credit of present management at the Factories, there has been considerable improvement in industrial relations. An Industrial Relations Manager has been appointed and a Joint Consultation Forum established. This Forum has brought together unionists, management and external experts to consider important issues affecting the Factories. This has resulted in a better flow of information to the employees. The accord between the management and the unions signed on 30 August 1985 is an innovative development in industrial relations and should lead to a situation where there are virtually no industrial disputes. All involved in the introduction of this accord deserve considerable praise. The new information supplied to the Committee this week does not change the Committee's conclusion that the organisation structure of the Government Aircraft Factories should change. The Factories must become a statutory corporation. The Committee goes further in claiming that the Government Aircraft Factories will only achieve commercial orientation, in addition to providing an efficient response to its defence work, when they become a statutory authority. Only then will they be able to make the quick and decisive marketing decisions required and be able to manage their human and financial resources in an appropriate manner. In essence, the Government Aircraft Factories and presently prevented from doing this by their organisational structure. Several other issues would have to be resolved if the Government Aircraft Factories are to become commercial operations. The Factories are going to have to become much leaner, more efficient organisations. Presently only 45 per cent of the Factories' employees are regarded as `direct workers'. The rest are involved in either management and supervision or the inspection and testing of products. The Factories should devise a plan to reduce significantly the number of its employees over a period by not replacing certain employees when they retire or leave the Factories. Management will also need to increase substantially the workload of the Factories. This can only be done by increasing the amount of commercial work done for customers other than the Commonwealth Government. The report goes on to say that the Factories may not be able to continue the luxury of only seeking work in the aerospace industry as they have done in the past. The aerospace industry may be too restrictive in Australia and the Factories may have to accept commercial work from other industries. In conclusion, the Committee remains dissatisfied with the management practices of the Government Aircraft Factories. The Committee expects adherence to recognised Australian accounting standards and financial reporting procedures. The Committee believes that it has been misled on a number of issues relating to the Factories. The Government Aircraft Factories must move towards being more commercially viable. In order to do this, urgent action is needed to form the Factories into a statutory authority. In addition, the Factories need to obtain a higher level of commercial work and need to take steps towards rationalising their work force. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-First of all, I commend the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for its analysis of what is a very difficult and intractable situation. However, there are a number of aspects of aircraft design and manufacture in Australia which I think people need to have in mind in considering the report on the Government Aircraft Factories. The first is that it was a result of a great deal of effort that some offset to the production of the FA18 Hornet aircraft acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force was put in place. It was put in place largely on the basis that efficiency could be attained within the Commonwealth Aircraft Factories and by those involved in that offset program. As this report indicated, as a result of industrial trouble during August and September last year, considerable doubts arose as to the ability of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation to maintain its part in the offset program. I want to address the report on two counts. Firstly, there are enormous problems, not just in industrial troubles but also in the whole of the managerial relationship in the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation plant, which worry me as to our continued ability to be able to maintain the standards necessary for us to fulfil that part of the offset program. The second problem is the future workload for the CAC. With respect to the first problem, it is absolutely essential that the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation plant has the ability to compete in the maximum commercial way. I note the Committee's recommendation that a statutory authority is the way out. Frankly, I think the idea should be that as soon as possible the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation try to be integrated in the same way as the de Havilland project which, as I understand it, involved a degree of private enterprise takeover of the operation. That lay behind the concept of the A10B production in that plant. Honourable members will know that in terms of the future work load, the original concept for a new Royal Australian Air Force basic trainer was that it be designed and produced in Australia. In an incredible decision, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has rejected all the elements that went into the design laid down by the Royal Australian Air Force. He seems to have been beguiled by some officers within the Department of Defence to scrap a program which had been designed specifically to meet Royal Australian Air Force specifications, which had taken into account both the Australian ability to produce and the requirements of the RAAF, and would have provided to the CAC the future workload which the report properly identified as being one of its headaches for the future. The difficulty is that, unfortunately, unless the CAC is able to get adequate work, I doubt its ability to maintain its share of the offset program for the F18. If that happens there will be not only a reduction of the available skills in aircraft production and design, but also we will be left even more dependent upon overseas procurement. This is one of the areas where this Government is failing absolutely appallingly. Let us look at the RAAF basic trainer selection. There are three elements. Firstly, the RAAF said that it would be necessary for pilots to have only 100 flying hours before flying the new A10B. The Government has now changed the specification and has said that it wants 140 flying hours. Whatever the Department of Defence might say, I can tell the people of Australia that the RAAF wants only 100 flying hours basic flying for trainee pilots because in any conversion to jet aircraft it is necessary that the pilots have a reasonable amount of experience in jets before they are converted to operational flying. Whatever the Department of Defence might say, that requirement is nominal and the Pilatus aircraft the Government has chosen does not come under that requirement. Secondly, $64m of Australian taxpayers' money has been spent on the original design, yet the Government is running around at the moment saying that it cannot reduce fuel prices and it might have to forgo personal income tax cuts because it is spending too much money and it needs the revenue from fuel. We all know what is happening today and why the farmers are demonstrating outside the House. The reason the A10B was built to military specifications and $64m of Government money spent on it was that the RAAF said it was necessary. Now the Minister for Defence, having been beguiled by somebody in his Department, has said that it is no longer necessary to have an aircraft built to military specifications. The PC9 is not and does not meet those original specifications. The third problem is that it was said it was necessary to have a side-by-side trainer. The PC9 is not a side-by-side trainer and in that respect it does not meet the original RAAF requirement. As far as the future work load for the CAC is concerned, I agree totally with the gist of the report that if it is going to get work and maintain employment and do what the factories were designed to do-that is, give Australia some domestic manufacturing capability- we have to address the problem, recognising that Australia has the ability to design and produce, and not to go about the whole business in the way that the Minister for Defence has gone. He has said that Australia cannot do it. He is threatening Australia's ability to proceed with the domestic procurement program. He is making us more vulnerable in that the Air Force will not be able to have procurement in this country. We all know that the Australian manufacturing industries are labouring under difficulties and the Minister for Defence is contributing to that position by the fact that he has scrapped the A10B basic trainer in order to procure an overseas aircraft. He has said: `Some part of the manufacture will be done in Australia'. This report properly identifies the fact that there are already difficulties in our meeting our offset program on the F18 program. I am very apprehensive that unless there can be a totally new approach by the Government and it addresses all those concerns properly expressed in the Committee report-the worries about the future, whether it will be a statutory authority or there will be greater private enterprise involvement through Hawker de Havilland, or whoever-it will not be possible for the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation to be able to produce aircraft and to meet the obligations of the Department of Defence or the Royal Australian Air Force. The CAC must be given a fair go by the Government. Frankly, the Minister for Defence is not giving the Corporation that fair go. The Government is not giving Australians an opportunity to do those things in production and design of which they are capable but in which the Minister seems to have no confidence at all. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —by leave-The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) sought in his comments in relation to the Government Aircraft Factories to introduce highly political elements into what was a bipartisan report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and sought also to distort some of the findings of the Committee. I regret that action on his part. He failed completely to come to grips with the fundamental problem of the Government Aircraft Factories, which was the fact that up to 23 per cent of the parts supplied by overseas suppliers had to be reworked in the Government Aircraft Factories, and that was a major reason for the lag that had been occurring. It was certainly a more significant reason than any recent industrial situation. In fact, if anything, the industrial situation during 1985 dramatically improved at the Factories. The Committee recommended the setting up of the statutory authority. It considered the suggestions of the honourable member about pri- vatisation of the Government Aircraft Factories, but it did not feel that it was part of its ambit or authority to recommend any such course of action. On another occasion I will take the opportunity to explain to the right honourable member why it is that the Government chose the course it did in relation to the procurement program for the Royal Australian Air Force trainer, the Pilatus. I deny totally his claim that there will be loss of work as a consequence of the arrangement that the Government has put into place. He obviously either does not understand the arrangement or is trying to mislead the House. The fact of the matter is that not only will the Pilatus be produced but also there is an arrangement whereby an enormous amount of extra work will be given to the research division of the Government Aircraft Factories. That is part of the agreement to which the right honourable member has never referred in his comments. I will raise this issue at another time, but I simply point out that it is unfortunate that he has taken such a politicised approach to the report. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —by leave-Madam Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I start off on my first opportunity to speak since you have been elected to the Chair by offering you my sincere congratulations. I look forward to enjoying your occupancy-I will not say for an extensive time-of that position. I will be delighted to bring you some flowers on the day we have a change of government and we elect somebody else. I will be brief in what I have to say. There are perhaps only two aspects of the report on which I wish to elaborate. It became very clear during the inquiry by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, and it has been made very clear in the tabling speech of the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), that the Government Aircraft Factories need a great deal of revision, that there is a great need for change and for new management structures. That is not to say that improvements have not been made so far. I would like to make the point that it is very significant that at present the Government Aircraft Factories take the view that the more hours that are worked the greater the productivity. I think it should be stressed that productivity is not measured, and cannot be measured, by the number of hours worked. The claim by the Government Aircraft Factories could well be an expression of Parkinson's law. There is a need to take a more dedicated look at productivity in the Government Aircraft Factories rather than just saying: `Right, we have worked so many hours and therefore we are increasing productivity'. The Committee, at page 10 of its report, states: It is interesting to note that only 45 per cent of the Government Aircraft Factories employees are regarded as direct workers. I think the words `it is interesting' are a bit of an understatement. I think it is absolutely frightful that only 45 per cent of the very large number of people employed at the Government Aircraft Factories are employed directly in production. I believe that the Committee's work in drawing attention to this matter should result in some great improvement. I would also like to comment on the industrial relations situation at the Government Aircraft Factories. From the evidence that I have heard and from the points that were made by people from the Government Aircraft Factories I believe that the industrial relations record of this government instrumentality have become quite outstanding. I would just like to give the House figures that are set out in the report. In the 1980 calendar year 93,362 man hours were lost. In 1981 the number dropped to 17,037. In 1982 the number of man hours lost dropped to 4,066 and in 1983 to 1,100. In 1984 no man hours were lost. Up to September 1985 only 565 man hours were lost. This is an outstanding result. It is a result that we would all like to see emulated throughout industry in Australia. I believe that the agreement signed between the unions and the management of the Government Aircraft Factories is one that should be studied and passed around throughout the industrial relations community in this country. I think the GAF accord-`accord' is not a word with which I am in particular sympathy-is a great step forward. It is working and I believe it could be copied, studied and emulated by very many industries throughout Australia. Consideration resumed from 12 February. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 5, clause 15, proposed new sub-section 21A (1), at end of sub-section, add the following words: ``or as the Council determines''. No. 2-Page 7, clause 20, proposed new sub-section 24A (1), at end of sub-section, add the following words: ``or as the Council determines''. No. 3-Page 9, clause 25, proposed new sub-section 27A (1), at end of sub-section, add the following words: ``or as the Council determines''. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.29) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I wish to advise the Committee that the Government accepts the amendments made by the Senate to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985. The amendments are technical in nature, providing the advisory council to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission with the power to determine on its own initiative matters to be reported to the Commission. The Government accepts the amendments made to it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.31) —The Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill 1985 is of enormous significance, especially for the ethnic communities in Australia and, indeed, for the wider community. I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for bringing forth the legislation and the way in which the whole exercise has been conducted. The procedure adopted by the Minister, especially in relation to consultation with the ethnic communities before this legis- lation was brought forward, is an admirable one which could well be copied by other Ministers in consulting with communities. Let me just say something about the background of this legislation. During the period of the Whitlam Government the social security arrangements were changed to entitle people who settled in Australia to a pension after 10 years residence if they had reached pensionable age. These arrangements also included an agreement whereby persons who wanted to return to their original homeland could take their pension en- titlements with them. Certainly that portability provision-the 10-year rule, as it came to be known-became embedded in the whole consciousness of ethnic communities and was regarded as a right. When the Fraser Government came to power the then Minister, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, had consultations with various countries about the possibility of signing an agreement for reciprocal arrangements in respect of the payment of pensions. Reciprocal arrangements obviously have many advantages, and those advantages have been outlined by other speakers in this House. For example, in addition to the actual pension one could talk about a number of fringe benefits for pensioners which are not available under the current provisions. Of course, reciprocal arrangements would allow a person returning to his original homeland to have part of his pension paid by the government of that country. Conversely, people coming to Australia would be able to have part of their pension paid by Australia from their first day in this country rather than having to wait for 10 years, as is the current procedure. So there is no doubt that, if it can be arranged and if it is acceptable to the community, the reciprocal approach has many benefits. However, the problem which was encountered in negotiations by successive Ministers for Social Security in relation to this matter is that most nations, especially the European nations, have social security and pension systems based on contributions and not on the period of residence in the country. There is not an automatic right to receive a certain level of pension, although in many countries there is a minimum level. To receive more than the minimum, one has to have made contributions, and one receives a pension in accordance with the level of contribution. We do not have that system in Australia. We have a universal pension that is paid to everyone irrespective of the contributions they have made. That has meant that the negotiation of reciprocal agreements has been a complex and difficult task, because of differing social security systems. The task proved beyond some Ministers, and they gave it away because it appeared to be too hard. The Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, persisted in trying to negotiate agreements which would benefit the ethnic communities and also, of course, the Australian community generally. As I pointed out, those agreements, if they can be achieved, will be much better than the current arrangements. Once the initial announcement was made by the Minister, certain aspects were found to be unsatisfactory by some ethnic communities. Unfortunately, as a consequence there was much more emphasis on particular aspects that were not to the liking of some sections of the ethnic communities and much less emphasis given to the overall benefits of negotiated agreements. Because of that situation, a movement arose within the community-as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker-of opposition to the changes. For that reason the Minister, rather than simply pushing through the legislation, decided to embark on an extensive consultative process over a period of months. That process involved discussions not only with leaders of the various ethnic communities but also with ordinary people in those communities, at public meetings that were widely advertised in the ethnic Press and elsewhere. Some of those public meetings attracted more than a thousand people. In addition, the Minister, in order to ensure that there was objective reporting of the nature of the feedback process, agreed to the election of a committee from the parliamentary Labor Party, consisting of yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), Senator Olive Zakharov and myself. We were allowed to attend and participate in the consultation process and to listen to the arguments for and against the changes. I repeat that this consultative process was an open process and one in which the Minister was prepared to listen to all sides of the argument, and I think he ought to be commended for the way in which it was carried out. Following the consultation process the Minister agreed, firstly, to certain changes in the draft which was being put in respect to certain communities, in particular, the Italian community. The original proposal for 35 years was reduced to 25 years. Because it was felt that to consider 35 years as the period constituting full working life would be too long, after substantial discussions the period was reduced to 25 years. Secondly, the Minister agreed that the implementation of the 25-year rule would not begin for another 10 years, from 1995, in order that there would be plenty of time for further negotiations, consultations and arrangements to be made with particular communities. I point out, however, that the other positive benefit in relation to the Minister's proposal will be put into place as soon as possible, and as soon as negotiations are completed. We will have the other positive benefits, but the change to the 25-year rule, as I understand it, will not take place until 1995. Even with these assurances and with a plan which, in my view, has a lot to commend it, the Minister has not been prepared to ram the proposals down the throat of any ethnic community. The shape of the legislation before the House is in this form: In the first instance, there will be an agreement with the Italian Government and people with an Italian background. There will also be attempts to renegotiate the British and New Zealand agreements, but there will be no attempt to force these new proposals on any community if they are contrary to the desires of that community. That assurance has been given by the Minister on many occasions since the consultation process was finished. If a community feels that it is not in its interests to proceed with these proposals it will be up to that community to make that position clear to the Minister. On the other hand if a community recognises that there are positive benefits in relation to an agreement, that community will be able to encourage the Minister to negotiate with the appropriate government so that agreements falling into the same shape as this one can be signed as soon as possible. I want to spend a little time referring to the situation in the Greek community because it is within the Greek community that most of the opposition to the proposals has arisen. There is no doubt that the Greek community initially and overwhelmingly rejected the 35-year suggestion. It is also true that the Greek community remains to be convinced about the new arrangements. Certain mischievous and inflammatory statements have been made by certain persons within the Greek community who have attempted to emphasise what they perceive to be the negative aspects of the proposal and none of the positive aspects. After a cooling down period, the Greek community leaders-not only the official leaders but also the opinion makers, the newspapers and other media-should have a look at the proposals coming from the Minister and be open-minded in relation to consideration of them. In this regard it is important to note that MrsKaklamanakis, who is the Assistant Minister for Social Welfare in the Greek Government, will be arriving in Australia in a few weeks to have discussions with the Minister on this issue. I suggest that those discussions should be allowed to proceed in an open spirit to see whether a proposal which is satisfactory to both sides can be achieved. I also call on people in the Greek community to allow those discussions to proceed in an open and fair fashion. I say this because unfortunately there has developed some resistance from a segment of the Greek community to the consideration of any proposal coming from the Minister. I emphasise that the positive benefits of the proposal have not been publicised sufficiently within the Greek community. Indeed, they have not been publicised sufficiently within some other communities which have not yet signed the agreement, such as the Yugoslav community. It should be remembered that one of the most important positive benefits is the negotiation of fringe benefit arrangements, which do not exist at the moment, and also the negotiation of health care arrangements so that when people who migrated to Australia from Greece, or any other country, return to that country not only will they receive a pension that is paid on a proportional basis; they will also reap the benefit of the health system in that country, which they do not receive at the moment. I conclude my comments by again congratulating the Minister for his efforts and by asking people to consider the full proposals, with all of the benefits, and all the matters about which they have concerns and to come to a considered judgment in relation to them. The fact that the 25-year arrangement will not come into play until 1996 means that there will be sufficient time for consideration of positives and negatives regarding this matter. I believe that when this is done we will see that there are very many positive benefits in the kind of approach which has been adopted by the Minister. Amongst those positive benefits is the movement towards an internationalisation of social security-the idea that when people move from one nation to another and contribute or work in both nations they are entitled to have both of those nations contribute to their retirement pensions. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker, this being the first occasion on which I have addressed you as Deputy Speaker, I offer my congratulations. I certainly wish you well in the difficult task that you have in maintaining order in this chamber, although not at this particular time! We are addressing the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill. This is an important Bill. It is a threshold Bill. It involves a number of important principles which we need to address. In the area of social security, fairness and equity are fundamental. It is often difficult to achieve fairness and equity. In the first instance, I think it is important for all of us to recognise that in adopting this legislation the Government is proposing a scheme, which the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), who spoke before me, acknowledged, whereby governments of various countries in which people may have lived during their working lives would ultimately contribute to those people's retirement package. There is nothing wrong with that. Of course, if a person were employed in only one country during his working life one government would contribute to that package. If a person worked proportionately in two countries and was able to obtain two pensions he may be considerably better off than the person who stayed in one country. So in that sense there is a question of equity that needs to be looked at. The honourable member who spoke before me was very much on the ball when he acknowledged that certain changes to the social security system were introduced by the former Whitlam Government. Those changes provided that any person who had worked in Australia for 10 years was entitled to a fully portable pension which he could take with him wherever he lived in the world. Of course, there have been, and there remain, some people who have shifted from Australia taking a full Australian pension with them and, having worked for previous periods in other countries, have been able to pick up a pension from another country in addition to their Australian pension. The question of fairness and equity vis-a-vis the Australian taxpayer arises in that instance. There were also some people who came to Australia, worked here for some time then left for overseas before they retired and found that for the time they worked in Australia they were not able to receive any pension benefit. Often they went back overseas and it was said that they had not worked their appropriate qualifying period in their own country and they were not entitled to benefits there. Often those people had to live in poverty and very necessitous circumstances. Those were some of the situations that needed to be addressed. By any terms, fairness and equity did not exist between individuals. The Opposition welcomed the Government's examination of this question. In fact, it acknowledges that the very examination of it commenced under the former Government and particularly under former Ministers for Social Security, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Chaney. What is the nature of the proposals that are before us at this time? The model Italian agreement which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) announced to the Parliament in May of last year envisaged that people who had spent part of their lives in more than one country would be able to receive a package of pensions made up of a part pension from each country. I emphasise that: Made up of a part pension from each country. Within Australia, if such pensions were less than the Australian pension, the total amount would be topped up to the Australian level. The minimum period of residence and contributions, generally one year, would be the basic requirement for eligibility. That would enable Australia to pay a part pension to people, say, in Italy who were not previously eligible for benefits; that is, those people I mentioned earlier-those who had not established their entitlement before returning to Italy. For example, an age pensioner, on attaining the age of 65 years, or 60 years in the case of a female, who had been resident in Australia in the preceding 10 years would be eligible for a part pension. Under the new arrangement that the Minister announced in May, to qualify for a maximum payment 35 years residence in Australia or a working life of between 16 and 60 or 65 years would have to have been established. We know, from the further developments that have occurred, that the period of residence to qualify for a maximum payment has been reduced to 25 years. That occurred after the consultations that have been mentioned took place. People now resident in Australia who have not established a benefit entitlement would lose the expectancy of being eligible for a portable benefit after only 10 years residence. That involves another question of equity-one of the important matters that needed to be addressed and considered in the consultations that took place. One of the matters that we, as politicians, need always to keep in mind is the expectations that people have in relation to the system in which they are living and the contributions they make to that during their working life. There were people who believed that they would have a fully portable pension which they would be able to take with them after 10 years contribution in Australia. They had been planning on it. There was an expectation that they would be able to take it with them. We were saying to those people, some of whom might have been only a year or two off retirement, that at that point we intended to change that. Of course, there is an element of retrospectivity in a decision of that sort. One of the other important changes that the Minister made, after his consultations, was to postpone the implementation of that aspect of the scheme for 10 years, until 1996. It is right to acknowledge that in terms of fairness and equity that is an appropriate change. Those are matters which are important, in the Opposition's consideration of this question. In consideration of the views that have been made known not only by Australians at large and Australians as taxpayers, but also by Australians who have come from other countries, who live here with us and who are contributing to Australia, it is appropriate that their interest should also be taken into account and acknowledged. It seems to us that the situation under this package of proposals is that we will have a proportional payment system over time. The concept of extensive winners and losers will not really exist. People coming to Australia now will know the basis upon which pensions will be paid in future and that can be clearly understood, so accordingly expectations will not be built up. Pensioners who have already retired and moved overseas will not be affected, and of course that will include Australians who have contributed all their working lives or migrants who have been here for the 10-year qualifying period. Pensions will still be paid after 10 years residence but, having regard to the 1-25th share of working life, they may not be fully portable as was previously the case. It should be clearly understood that anybody who comes to Australia, works for 10 years and contributes to our system will, as I understand it, still be eligible to receive a pension in Australia, regardless of the balance of the provisions that are before us. Migrants leaving Australia before reaching Australian retirement pension age may, under these new proposals, still receive a part pension, proportionate to their residence in Australia. This will be because of the reciprocal agreement that has been reached with Italy. All Australians who have worked and lived abroad, contributing to a system within a country that is party to an agreement, will receive a proportional benefit. That means that Australians who leave Australia for a period and work in, say, Italy or Greece, if that country comes to an agreement, will be able to receive benefits proportional to the amounts that they contributed to any pension scheme in the country to which they might go to live. It needs to be understood also that refugees and pensioners from countries without contributory social security schemes or with whom no agreement will be reached will not be eligible for any proportional payment from any overseas government. That will still be a problem in a sense, except that those people will, of course, be eligible after a qualifying period to participate in the Australian social security system. That is a very brief summary of the nature of the provisions that we are discussing. Certainly the Opposition has treated this matter in a non-controversial way. I wish to make that point very strongly because this is a matter in which, had the Opposition wanted to, it could have caused a great deal of harm to the Government. The matter could have been handled in a very partisan way with cheap political points being made about the way in which this matter was being dealt with. Therefore, I was disappointed when I listened to the debate the other day when the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) suggested that the Opposition had attempted to points score at the various stages of consideration of this legislation. He went on to say that he did not think that was reasonable criticism and he also added that whatever was done it was always possible to say that a higher level of consultation could have taken place. I wish to address my remarks in relation to the way in which consultation took place on this matter and to draw some comparisons with the way in which matters have been handled before when governments have been desirous of having them treated in a non-controversial fashion. The fact is that the Government negotiated an agreement with Italy. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) made a statement to the Parliament in May in which he said: I wish to inform the House of the Government's decision to sign a reciprocal agreement on social security with Italy and to start negotiations towards social security agreements with other interested migrant-source countries as soon as practicable. In his fourth paragraph, he said: The basis on which the agreement with Italy has been negotiated shows that it is possible to negotiate reciprocal social security arrangements linking the Australian social security system and the very different types of social security systems which operate in most other countries. The fact is that the Minister had concluded the agreement with Italy, subject only to a final settlement of the form and implementation, the basis upon which pensions were to be paid. That needs to be clearly understood. That had been done without the Opposition being a party to it. I asked the Minister whether I could have a copy of the agreement and he told me I could have a briefing. I was able to sit down with his officers and I asked them whether I could have a copy of the agreement. I was still not given a copy. I now have a copy of the agreement because other people were given copies. It was possible for me to get a copy of the agreement from all sorts of people around Australia but I, having some responsibility for the Opposition in relation to that matter at that time, was not to be furnished with one officially. I do not regard that as a satisfactory way to keep a matter non-controversial. I do not regard it as a way in which a Minister who is desirous of pursuing a matter in the national interest should conduct that matter. I believe that the approach taken by Mr Macphee when he was a Minister with Mr Young when he was shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in relation to development of immigration programs was the way in which such matters should have been dealt with. Quite frankly, I do not think the Minister envisaged consultations which would vary the agreement that we have before us, but in his speech the Minister mentioned that he would have some consultations. I welcome the fact that he was intending to set up a committee to advise him on how consultations might be undertaken and that he was prepared to go around Australia and meet the migrant communities. But it seems to me that if those consultations were to be meaningful and pursued in a non-controversial way, the best way for them to have been undertaken would have been for the Opposition to have been invited to participate in them. I happened to have been in some of the capital cities around Australia which the Minister was visiting at much the same time as he and I was never invited to go to any of those meetings or to participate or to hear the views of the ethnic communities which he would take into account in developing his decisions. There was a model upon which this matter could have been pursued in a much more worthwhile and beneficial way for the Government and for the people of Australia. I am not a difficult person to deal with but I do find comments by the honourable member for Sydney regrettable, and I find it most regrettable that the consultation that took place had to be forced upon the Government. Having read the nature of comment in the ethnic media, I have no doubt that this was a matter in which the Government was brought to account, not only because of the strength of opinion in the ethnic communities around Australia, but also because of the very significant loss of support the Government was receiving in the Greek community and the awareness of some of its own members of the extent to which that support had been lost. I was interested in the comments of Senator Bolkus and Mr Andreas Theophanous-I assume that is the same Dr Theophanous who is the honourable member for Calwell-who had some comments to make about the way in which the Government acted in these matters. I am not even sure whether their observations in the ethnic Press have been met, particularly when I heard the honourable member for Calwell speak in this debate today. In some comments he made in relation to this matter in Nes Kosmos of 16 May 1985, he said: We have discussed this matter in Athens with competent Ministers. I also met and had discussions with our Ministers here and I brought the matter up before the Federal Caucus of our party. I would prefer not to comment, except to add that I will fight so that no one loses any rights. The Minister was, quite frankly, brought to consultations by the way in which the ethnic communities around Australia reacted to this question. As I say, there was tremendous scope for us if we had wanted to be at all mischievous or wanted to undermine the Government's position in a way unhelpful to the issue. If we had wanted to be divisive among migrants in a way unhelpful to our own nation's interest we could have pursued the matter in a very different way. I hope the Minister has learnt a lesson in relation to the way in which consultations ought to take place. I would not be congratulating him on these consultations. I think that there is an object lesson for us all here. We have a Minister who came into the Parliament with a determined view and a concluded position who changed the position in relation to this matter. That change is what we have before us in relation to the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill 1985. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.06) —It gives me much pleasure today to speak in the debate on the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill. I think that when we are discussing the legislation we should look at the Government's objectives. I would like to make three points on that. The legislation, firstly, is intended to enhance the social security benefits for migrants and Australian born people who spend part of their lives abroad whether they are now in Australia or overseas. As a result of many of these people's moving in or out of Australia they often have no access, or reduced access, to the Australian social security system or lack of access to any foreign system. For instance, many people have been unfortunate enough to reach pensionable age when they are out of Australia. They may have gone back to their country of origin, be it Italy, Greece or any other country from which they have come to Australia. They may have worked in Australia and lived in Australia for 40 or 50 years. These people may find that they have lost some access to the Australian social security system. Some people may have worked in Australia for 9 1/2 years. The 10-year rule comes into effect; they turn 65 years of age if a male, or 60 years of age if a female, and they are not then entitled, if they go overseas, to receive a pension. The proposals contained in this Bill are designed to protect their interests, without raising costs to unreasonable levels. The legislation also is aimed at ensuring that the maximum number of people have access to the benefits that they reasonably could have expected to receive. I think a very important point was made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) that people have an expectation that is borne out by legislation and thus should be able to expect to plan their lives accordingly and not have the rules changed along the way. When the debate on this issue started one would have thought that portability of pensions was a new thing and was something that had happened suddenly in Australia. However, portability of pensions has been with us for many, many years. There were agreements with New Zealand and the United Kingdom which provided portability. As early as 1943 Australia signed an agreement with New Zealand. A comprehensive agreement was signed in 1949. In 1954 we signed an agreement with the United Kingdom Government. Since those days there has been a considerable change in the pattern of migration to Australia and a change in the countries from which Australia has drawn its migrants. There has been no change in the social security reciprocal pensions scheme. While we have a system which recognises that many migrants came to Australia from New Zealand and the United Kingdom before 1954-they are taken care of-it does not recognise the whole gamut of people who have come from other countries-from Europe, Asia and the Middle East-since those years and who make up a large proportion of the population. No agreements have been entered into to assist them. We do not even have an agreement with the country from which the largest ethnic group in Australia comes. I refer to Italy. We do not have agreements with Greece or with Yugoslavia. These are countries which have provided a considerable proportion of the people who have come to Australia as migrants. There is a need to provide equity here. Of course there have been changes in the system. Between 1954 and 1973 there was a reduction in the residency requirement from 20 years to 10 years and the abolition of the necessity to be a citizen. Of course, some people said that it was terrible that one did not need to be a citizen. They said that that was a way of helping people who came here who did not intend to stay. What of course most of those people who complain do not recall is that the largest group of people in Australia who have not taken out citizenship is migrants from the United Kingdom. What we had before the provision that one had to be a citizen was taken away was an agreement with the United Kingdom which gave the largest single group of migrants in Australia who had not taken out citizenship access to a pension. However, it prevented people who came to Australia from Greece, Italy and Yugoslavia from receiving a portable pension unless they took out citizenship. Of course, during the office of the Whitlam Government we saw the introduction of general portability principles. However, it was a long way from 1973 to 1983 when serious negotiations commenced. In May this year the first of those agreements finally was negotiated with the Italian Government. This was announced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). The proposal had been around for close on 10 years. Suddenly, however, there was a lot of alleged outrage in various parts of the community. As the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said in his contribution earlier today, most of it was fuelled by speculation, rumours and, in many cases, by vicious disinformation. What that did was to worry a whole lot of people who thought their entitlements would be changed. The scenario painted by the honourable member for Dundas in which he said the Government did not do much about the situation until there was outrage is not quite true. When the Government became aware of the concern in the various communities in Australia about these provisions the Minister quite quickly and properly initiated a consultation process with the various ethnic communities. The honourable member for Calwell in his contribution outlined the way in which those consultations took place. As one of the four members who worked with the Minister on this issue, I would like to put on record that the Minister was more than open with the communities. The Minister went into it with an open mind and was willing to come to a resolution of the system to ensure that Australia would not have massive payment problems but that there would be equity in the system and that people would not be disadvantaged. I think the present package brought into the House by the Minister meets all those criteria. No one who is presently resident in Australia will suffer under this proposal. People who come to Australia after this legislation is passed will have their entitlements amended, but at least they will be forewarned and will know at the date they get here. I think it is very important to stress that no one will be disadvantaged by the present proposal. Indeed, a number of people will be positively advantaged. I think it was very reasonable of the Minister himself to attend the public meetings in Sydney and Melbourne so that he could be aware of the points of view put forward by people in the ethnic communities. It became apparent to everyone during those meetings that there was a need for some change. The Minister, in keeping with his undertakings to those meetings, has now brought in legislation that will protect the rights of all those people who are at present resident in Australia. It will ensure that some of those people have greater access to financial security from the countries from which they came. In arriving at the final terms of the agreements, the Government has been mindful of those communities that will be affected by them. We ought to look also at any inequities in the agreements we have with New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Those people who are suggesting at present that there will be a scaremongering campaign on ought to look closely at the actions of the Minister during the recent consultations. I am sure that the outcome of those consultations has shown that no one need have any worry about the effects of the present proposals and any future negotiations that should occur. It is probably important to have a look at the age structure of those people who were born in Australia and those who have come to Australia as migrants, particularly those who have come since the Second World War. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a graph which shows the age distribution of Australian-born citizens compared with those born overseas. Leave granted. (For technical reasons, the graph was not incorporated.) Mr LEO McLEAY —The graph very strikingly presents the case that the overseas-born population is aging quicker than the Australian-born population. Before people draw the wrong conclusions- Mr Cadman —It would have been good if he had showed the incorporation to us first. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, we wanted to check whether the honourable member had given us the courtesy of actually letting us see the graph before he asked for it to be incorporated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member informed me he wished to incorporate the graph. I asked the House whether leave was granted and leave was granted. Mr Lloyd —We were just making a point. Mr LEO McLEAY —The graph illustrates that we need to look at the situation with regard to the overseas-born population. Lest people draw the wrong conclusion from that graph, it is important that we realise that many of those people have spent a considerable amount of time in Australia. Information provided by the parliamentary research service from the 1981 census figures indicates that a great deal of the people in the Greek community have been in Australia for over 20 years. Some of them have been here for 30 years. That trend will continue as people get older. We find that it is not the case, as many people suggest, that people are just coming to live in Australia until they become eligible for a social security pension and then leaving. That is a myth that should be put down as quickly as possible. As I said earlier, as a result of the agreements individuals previously not entitled to benefits will be entitled to them. Immediately the agreement with Italy is signed some 12,000 Italian migrants living in Australia will be entitled to an Italian pension to which at present they are not entitled. They will receive a pension from the Italian Government which will add to their livelihood and will be a source of income for Australia and 1,500 people who are living in Italy will be entitled to an Australian pension. One can see that the signing of this agreement will provide considerable financial incentives to Australia. Five thousand people who are living in Australia will be entitled to an Italian survivor's or invalid pension and about 1,500 people living in Italy will qualify for an Australian pension. That is a fairly positive equation for Australia. All that the Government is doing is extending to other migrant source countries the present arrangements that exist between Australia and the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The provisions of equity which were addressed by the honourable member for Dundas are fully met in this legislation. I again stress the point I made with regard to consultation, because I think that the Minister has done an exceptionally good job in consulting with the various communities involved. Those consultations will dampen down some of the criticisms that may continue to float around in the communities. In the few minutes I have left, I wish to address a couple of those criticisms. One of the criticisms is that reciprocal agreements disadvantage migrants. That is not so, and it is patently not so. Many migrants have contributed to foreign social security systems and at present they receive no benefits. The agreements will allow benefits to flow to them. People now living outside Australia who do not receive any pension even though they have spent many years working in Australia and contributing to this country will now be able to receive a pension. Newly arrived people will also have access to their entitlements from overseas. In the past, if people over the pensionable age came to Australia from Italy or from Greece, because we did not have reciprocal arrangements with those countries they were not able to receive a pension here although they would have been entitled to one in their home country. It is important that that situation be changed. No pensioner who resided in Australia or overseas at the time of the implementation of the agreements will receive less money. It is very clear from the points that I have made that the reciprocal agreements do not disadvantage migrants. Some people argue on the other side of the coin and they say that such arrangements are just a government giveaway to migrants and that the agreements will advantage migrants. When one looks at that argument one has to realise that people have a right to collect some of the contributions that they made in their country of origin. If it is fair and equitable that people from New Zealand and from the United Kingdom should be entitled to collect the social security payments that they were entitled to and had contributed to in their country of origin, it is fair enough for people who have come to Australia from other source countries to be given the same arrangement. Some people have suggested that the purpose of this legislation is to save money. That is not true either, because the legislation by itself will result in virtually no savings. There will be savings over a 10-year period, but that will be offset by payments that are made under the agreements. This is not a cost cutting measure by the Government; it is a measure proposed to introduce some equity into the system. For the portability test we have had to introduce the 25-year rule, which many people felt was a little unfortunate. We can take heart from the fact that the original proposal which was agreeable to the overseas governments allowed for a period of 35 years. That has been watered down to 25 years. The important thing to stress is that no one who is presently living in Australia will be disadvantaged. The fact that the Minister has deferred the implementation of the proposals for 10 years means that anyone who is working here now and who is a resident under 65 will be entitled to a pension after 10 years residence, and will be able to take it out of the country. The 25-year rule will apply only to people coming to Australia after the agreements are signed. That is reasonably fair. They will come to Australia on the understanding that that will happen and they will not be deprived of a right. The Italian community, with whom negotiations were held, was fairly happy with that proposal. As the honourable member for Calwell said, there were some difficulties with the Greek community regarding the 25-year rule, but it must be stressed to people in the Greek community that the arrangements will not disadvantage anyone presently living in Australia. I could not think of a fairer way of doing things. In summary, the agreements have pointed out one of the real flaws in our social security system. We are probably one of the few countries in the world that pays a flat cash benefit and requires no contributions by individuals except through the tax system. Over the years, many people have come to believe that because they pay taxes they should be entitled to a pension. The Government has run across difficulties with the assets test and other social security matters because of this misplaced myth in Australia that if one contributes to the tax system one should be entitled to a pension. Before the Government did away with means test free pensions for people aged over 70 we had the lunacy of millionaires in Australia receiving social security pensions. It was a ludicrous arrangement. A previous Prime Minister of Australia recognised that he was entitled to a parliamentary pension and a social security pension. Mr Gear —And he took it. Mr LEO McLEAY —He took it. What we must do in this country is pay close attention to trying to move our system towards one in which people make a contribution. There should be a movement towards a national superannuation scheme or some other type of scheme in which people make contributions and receive a benefit in relation to the contribution they have made. Australia should move towards implementing that sort of social security system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(11.26) —It is fascinating to hear a member of the current Government knocking so strongly one of the decisions of the Whitlam Government. Only 10 years later, we hear that Whitlam was wrong in his policy of providing non-means tested pensions for over 70-year-olds. It is a fascinating turnaround. The Opposition welcomes this decision and will not oppose it. As members of the Government will be aware, Senator Chaney initiated steps to create reciprocal agreements for the payment of pensions. The Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill 1985 brings to fruition a whole series of investigations and examinations that have taken place over many years. An agreement with Italy is the first step. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is negotiating a treaty with Italy. The preparation of the treaty is in its final stages, as I understand it. It is a good idea and it seems to have the approval of the political parties of Australia. How do we move it forward? In July 1985, in a pamphlet entitled `International Social Security Agreements' issued by the Department of Social Security, information was given for the benefit of migrant pensioners as to what the future could hold for them. I quote from the pamphlet: Agreements with the 15 countries which have expressed interest in negotiations as well as current comprehensive agreements with the United Kingdom and New Zealand, would cover more than 75 per cent of Australia's migrant population. Those 15 countries-14, if one excludes Italy-include Yugoslavia, West Germany, Austria, Greece, Sweden, Netherlands, Israel, Malta, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Canada and France. However, another six countries are not detailed by the Department but are suggested it, which would increase the total number of migrants covered by reciprocal agreements to 83 per cent. That means that 17 per cent will not be included and possibly never will be included in this type of agreement. Those countries include, of course, refugee source countries, those which are no longer sovereign states, those which have no appropriate relations with Australia, and those which do not have a developed social security system. The important element of the reciprocal agreement as proposed by the Government is that none of the agreements is any good, nor can it be advanced, unless the community which is affected promotes it. That is my understanding of what the Minister is saying. I would encourage the Minister to take a balanced view. He did not consult effectively. He made the big announcement in this place. He was slammed in the Italian and Greek Press for not consulting. He eventually consulted, and consulted effectively. A Minister is sensible if he can do that. The Government has now taken the attitude that it will not take any role whatsoever other than a placid role. It believes that the initiatives should come from those communities which would like to see a reciprocal arrangement so that part pensions can be collected from two or more countries. I would encourage the Minister to be a little more positive. I would like to hear his comments at the end of the debate because I think there is a middle line where negotiations can begin and discussions commence without the Government being passive. It is sensible to advance these agreements. The Minister need not sit back and wait for the communities around Australia to initiate discussions. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) outlined very effectively the way in which he and I saw the lack of consultations that occurred. That period has finished, so consultations should and must continue. There are some difficulties with the pension and these are not quantified. For instance, part pensions will be paid to some people who otherwise would not be eligible if they had stayed in Australia. A person who has lived in Australia for seven years and, upon retirement, leaves Australia would get the benefit of seven years payment of pension, whereas an Australian resident who remains in Australia cannot claim a pension entitlement after seven years but must wait for 10 years. That is a flaw in the system. It is not a serious one, but it is a flaw. It should be realised that in 1981, 20,000 aged migrants had been in Australia for less than 10 years that is, 10 per cent of ethnic aged people were residents who had been here for less than 10 years. Such a person could be right in saying: `My sister is going back to Italy. She will get the pension. I will have to live in Australia for a further period before I become entitled to it'. The reciprocal agreement changes the philosophy in regard to age pensions. It changes it in an important way which was adverted to by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). It takes up the concept that people who have made a contribution by way of tax payments have made a contribution towards their retirement benefit. The underlying change contains implications for the remainder of pension beneficiaries. It supports the view that tax is a self-funding payment retained for later pension payments. It is based on the concept that 25 years work earns the right to a full benefit. The Minister will have to be very careful with this concept because he knows that many people in Australia regard payment of tax as their contribution towards their retirement. He has heard, as I have, many pensioner groups say: `We have paid our tax. We deserve the pension'. So this reciprocal agreement does regard 25 years work as a contribution towards pension which is later collected when the person moves overseas. Some of the facts on payments are interesting because it is often said in the Australian community that we pay out more in pensions to people living overseas than we get back in. Why should the taxpayer meet this burden? The facts are these: Payments to people overseas in 1985 were $87.3m. Incomplete information from the Department of Social Security for that same year, 1985, seems to indicate that an estimated $200m came in. So Australia does benefit from the flow of pensions. This reciprocal agreement will have minuses and pluses for Australia. The Minister has not been able to quantify in dollars and cents how Australia will fare in regard to this arrangement. That is a flaw. I would like to have an estimate of how we will finish up in this exercise. The down side for Australia is that we are paying pensions to people who previously were not eligible. The up side is that money will flow into Australia which previously did not flow in. Because there is a reciprocal agreement allowing, in this instance, Italy to forward funds to Australian residents. The Minister in his second reading speech stated: . . . no agreement can be implemented until the legislation necessary to give it effect in Australia has been passed by this Parliament. He has not pursued that matter and the Opposition does not wish to pursue it either. We have, I think, a common view about the best way in which these things can be dealt with, and the Executive Government entering into treaties is the appropriate process. It does not involve legislation, and we are not concerned. The 10-year circuit breaker for the implementation of this legislation is welcome and sensible. Ultimately the Government was forced by the Italian and Greek communities to accept it. It is based on the fact that people have an expectation and unless that expectation is met and properly allowed for people will be annoyed and disappointed. This has occurred with many of the measures that the Government has adopted-the assets test, lump sum superannuation tax and other measures. People had an expectation and had planned accordingly, and the Government moved willy nilly against those long years of planning. I draw to the Minister's attention some of the problems of aged migrants who are affected by the portability of pensions. They are not really matters involving the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, but they are important matters and they need to be considered by the Department of Social Security. Retirement should be able to be achieved with dignity. The aged in our society should be able to live rewarding and fulfilling lives. Retirement should be a time of reward for a life of hard work and endeavour. The Government has a responsibility to develop policies which allow for that sense of dignity in retirement. Therefore, flexibility in dealing with changes in Government policy-making is critical. The elderly in Australia have three basic needs: financial security, housing and health care services. There are special factors relating to aged immigrants. Migrants have great difficulty with the English language. I encourage the Minister, in this reciprocal agreement process, to recognise that both financial security and coping with language difficulties are critical for the aged. Can the Minister assure this House that the people who are affected will be made fully aware of their entitlements. What processes will be used for education and the dissemination of information? Coping with the English language becomes more important as these people get older. Countless studies have demonstrated that as people get older they revert to the language and food tastes of their youth. Therefore, if this is going to work effectively the Minister has to have a strategy for information dissemination and education so that people can understand what is, in fact, a fairly complex concept. Language problems really become difficult in small, isolated communities that are not in regular contact with their contemporaries. A number of groups in Australia have sought to overcome these difficulties and we could well utilise the information dissemination mechanism of those organisations. I commend the work of the Italian Welfare Centre in Wollongong. Mr Bonacini and his wife have, over a period, brought together aged Italians who want to do things together. It is a social information dissemination process-the very type of mechanism that the Minister should be looking at to disseminate information on reciprocal agreements. People take heavy financial decisions when they decide to leave Australia and they want to be absolutely sure, not only that they receive their entitlements but also that their security and future will be sound. Aged migrants in Australia represent around 25 per cent of all aged persons, but that figure will increase to 36 per cent by the year 2001. That also indicates that there may be a rising expectation of freedom of movement as parents join children in Australia and as those who have contributed a long working life in Australia retire to their country of origin. So there will be larger numbers of aged people affected by this as time goes by. In fact, the percentage of non-English speaking aged will rise from 11 per cent to 22 per cent of all aged people in Australia by the year 2000. That growth is a factor which will be affected by the reciprocal arrangements. As the Government moves, I hope with some sense of commitment, towards the signing of agreements with other countries, the increase in numbers is a factor that has to be considered. I cannot see any problems with that, because it would appear to me that the money coming in will continue to exceed money going out. Of course, that process has received a dramatic boost with the change in the value of the Australian dollar brought about by this Government, which has devalued the Australian dollar to such a low level that it has distorted the figures for the amount of money coming in, so there is a bit of a false picture on that at the moment. That false picture will continue until there is an election of a coalition government, which will restore the dollar to its proper value. I also draw to the attention of the House-I am dealing with statistics, but the Minister has to be aware of what he is up against in this area-the report of the Australian Council on the Ageing. According to that report, 22 per cent of non-English speaking aged migrants, compared with only 4 per cent of Australian aged people are concerned about financial problems. I believe that gives greater emphasis to the need for effective communication. If the Department of Social Security, or the Minister himself, fails to communicate, as he did when he indicated the Government's intention on that treaty, there will be real trouble ahead. It is not an easy agreement. It is not an easy concept. It needs to be explained to people. The concepts and policies of the Government have not been good for the elderly, but this is one area in which we support what it is doing. The real problems are the ones that I have outlined. There will be no savings in this process. There will be some costs. The Government has not outlined what those costs will be. The problem of fixed income is exacerbated and compounded by rising prices, inflation, interests rates, petrol prices, the assets test, lump sum superannuation taxes and a prospective capital gains tax. Until the Government threw a few dollars to the aged migrant community through nursing home support and now this legislation there had been no basic acknowledgment of the needs of the aged, be they born overseas or in Australia. The Government has not come to grips with the needs of the aged. The Government has to take stronger action and be more selective in the way in which it approaches non-English speaking migrants. I have already enunciated the difficulties of migrant communities with their financial arrangements. Non-English speaking migrants have greater problems in managing their money than any other group in our community. They cannot understand the processes of investment and return. The Government has made changes in legislation and to taxes and has used psychedelic batons or clubs to beat the aged community of Australia. It needs to think through, once more, its response to the aged community. This is a start. I have recommended that the Minister pursue it and pursue it in a sensible way. He has learned the sensible way to approach communities. He realises the advantage of adopting the sensible way. Now he has to put it into action, but there is no indication that he is likely to put it into action. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is a good example. To give honourable members an illustration of what we have to face and what we are dealing with, the Prime Minister's electorate has a large number of migrants. A total of 5,351 aged migrants live in the electorate of Wills. These people represent 32 per cent of all aged people in that electorate. It is interesting to note that when the Prime Minister was in his electorate recently he stated: Myself and Hazel would like to be able to spend more time with you in the electorate, but as you can understand, that is not possible . . . Our thoughts though, are always with you. Those thoughts will need to change from things such as the assets test, capital gains tax and lump sum tax on superannuation to things such as the needs of non-English speaking migrants and the needs of that large number of people in the Prime Minister's electorate from whom the Government at this moment is considering taking away the $3 a week which they should have from the fall in petrol prices, which should take place if the Government were fair dinkum about the management of this country. This will affect all elderly people, but particularly aged migrants. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.45) —I rise to speak in support of the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill 1985. We have just heard one of the most extraordinary second halves of a speech that I have heard for a long time. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) talked about everything other than what was before the House. He reminded me of a tom cat. On the one hand he enjoys it and on the other hand he does not necessarily. He was full of praise in the first part of his speech and in the second part he veered away from the issue. We heard the tired old rhetoric for which the honourable member for Mitchell is now notorious, bringing in all the side issues that have no relation to the matter before the House. Now he is walking out of the chamber, heading off back to his lair and not staying for the remainder of the discussion. This legislation brings to an end a very long history of negotiations between Australia and Italy. Australia was first approached by the Italian Government in 1951 about a possible social security agreement. This should not come as a surprise because, since the end of World War II, Italian migrants have settled in Australia in their thousands. However, we should be surprised that it took a further 35 years for this House to discuss and pass legislation on the proportional portability of pensions. Despite this delay, public interest in the issue was maintained, both in Australia and in Italy. I take this opportunity to congratulate those Italian Australians who, over many years, continued to put the pressure on governments to sustain their interest in social security agreements. My electorate of Melbourne, which is next door to the electorate of Wills, is fortunate to have an Italian language newspaper, Il Globo. Its lively and deeply committed editor, Mr Nino Randazzo, kept me and thousands of people in Victoria informed of the community attitudes throughout the whole of the debate on the portability of pensions. This Government, and in particular the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), should be very proud of having achieved where so many others have failed. As I pointed out, we have been engaged in these discussions since 1951 and this Minister has succeeded where a long string of people have failed to pull off an arrangement. This Government with this Bill has demonstrated once more its commitment to providing access and equity to all residents, irrespective of their national origin, language or cultural background. The honourable member for Mitchell spoke about what we ought to do. He referred to the plights in which people currently find themselves, particularly the aged, and the shortages in all those areas about which the aged are concerned which were caused mainly by the previous Government in the disastrous seven years when he served as a member of that Government. This Bill is designed to protect and enhance the rights of migrants and to provide them with the security they need and deserve. I turn now to the consultations that have taken place. Misinformed comments have been made by honourable members on the other side of the House, including the honourable member for Mitchell. They have said that this Government did not consult enough on this question. This could not be further from the truth. The Minister for Social Security, honourable members will recall, announced in this House in May 1985 the principles upon which the proposed agreement between Australia and Italy would be based. He announced also that before the Government proceeded with legislative changes he would seek the views of the ethnic communities throughout Australia. He then appointed a committee which undertook consultations lasting from May until September 1985. I attended a number of these consultations at the invitation of the Minister, including meetings with ethnic umbrella organisations, welfare professionals, ethnic pension groups from the Italian and other communities, and the general community and public. The committee called for submissions and received more than 100 quite detailed submissions. A total of 43 meetings were organised throughout Australia to discuss the Government's approach to social security agreements. More than 2,000 people attended those meetings and representatives of 515 ethnic organisations took part in those consultations. I am told that the Minister attended 28 of those meetings. The committee then reported back to the Minister and its report will be published in the near future, I understand. Let there be no misunderstanding about the consultations and the myth that have been perpetrated throughout the community, particularly within the migrant community, that there were no consultations. There were extensive consultations allowing for full participation, where required, by members of migrant communities. I stress again that the consultations took place and gave the opportunity to people to contribute to this important debate. Negotiations commenced in 1951, yet this sort of consultation had not been provided for until recently. Honourable members opposite have had the audacity to question us because we had these consultations, and they have suggested that they were not extensive enough. Mr Shipton —That is right. Mr HAND —They were extensive enough, because the Italian community has agreed with us. If the honourable member does not know that, he has not been talking to many Italians. That would not surprise me, coming from the honourable member who interjected. The fact is that coalition governments since 1951 had the opportunity to engage in these consultations. They did not; they ran and hid, misled people and refused to discuss the matter. So let us put to rest once and for all the question of consultation. I pay tribute to the committee and all those people who assisted in those consultations, who did the hard slogging work across the length and breadth of Australia and met with people. As I have outlined, there were formal meetings and a range of meetings and discussions in an informal way. I congratulate the chairperson of the committee, Mr Dimitri Dollis, a young member of the Greek community, who threw himself into this task and did a magnificent job in sometimes very difficult circumstances because of some of the more misleading information that was circulated throughout the migrant communities in a fear campaign. I congratulate him and the other members of his committee, Mr Nino Randazzo, Athena Touraki, Francesco Giacobbe and Afif Hadj. Those people on occasions took quite a deal of abuse but were able to explain the Government's program, answered the questions and satisfied the overwhelming number of people at the meetings they attended. I place on record my thanks and congratulations to those people. I said earlier that as a result of the lengthy and widespread consultations which took place the Italian community has given its support to the Government. I repeat that the Italian community supports this program. I am delighted that the Opposition for once has accepted the decision of the people. Even though the honourable member for Mitchell in the second half of his speech was getting close to telling us that honourable members opposite did not accept it, in the first part of his speech he redeemed himself by grudgingly conceding that it was not such a bad idea. The people have spoken and have supported the idea and we are now proceeding with the legislation. The Italian community wants this Government to finalise the legislative arrangements to be able to proceed to the signing of the agreement quickly because it wants to see something happen. The Opposition had the opportunity for many years, but it did not do anything. The people of Australia understand that. The people of Melbourne, Wills, Gellibrand and other places will understand full well that the Opposition had the chance but that it ran and hid and would not discuss it. We have done it and the people of Australia will understand who is on their side and who has been opposed to them over the years. People in communities justifiably feel that they have waited for 35 years for this House to debate this matter. I venture to say that we do not want to see another 35 years pass before another program is introduced. Mr Millar —That is more patience than passion. Mr HAND —I guess it is more patience than passion. I turn now to the subject matter of the Bill; the reciprocal agreements and how they will benefit people. The agreements are internationally recognised as a way of protecting the social security rights of people who move between countries. Most modern agreements are based on the principle of shared responsibility, that is, the pensioner receives a part of the pension from each country based on the length of time he or she has either contributed or resided in the agreement country. Residence is the principal criteria for the receipt of the pension in Australia. In this we differ from most overseas social security systems, which are based on the individual's contributions. To bring Australia into line with overseas social security systems we have had to change the rules relating to persons abroad so that they can be paid a pension on a proportional basis. Essentially, the new rules mean that pensioners who go overseas will receive a proportional pension based on the length of time they were resident in Australia. A full pension will be paid to people who were resident 25 years or more of their working life in Australia. `Working life' is defined as being between the ages of 16 and 65 years for men and 16 and 60 for women. It does not mean that people will have to have actually been in work during that period to qualify. This principle of 25 years residence for full portability of the Australian age pension will not take effect until after 8 May 1995 with respect to the people who were resident in Australia but not receiving a pension on 8 May 1985. The delay means that the full expectations of all persons resident in Australia on 8 May 1985, which is the date on which the Minister announced the Government's intention to proceed with reciprocal agreements, will in fact be met. Until then the existing rules remain in force. By that, I mean that the full age pension will be portable after 10 years residence. Migrants who arrive in Australia after 8 May 1985 will be automatically subject to the new rules when they come into effect. Similarly, residents who are overseas on 8 May 1985 and who return after that date will also be subject to the new rules. We should ask ourselves who will benefit from these agreements. The object of having reciprocal agreements is to protect and enhance the rights of migrants. It is interesting and pleasing to hear members of the Opposition say that they support this concept. I think that is an advancement on some of the more traumatic comments that were made in the debates that have taken place in the previous 12 months. I am happy to take part in a debate in which there is agreement that we are basically concerned about improving the lot of people, whether they be long term residents or new arrivals. The introduction of a reciprocal agreement based on the principle of proportional portability is an extremely important development for ethnic communities living in Australia. Many people will be assisted. However, it is worth noting that the groups that will particularly benefit from the new arrangements include those people who have resided in Australia for less than 10 years, those people who have lived in Australia for lengthy periods but have left before retirement, and those people who have contributed to a fund in their country of origin but do not get anything because they have emigrated to Australia. I am sure that all honourable members would have talked in their offices to people who cannot cope despite the arrangements which were laid down and despite the good will commitment and support of their families. Tremendous hardships have been created. I believe that this Bill will help to overcome the problems that those people have been experiencing. I am very excited about this concept and I hope that we will be able to move quickly into a range of other agreements. At this point only one reciprocal agreement based on proportional portability has been endorsed and that is between Italy and Australia. This agreement is likely to be held up as the prototype for future agreements with other countries. I would like to cite a couple of examples to give honourable members an idea of how the agreement will work in practice. The first is a person with 20 years contributions in Italy, five years contribution in Australia, living in Australia, who presently receives an Italian pension of approximately $3,500 per annum. Under the agreement Australia would pay a pension of $1,590, being five-twenty-fifths of an Australian pension, giving a combined pension of approximately $5,090. The second example is a person with 10 years contribution in Italy, 20 years residence in Australia but who left Australia before retirement and is now living in Italy. This person at present would receive nothing from either country. Under the agreement Australia would provide 20-twenty-fifths of an Australian pension-that is, $4,000-and Italy would pay a pension based on 10 years contribution. The combined income from both pensions could be expected to equal approximately $6,000. Mr Millar —The same purchasing power? Mr HAND —Well, I have not lived in Italy for some time. I am not quite sure. I had only a brief stay in Italy and I must say that I found it very enjoyable. Mr Goodluck —Why did you come back? Mr HAND —As an Australian I wanted to come back and join all the Italians in my electorate who have made Australia their home. They are making a great contribution to my electorate. I am proud to be part of the wonderful Lygon Street atmosphere that is created every day in my electorate. People in this House ought to come down and mix with the Italian community that is in Lygon Street and enjoy the magnificent food that we cook. The pasta and-- Mr Lloyd —Are you an honorary member of it? Mr HAND —I am just around the corner in Elgin Street. This is an equally important street because that is where my electoral office is. It is about 20 yards off Lygon Street and I am handy to all of the wonderful eating houses there. In conclusion, this historic Bill is only the beginning. We have a long way to go before we complete enough agreements to cover the majority of our ethnic communities. I have made the point that I hope it does not take in excess of 30 years for other agreements to be signed. I am sure that this will not be the case because there is now a much wider understanding by ethnic communities of what reciprocal agreements will actually mean for their people. I guess that is one of the good things to have come out of this debate. Other communities are going to grasp this opportunity and pressure the Government. We will be only too happy to respond to that pressure. I feel sure that these changes will take place quickly. The Government has committed itself to a continuing consultative process with other ethnic communities to establish more agreements. However, on no account will we commence negotiations with a country unless there is specific support for an agreement by the ethnic community concerned in Australia. I am sure that that support will be forthcoming. It is an important point to note that some people in the community are suggesting that we are going to force agreements on migrant communities in this country. I make the point again: There will be no agreement with any overseas country unless we are able to convince the community in Australia that such an agreement is in its interests and we have its support. I think it is proper and fair that we approach this matter in that way. This legislation will have significant ramifications for ethnic communities in my electorate. Honourable members well know my electorate because I talk about it constantly. It has one of the highest proportions in Australia of persons born overseas. According to the 1981 census, in all, 35.6 per cent of the residents were born overseas. Having had close links with what is happening in the high rise estates in my electorate, I suggest to honourable members that that figure is much higher this year. However, this is an indication of the sorts of people who live in the electorate of Melbourne. A high percentage of the 36 per cent of people in my electorate who were born overseas are Italians. As I said, they are supporting this proposal to the hilt. I am happy that they have been satisfactorily catered for and that their fears and concerns about this legislation have been in fact overcome as a result of consultation. Furthermore, a large proportion of the migrants in my electorate are recent arrivals. Many of them are elderly parents who have been sponsored under the family reunion program and who would not, under current social security provisions, be entitled to a pension. However, those of Italian descent will, once the agreement between the two countries has been signed, be able to claim a pension. That is a magnificent advancement. As I said earlier-and this is not a criticism of the previous Government; it is just an acknowledgement of a fact-the previous scheme has caused tremendous hardship. This legislation seeks to overcome that hardship. Once the agreement between the two countries has been signed these people will be more relaxed and more able to enjoy a wonderful life after the reunion with their families-enjoy the wonders of Lygon Street, if I can put a plug. Once agreements are negotiated with other countries, constituents of mine of other nationalities also will be able to claim a pension and enjoy the benefits of this scheme. In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the Minister for having the guts and determination, if I can put it that way, to go out and talk to people about this, to answer their questions-as I said, I attended a lot of meetings with the Minister-put the record of this Government to the people, talk about our proposals, and get them accepted, by the Italian community in the first instance. He did something that had never been done before, that is, he took the issue out on to the ground, to the people. Anyone who does that will always win. When the material is there and one is honest and tells people what the programs are all about, the community will accept it once they understand it. The Italian community has done it and they are to be commended for it. I hope that the benefits we think will flow out of this legislation will improve their lives by giving them greater financial assistance. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.06) —It gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill. In view of the time constraints I will be restricting my remarks. Having had the honour to hold the shadow portfolio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from 1983 to 1984 and having been succeeded in that position by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have, of course, followed the discussions, the deliberations and the ultimate conclusion of the agreement entered into between Australia and Italy. In fact, I had discussions with the Italian authorities in Rome in 1984. I join with earlier speakers in saying that the Opposition supports the legislation, but that is not to say that the legislation is perfect. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) in his remarks indicated that there was a need for constant review, not only of this legislation but also of agreements which will be entered into from time to time. Certainly in relation to the Italian situation there are problems. I will try to keep my remarks as non-controversial as I can, but one of the problems which immediately impact on this legislation is the current very depleted value of the Australian dollar. I just say en passant that this is a problem which will hit very heavily people in countries such as Italy who rely on their Australian pension payments for the maintenance of a standard of living, which obviously will be adversely affected as long as the Australian dollar remains at its current low level. I do, however, chide the Government in very similar words to those used in your address, Mr Deputy Speaker, on its failure to consult fully and broadly. During my term as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I came in for very hot criticism from the Australian Labor Party, not just in this Parliament but in other parts of Australia. All sorts of allegations were made. They totally ignored the fact that back in Hobart, in my electorate of Denison, as my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) would confirm, I would say without any equivocation at all that one of the reasons I continue to hold that seat is because of widespread support, particularly from some ethnic communities which traditionally vote for the Labor Party in other parts of Australia. The honourable member for Melbourne is proud of Lygon Street; I am proud of the Italo Australian Club and of the Italian and Greek communities in my electorate. I have had the honour to be honorary legal adviser to one of the largest ethnic communities in my electorate for some 20 years. I have been directly involved in over 20 ethnic organisations, not just from Great Britain and Europe, but including Asian groups, the Overseas Students Association from the University of Tasmania, the Fiji-Australian Association of Tasmania and the like. So all the time I was being attacked up here for being `racist', back in Hobart they all thought it was a bit of a joke. The figures show, and the honourable member for Franklin finds himself in an almost identical position, that over 25 per cent-in some periods the figure exceeds 30 per cent-of the constituents who come into my electorate office for assistance from me as the Federal member for Denison are ethnic constituents. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. To support the point I made, I put on record, I hope without any inflammatory remarks, that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs hit the nail right on the head on 10 May last year when he stated, and it was reported in the media: It is important that the Opposition and particularly the ethnic communities involved are properly consulted on the changes. We need to be given the full details, particularly the new principles contained in the legislation. It is tragic that a shadow Minister of the capacity of the honourable member for Dundas was not afforded the opportunity which, with great respect, the honourable member for Melbourne was afforded. Had the honourable member for Dundas and the Opposition been fully consulted, along with a broader section of the ethnic communities, the Government may well have come up with a better piece of legislation. I think the ethnic communities will say of this legislation in Italian, `bravo', but had the Government fully consulted them they would have said `bravissimo'. The fact is that the Government lost an opportunity which I suggest was open to it. I welcome the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) who, if my information is correct, has the highest proportion of ethnic constituents of any electorate in Australia. When one moves down this track, and it is a difficult track, let us ensure that the mistakes which have been made by the Government are not repeated. It is not just my view that there were mistakes, or the view of the honourable member for Dundas; the ethnic community leaders themselves were speaking out. Without going into any detail, Dr Moraitis, a highly respected leading Greek community worker, particularly in the welfare area, was constrained to make the comment that what was happening was `a time bomb which threatened the Government itself with defeat at the next elections'. The position today may not be quite as inflammatory and I hope it is not from the point of view of the Government at any rate. Members of the Italian and Greek communities have spoken to me along the track about this matter. Let me be quite blunt: No political party in Australia has a monopoly on the ethnic vote. The fact is that all of us, I hope, would treat them all as Australians of ethnic origin. It does somewhat annoy me when there is some presumptuous expression of opinion from the Hawke socialist Government that it has the ethic vote in the bag. I can assure the House that the ethnic communities do not like it. I want to tackle the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on the wretched assets test which the Government has brought in and which impacts on this. Mr Hand —What has this got to do with it? Mr HODGMAN —It does have something to do with it because if the honourable member checks the legislation his socialist Minister colleague has brought into this Parliament, with this scheme hanging over it, he will find the spectre of the old assets test-knock, knock, knock. An Italian family in Lygon Street, Carlton may happen to be heir to some property in Italy. Grandma and grandpa remain in Italy. They do not come to Australia because they are too old and want to spend their last years in Italy. When they die and the property is left to the family in Lygon Street, Carlton, that property back in Italy is taken into account for the purposes of the assets test. So the assets test is not only a blight on pensioners throughout Australia but it also has an extraterritorial effect. Mr Goodluck —It does indeed. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Franklin is spot on. Take the case of a property being left to, say, four brothers and two sisters-six in total-four of whom happen to be in Australia and two back in Italy, and for family reasons the four in Australia say to the two in Italy: `you keep the property, you can live there'. The plain fact is that those four Australian beneficiaries run the risk of having their pension slashed and their portable pension taken away because of the extra-territoriality of the assets test. I ask the Minister, who was kind enough to let me speak to one of the devisers: How does one find out the valuation? We all know the problems with valuations. The Belconnen Mall scandal demonstrates how valuations which are millions of dollars apart can be made. How is Minister Howe going to properly assess the value of property in Italy, Greece or anywhere else, on the basis of which he is going to take away the pensions of ethnic constituents in Australia? What right will those people have to appeal? How on earth can cases be dealt with when one is arguing about property in Greece, Italy and so on? Many Greeks and Italians have said to me: `Why has the Hawke socialist Government turned on us in this way?'. Many of the Government's strongest supporters are now wavering and, I suggest, they will vote against it at the next election. I turn to my final point. It is slightly off the point, but the honourable member for Franklin and I have been asked to raise in this Parliament the matter of the pensions of Dutch ex-servicemen. I know that it is not directly within the Minister's area of responsibility, but I and the honourable member for Franklin have given a commitment that the anomalies relating to Dutch service pensioners currently living in Australia will be addressed. I appreciate that that will involve discussions with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, as well as with the Minister for Social Security. I am pleased that the honourable member for Melbourne and other Government members are nodding. There is a gross anomaly and injustice in relation to former Dutch servicemen who served in World War II and are now in Australia. The British and most others have been fixed up. Mr Goodluck —The merchant seamen have been fixed up. Mr HODGMAN —The merchant seamen have nearly been fixed up, but the Dutch problem is a very big one. The Minister will be aware that the Dutch community is the largest ethnic community in Tasmania. I have not upset anybody during my speech. I conclude by saying that it gives me great pleasure to speak on any debate involving ethnic communities. I note with some pride and satisfaction that all things I recommended in 1983 as shadow Minister were implemented by the Hawke socialist Government in 1985 by Minister Hurford. That gives me great satisfaction. I claim some very broad vindication for what I said at that time because the Government has done precisely what I said ought to have been done. Mr GEAR(Canning)(12.17) —It seems to me that whoever draws up the speakers list always puts me to speak after the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I remember when we spoke about the assets test last year. We are talking about it again today in relation to this Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill. He always has a go at the assets test as though it is something evil which disadvantages people. People who really know all about the assets test would take the opposite view. It does help the people who are disadvantaged. Those are the people who rely on the pension as their sole means of income. We would rather increase their income than give pensions to the millionaires who benefited from them when the coalition Government was in power. The honourable member for Denison will always be remembered as the person who ran into the office of the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, and asked whether gold was to be treated as an asset under the assets test. When he was told that it was, he raced out and put out a Press release to say that the gold in one's teeth would be taken into account. That shows how far he was prepared to go and the way in which his mind works. Before I deal with the relevant parts of the legislation, I inform the House of the effects of the assets test. In 16 months I had one approach from a constituent affected by the assets test and we were able to have that person's concerns satisfied. That is the impact the assets test is having out there in the electorate. Before I finish speaking on that subject, one thing that members of the Opposition should tell the Australian people if it intends to get rid of the assets test is whether it intends to increase taxes to pay for the extra pensions or to lower the pensions for the people who really need them. Honourable members opposite cannot have it both ways. It is about time they stood up and told us what they would do. The legislation which is before us today is in recognition that society has a responsibility to care for its citizens. The scope of the legislation recognises that when people come to Australia from other countries and retire either in Australia or in their former countries, both countries have a role to play in ensuring that those people are not disadvantaged by the provisions of the social security systems of those countries. Of all the countries in the world, I believe that Australia has benefited most from people coming from other countries. They have brought their skills and enthusiasm to Australia. There is no way that we could have developed as the society we are today if it were not for those people who came here. We owe them a great debt. This legislation is one way of showing that we will repay that debt. The following factors have been taken into account when considering the effect of the legislation on the individual: Firstly, no one will be disadvantaged by the legislation. Where the legislation does impact on pensioners either here or overseas it will always work to their advantage. All affected groups have been consulted and their wishes have been taken into account, regardless of what the Opposition is trying to portray. Mr Hand —There is not a member of the Opposition in the chamber. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Melbourne is quite right; no one from the Opposition is in the chamber. It just shows how interested they are. It shows their disregard for the people out there. The agreement will fit individual needs. No one will be disadvantaged. This agreement is based on fairness in that each country pays it share on a proportional basis. That is the way it should be. The examples given previously by the honourable member for Melbourne show that the legislation which is before us today as a result of the negotiations that have taken place between Australia and Italy will work to the advantage of people living either in Australia or Italy after they retire. In some cases they miss out altogether. One thing I would mention to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) about pensions from overseas-I have had many problems with the English pension-is the problem of currency fluctuations. I know that the Bill does not address this problem, but it comes up all the time. If we are to get into the area of negotiating with other countries I think that is something that has to be taken into account. The criticisms which I presently receive are that the pensioner cannot get the exchange rate nominated by the Department of Social Security. I wish to pick up one of the points made by previous speakers and to agree with it. I think that Australia should move away from the present system to some form of pension system whereby a contribution is made during a person's working life. It seems to me that not many people in the Opposition appreciate what the present system is. It was brought in in the early 1950s. On my understanding, it was a safety net because at that time the conservative Government of the day said that people should make provision for their own retirement. The government pension was a recognition that there were people who may not be able to do that or may not have the financial capacity to do that. Certainly, the understanding today is that the pension is a right and that in some way one makes a contribution during one's working life. That is not so. All the pensions which are paid out each year are from taxes collected in that year. Therefore, nothing has been saved from the past, although at the time the present system was introduced we had the embryo of a contributory system. The superannuation system which was worked out between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which is before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at present, is one step towards making sure that we do go back in some way to a contributory pension system. I think that for that reason alone it is to be applauded. The Hawke Government, since it has been in office, has tried to put some integrity back into the system. First of all, it stopped the practice of double dipping by taxing lump sum superannuation payments. A scandalous system existed whereby people could contribute-not all people; just a select number of people-to a superannuation scheme, take the taxation advantages that were available to them during that time and, upon retirement, take a lump sum, invest it in such a way that they received no income from it and claim a full pension. At least we have put some integrity back into the system. The conservative parties opposite fought it tooth and nail. They tried to hang on to the old, unfair system. I have touched on the assets test. I will not elaborate further but reiterate that what the assets test does is to ensure that this Government can pay an increased pension to those people who need it, the people who have no form of income other than the pension. I think it is obscene that the millionaires of this country received full pensions. According to the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, there were at least 12. There must have been more millionaires who realised that they did not have to fill out an assets test form, that they would lose the pension in any case. I believe there is a pressing need to come up with a contributory scheme. I finish by pointing out to the House some of the impacts of the pension system in the future. Let us look at the number of aged people in Australia. In 1981, less than 10 per cent of the population was over 65 years of age; by 2021, it will be about 15 per cent. Put another way, in 1969, there were 11 working age people per aged person; in 1981, the proportion was 7:1; by 2021, it is expected to be 4.5:1. I could go on, but time is short and I have the Whip sitting next to me asking me to sit down. I conclude by congratulating the Minister for the breakthrough in this very important piece of legislation. I wish him well in the negotiations that he will undertake on behalf of this Government with countries from which we draw our migrant population. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(12.26) —Today we are discussing the Social Security (Proportional Portability of Pensions) Amendment Bill, but the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) spoke for a moment on the assets test and once again he gave us the Labor Government's hardy annual: `How would the Opposition fund pensions?' Honourable members opposite often ask how the Opposition would do this and how the Opposition would do that. The pensioners and the fuel consumers of Australia and everyone else in this country wants to know how the Government will do it. At this time they are not concerned-as they will be in the lead-up to an election-with what we will do. They want to know whether the Government will take 7c a litre off the price of fuel; they want to know whether the Government will relax its iniquitous assets test; they want to know what the Government is going to do. As the assets test has been mentioned, I point out that our principal opposition to that test is quite simple: It is grossly iniquitous. Mr Gear —No! Mr TUCKEY —Of course it is. The honour- able member for Canning well knows that one can pay $4m for a family home in the city of Perth. That can be one's sole asset, so one can receive a pension and have a nicely increasing asset. Under the Government's rules the owner of a $4m house can have a wonderful appreciating asset to leave to his kids and still get the pension. But that same householder in a rural town could probably not find a house with an appreciable value in excess of $50,000. Of course, we all know that the farmer living out in the country may be living on his farm as a retired person with his children running the farm, but if that farm has a value in excess of $150,000 he cannot get a pension. The ultimate inequity comes when someone on a small acreage of land with hobby farm value has to sell his memories-and I can give anecdotal evidence of this-and walk away from the farmhouse where he has raised his kids and buy another $100,000 house in a metropolitan area in order to get the pension. Of course he will get the pension under those arrangements. That is the fundamental problem with the Government's assets test and quite clearly the first step of the Opposition in government will be to resolve these matters and remove that iniquitous test. Mr Hand —How are you going to pay for it? Will you put up taxes? Mr TUCKEY —We will be better economic managers than you people. We will manage and we will not manage by borrowing $20,000m to the detriment of the youth of Australia, as this Government has done. There is plenty of evidence that we never did that. The interest bill in the Budget makes the point: The Government's interest bill this year is $6,700m and when it took over from the Fraser Government that bill was $3,300m. One does not have to be a blooming mental genius to know that, if the cost of interest has doubled, the cost of borrowing has also doubled. Another fact of life on borrowing is that the Australian people-- Mr Howe —Will you talk about the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —I am talking about the assets test because I am rebutting the points made by the honourable member for Canning. Mr Howe —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: We have limited time and while I am happy for the honourable member for O'Connor to speak I think it would be helpful for both the Chair and the House if he could confine his remarks to the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —To rule on that point of order, my view is that the discussion of the assets test is appropriate in the context of the Bill in relation to its application to those pensioners who are proceeding overseas. Perhaps the honourable member could limit his comments to that extent. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are well aware, the time limit for speeches on these matters is 20 minutes. I have given an undertaking to the Government Whip that I will try to reduce my speech to 10 minutes. The Minister has just taken two minutes of my time so that will make a total of 12 minutes. If he interrupts again, I will go on until I get my 10 minutes. I take his point, but it is a pity that he did not raise a similar point of order when the honourable member for Canning spoke. The whole issue is one of whether a following speaker is allowed to rebut quite incorrect statements. I am quite happy to address the Bill, I came prepared to do so. The Bill proposes to improve the equity and fairness of the present pension system as it applies to overseas persons who were at some time resident in Australia. It is amazing that this Government which so frequently claims to have inherited problems from previous governments-although it never mentions the problems created by the Whitlam Government-did not claim that it inherited this excellent equitable proposal from the initiatives of the previous Government's Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney. There is no doubt that he set these wheels in motion after recognising the problem and it has gestated into this legislation today in the Government's hands. I often think about the inheritance that this Government constantly claims; it uses it as an excuse for everything that goes wrong. It is amazing that it has not put into practice its socialist theories on an inheritance tax. One of the reasons it may not be doing so is that it claims so many inheritances as a government that the tax bill for itself might be more than it could afford. When one government takes over from another its inheritances are both good and bad and if a government is any good it should be able to handle both sorts. However, it is about time this Government stopped taking credit for the good decisions and initiatives of a previous government and excusing its own failures by claiming that they are all the fault of history. It is interesting to note that at 30 June 1985 there were 22,933 persons receiving various forms of Australian pension overseas at a cost of $87.274m to the Australian Treasury. Some of those people may not-as this legislation will ensure-have made a contribution of a substantial nature to the Australian tax arena. Yet there are others overseas who get no benefit despite having made a reasonable contribution. It is clearly understood that this legislation will have no substantial effect until January 1996. I wish to make a little point in the broader sense of pensions and planning for retirement. I sincerely believe that both governments believe that in terms of retirement income the principal requirement is certainty. Perhaps we should have a bipartisan policy on this. We cannot let people approach retirement with an understanding that they will get certain benefits and then change those benefits dramatically. If, as time goes by, we could have a bipartisan approach to retirement benefits which will be a massive economic circumstance for Australian government in the future it is essential that if we should look at any change in their structure, particularly if there is a decline in government contribution, we should ensure that people entering the system should be able to leave it at a parallel. It is a pity that I do not have a graph to illustrate my point. In other words, if there is to be a decline in government contribution as a percentage of average weekly earnings, wherever a person reaches retirement age during that period of decline, which might even be 30 years, he or she should leave on a horizontal line so that he or she does not follow the trend down with increasing age. That would not be fair because successive governments in Australia have created expectations. Often they have expectations on the level of taxation and these expectations change. That affects people in employment. But when we talk about people in retirement we cannot change the expectations that we have given them. In that context, may I also give a quick warning about the sudden rush to investment funded retirement funds, such as superannuation. If anyone thinks that that is a panacea in itself to the problems of government-funded retirement benefits he should think again. In order to get the sort of money that would be needed to do that in an investment sense, a government would have to put such massive distortions into the Australian business economy that it would wonder what had struck it. Of course, even more importantly, if we let a sector of the economy, for instance the trade union movement, have too much domination, a Labor government, our Government or any future government would bear the brunt of that. Such a government will feel that brunt and will be very sorry. That is the sort of issue we have to consider. Let me say that this legislation has been a move in the right direction. It takes account of people's expectations. It is not hurting people presently in the system. Such people can continue roughly with what they have got. The Government's intentions for the future are on notice. I approve of that. Therefore, we are not in dispute on that basis. As far as I am concerned, it is a question of how the legislation goes. In the last minute available to me, which I told the Minister I was saving for myself, I say again I hope that the Government sits back and asks itself sensibly where we are going at this moment in regard to retirement income-this is regardless of whether someone has gone overseas or is residing in Australia-by letting the union movement suddenly dominate the investment funded side or the so-called superannuation side. The truth of the matter is that we are no longer talking about superannuation but an employer funded retirement benefit. We are talking of diverting so much of investment capital to one direction so that those very employers who are obliged to provide the money will find themselves lining up at those institutions to borrow it back. It will always be my position that if small business is obliged to borrow money it should not be forced to borrow it under the conditions that apply in America with union retirement funds. The first condition of such a situation is that one will have to have all one's work force in a union and deal only with union shops. If we let that happen it will be a disaster. That is one aspect of the many objections I have to this current move into superannuation. Let me return to the aspect of most importance. Whether one is here or overseas the reality is that we will find that any form of investment funding of pensions for the future very difficult to handle. That will not give the type of returns that the Government expects or hopes for. Furthermore, if it tries to get such funds it would have so much money tied up in retirement benefits that this would have all sorts of terrible effects on our general economy. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.37) —in reply-I would like to thank honourable members who contributed to the debate. For the most part, the last contribution was totally irrelevant. I am sorry that that has cut back the time in which I can speak because I think the debate has been very useful to the Government in terms of the number of relevant points made by so many honourable members on both sides of the House. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), the shadow spokesman, raised a number of detailed issues. I give him an assurance that I will provide answers to those issues in writing. A number of people raised the question of consultation and various matters concerning discussion. I assure them that the Government has no wish to defer negotiations leading to agreements with countries. However, as we have seen with the Italian agreement, each agreement will be quite complex. I think that we would be wise to deal with only a small number of countries at the one time if we are going to honour our obligations in terms of consultations with the relevant communities in Australia. The Government will be proceeding carefully and in a considered way. I might say that we are very hopeful that Mr Corti, the Italian Minister, will be able to come to Australia some time later in the session to sign the Italian agreement. I think that will certainly be of great pleasure to him and to the Italian Government, given the 30-odd years that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) mentioned we have been holding discussions with Italians about social security agreements. I think one other area which has not been covered in the debate except in a very passing way and which is an area which the Government takes very seriously is the reference to the United Kingdom and New Zealand agreements. There is no doubt that those agreements which were signed a long time ago and which have been in force for a considerable period need to be brought up to date. They need to be brought into line with the current thinking and approach of the Government. Indeed, this legislation before the Parliament does that. There are some fundamental inadequacies in these agreements. For instance, the New Zealand agreement does not provide for the portability of New Zealand pensions to Australia. New Zealanders in Australia get nothing from their former country. Australia has had portability for New Zealand for a long time-since 1973. This is an imbalance which is of great concern to the Government. I hope to go to New Zealand shortly to discuss that issue with the New Zealand Government. Let me say that it is very difficult to renegotiate an agreement with New Zealand when the New Zealand Government is not offering, in a sense, shared responsibility for portability arrangements to this country. I see that as a problem in terms of the renegotiation of the agreement with New Zealand. The other area I wanted to mention concerns the United Kingdom. The present arrangement with the United Kingdom does have provision for portability of pensions. However, the United Kingdom does not index payments for pensioners in Australia. The United Kingdom indexes its pensions to its former residents throughout the world except for people in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This is very discriminatory and unfair. About half the British pensioners living outside the United Kingdom receive full pensions and about half do not. About 95,000 people in Australia are affected. As the Australian Government bears some responsibility for topping up pensions, this represents a very significant cost to the Australian Government. The Government has raised this matter with the United Kingdom on several occasions. It was done by the previous Government and by this Government. I assure the House we will be taking this up with United Kingdom authorities in the context of renegotiating the agreement. I conclude by thanking honourable members again for their contributions to the debate. I assure the honourable member for Richmond that I will get him a detailed reply either this day or very early next week. I believe the debate has been very useful. I am pleased that the discussion has been, I think, extremely bipartisan. I believe that if we are to go ahead and sign a number of agreements, which I hope we do in the next debate, that bipartisanship will continue to be as important as it has been in achieving the passage of this legislation on this occasion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his statement on the Ray Martin show yesterday that there would be a `general happiness' about the Government's imminent decision on oil prices. Could the Prime Minister tell us why only eight hours after his proclamation on that show he copped out of taking a decision on oil pricing because of the alleged complexities involved? Do these complexities include devising a way to cheat all Australians of lower oil prices and/or welshing on the tax cuts that were promised by the Treasurer less than five months ago? Mr HAWKE —As I said in my Press release last night, Ministers, having had their discussions, felt that in view of the fact that there is absolutely no need for immediate legislation and because of the complexity of the issue and the volatility of the market, and in the interests of ensuring in all those circumstances that the best decision was made in the interests of all the Australian people, it would be better that the matter not be finalised until later in the month. May I interpolate that despite the fertile imagination of some journalists who stated that the Prime Minister was overruled on this I want to make it clear that the suggestion for deferral was my own. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —We know that honourable members opposite are experts in the matter of division and in the repudiation of their leadership. That is not the case on this side of the House. The important point to be made is that the deferral of the decision will not affect the date on which any benefits will be passed to the Australian consumer. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that saltwater crocodiles in north Queensland are numerous, have been the cause of two fatalities in recent months and are the cause for growing concern in communities in north Queensland? Mr COHEN —I think I share with all other members of the House the distress at the tragedy of the two women who have been taken by crocodiles in recent days in north Queensland. However, we would all agree that people have to be extremely careful about where they swim in crocodile-infested areas. Mr Spender —Ha, ha! Mr COHEN —I am glad that the honourable member finds it terribly amusing. He is about the only person I know who would be safe from a crocodile; they are fairly fussy about whom they eat. I think there has been an overreaction by the Queensland Government to these two tragedies. Various statements have been made by Ministers of the Queensland Government. There has been talk of eliminating all crocodiles from the wild or of culling 500 crocodiles and removing them to farms, some of which comments smack of the desire for economic exploitation of crocodiles rather than any concern for the people in that region. I wish to give a very brief history of the Government's involvement on the question of crocodiles. I refer to not only this Government but also the previous Government. Following the application of legislative protection of the saltwater crocodile since the mid-1970s, the populations of the species have recovered substantially from the effects of earlier unregulated shooting. Internationally, the saltwater crocodile is regarded as endangered and is listed on Appendix I to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species on wildlife and fauna and flora. The international commerce in products derived from Appendix I is prohibited for material obtained directly from the wild. In response to the recovery of the Australian populations of saltwater crocodile, the Government relaxed a long-standing prohibition on the export of crocodile skins and skin products when in 1985, at the fifth meeting of parties to CITES, Australia was successful in petitioning that conference to have the Australian population of saltwater crocodile listed on Appendix II. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act provides the legal basis for the Commonwealth to regularise the export of native wildlife and to ensure that no species of Australian fauna or flora becomes overexploited for the purpose of international trade. Under this legislation, the commercial export of crocodile skins and other by-products is restricted to material which has been derived from animals taken in accordance with management programs approved by me as the Minister responsible for the environment. At present commercial exploitation of crocodile skins and skin products in Queensland-- Mr Spender —Make a statement. Mr COHEN —The honourable member may rabbit on as long as he likes. The Opposition's tactics committee will not-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the House that the answer is relevant to the question. The Minister may proceed. Mr COHEN —If honourable members opposite think that their tactics will work and that they will rattle me, they can forget it. I intend to give a full answer. Mr Sinclair —If you want to make a statement, make it. Don't waste our time. Mr COHEN —When honourable members opposite settle down, I will give them the answer. At present, commercial exploitation of crocodile skins and skin products from Queensland is restricted to material derived from capital breeding programs. The Commonwealth Government has not received any Queensland crocodile management program that provides for crocodile ranching and sustained harvesting from the population in the wild. We, as the Commonwealth Government, are prepared to join in any study with the Queensland Government on the problem that it believes it has. But if that Government continues to suggest proposals such as culling 500 crocodiles or eliminating crocodiles in the wild, the Commonwealth may have to take action to prohibit the export of products from that species. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why was the Government so ill-prepared to make a decision this week on oil prices in light of the clear warning from Senator Gareth Evans in July 1985 that oil prices were likely to fall below $US20 a barrel? Why was no mention made of Senator Evans's clear warning when the Government announced its intended tax cuts in September last year? Mr HAWKE —The Government was not ill-prepared. Mrs DARLING —Madam Speaker, firstly, I offer my warm congratulations on your historic achievement on being the first woman to become Speaker of this House. I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of reports that acquired immune deficiency syndrome sufferers will be able to be traced through the Australia Card? Will he inform the House whether there are any uses for the card which could assist researchers with the study of the disease? Dr BLEWETT —No, it will not be possible to trace AIDS sufferers through the Australia Card. Much fanciful talk on this matter has appeared in the Press in recent days. I wish to explain the access of epidemiologists to the Australia Card register. First of all, the proposal does not represent any new activity in this society. All the things that are proposed are already being done in Australia. It may make those activities slightly more efficient, more effective and, indeed, more confidential. Epidemiologists are concerned with tracing the pattern and distribution of disease. They already have access to State deaths registers. They negotiated with each State and they conduct their research on the basis of that access. For instance, both the Vietnam veterans' study and the Maralinga study were done through such access by epidemiologists. But it must be said that if one has to negotiate with each State, if one has all of those arrangements, it is not as cost effective or cost efficient as if that could simply be done through a national register. The proposal, of course, is to link that national register to the births, deaths and marriages registers of the States. Thus no new type of study would be introduced. Secondly, epidemiologists already have access to hospital records and doctors' records. They are simply required under the laws of each State to negotiate this access with the hospital, doctor or others concerned. Therefore, there are no new types of study, perhaps only the present ones being more efficiently carried out. Medical records will in no way be incorporated in the Australia Card register. They will remain, as they are today, under the control of the hospital, the doctor or other health agency. Access by epidemiologists to those records will have to be approved by the existing mechanisms-the mechanisms which are already in place-and additional mechanisms provided for all those records which have an Australia Card number attached to them. So the result will be a more confidential approach to epidemiological studies in this country. Of course, in the provision of a data protection agency we will be introducing into the system a protection of privacy and civil liberties in relation to computerised records that we do not yet have in this society. That statutory body's task will be to act as a watchdog to ensure that the Australia Card register is used only as specified within the enabling legislation. It will provide the individual with an expeditious appeal mechanism. It will also monitor changes in technology so that these can be picked up in advance. I suggest that those who are seriously interested in this issue should look at similar agencies which have been set up in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and France. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of his decision to defer the question of fuel prices and the continued adverse level of balance of payments and in light of the real need to increase Australia's export earnings, what solace will he offer Australia's many distressed primary producers and farmers-some of whom are outside this Parliament at the moment-who are faced with anti-tax land proposals, including the quarantining of off-farm losses, capital gains tax, and the new fringe benefits tax, and who are told by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that their expected earnings this year will be on average no more than $6,700 a year? Mr HAWKE —The question is repetitious. I have indicated before that the Government is fully conscious of the very considerable difficulties facing Australia's rural producers. We will be examining, in the light particularly of the submissions that are put to us by the Minister for Primary Industry, the range of possibilities to give to them some relief from the difficulties which we readily acknowledge they are suffering. I cannot, however, refrain from referring again to the hypocrisy of the Leader of the National Party of Australia when he sheds, if I may say so, crocodile tears about the situation in rural Australia. I commend to him most particularly the words of the Liberal spokesman in Western Australia, Mr McNee, a view which I have no doubt is shared by many Liberals, and I quote him- Mr Sinclair —What about fuel? What about interest rates? Mr HAWKE —He does not like it. This is what the Liberal Party spokesman said about the National Party on this issue: If they 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 . . . Mr LANGMORE —Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether there is any truth to suggestions of tax evasion in arrangements for the sale of the Belconnen Mall? Mr HAWKE —As you would not be surprised to hear, Madam Speaker, there is no truth to suggestions of tax evasion or impropriety in arrangements for the sale of Belconnen Mall. In a question yesterday the honourable member for Denison referred to differences between the amount specified in the Belconnen Mall tender documents-the written down value of plant, equipment and other depreciable items-and the value attributable to those items in the contract of sale. Madam Speaker, I table the contract. I am advised by the Minister for Territories that amongst documentation sent to tenderers were details of the assets of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, including their written down value as at 30 June 1985. The Minister has also confirmed to me that the value specified was $4,003,327. Honourable members can see from the contract of sale which I have just tabled that the amount specified under the heading of `goods' is $8,921,710. This figure was arrived at by a valuation conducted on behalf of the proposed joint purchasers. The Minister for Territories has informed me that the written down value of the goods by the CCDA may not necessarily represent their true value. Mr Hodgman —What does Taxation say? Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —So absolutely hopeless are members of the Opposition, so bereft of any straw of substance at which to clutch for comfort, they utter their inane laughter at this point. They should contain themselves and listen to the rest of the answer and then we will see how stupidly they laugh. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison. If he continues to interject I will deal with him. Mr HAWKE —Members of the Opposition would be the most hopeless, inept collection of people ever to inhabit that side of the House. They are hopeless. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I find the Prime Minister's remarks offensive and ask that they be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I did not hear the remarks due to the fact that members on both sides of the House were making a noise. I was warning the honourable member for Denison to cease interjecting. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, the remarks will be recorded in Hansard. Mr HAWKE —They certainly will, as will the rest of this answer. We will see what the Opposition says then. The Minister for Territories has informed me that the written down value of the goods by the CCDA may not necessarily represent their true value. The fact that there was a difference between the written down value and the amount specified in the contract was drawn to the attention of the Australian Taxation Office by the Department of Territories. The Australian Taxation Office advised the Department of Territories that these arrangements were satisfactory because both the written down value and the figure allowed for goods in the contract would be subject to later scrutiny by the Australian Taxation Office. If, as a result of this scrutiny, it was the view of the Australian Taxation Office that the amount supplied by the purchaser for both stamp duty and income tax purposes was incorrect, appropriate assessments would be issued by the Australian Taxation Office in accordance with the usual procedures of the Australian Taxation Office. If the Australian Taxation Office accepts the valuation put forward by the purchasers it will lead to increased income tax payable by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. As the reserves of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and the proceeds of the sale are to go to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it does not matter whether they go via increased income tax or direct from the reserves of the CCDA. The reality of this matter is that it represents straightforward and proper commercial management. As such, it stands in very stark contrast to the absolute shambles that resulted when the honourable member for Denison, when he was the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory, tried to sell the Belconnen Mall. Let us just quickly look at that disgraceful episode. Honourable members will recall that under the previous Government the famed razor gang decided to sell the Mall in April of 1981. In fact, it took until May of 1982 for the then Government to decide that the Mall would be offered to world-wide tender. Tenders were not finally received until October 1982. By February of 1983 a suitable purchaser had still not been found and the deal collapsed. The cost of this tough cost cutting exercise was over $300,000-$300,000 for marketing and legal consultants alone. So much for that razor gang and so much for the administrative talents of the honourable member for Denison. By way of contrast, this Government announced the sale of the Belconnen Mall in late May last year and had concluded the deal by early December of the same year, with the money in the bank. It contrasts an efficient and competent government with a government of total shambolic ineptitude, matched now by an opposition of an ineptitude never paralleled in the history of this country. The Opposition is hopeless. 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 and also the official Australian Taxation Office valuation reports on both the Belconnen Mall and the plant and equipment, if it ever did any. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Does the Prime Minister care to table the document from which he was reading? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Prime Minister's integrity is involved. He was reading- Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —He was reading. Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member. I will name him if he keeps going. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is not for the Prime Minister to refuse to table. It is for you to ask him specifically about the character of the documents. If the documents fall within certain defined limits, you can determine that they should not be tabled. It is not for him to shake his head in an impertinent manner as though he in some way controls what you do. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister reading from a public document? Mr HAWKE —No. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. When does the Government propose to implement uniform Aboriginal land rights in terms of the Australian Labor Party policy stated in the 1983 election campaign and reaffirmed at the 1984 Australian Labor Party national conference? Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman will be well aware that the Government has been involved in a process of discussion and negotiation with all States in respect of producing legislation to deal with the question of Aboriginal land rights. Those negotiations are almost complete. I have had a further request from the Government of the Northern Territory for a further round of discussions on amendments to the Northern Territory Land Rights Act. I am hoping that they will take place shortly. When they are completed I will be in a position to bring legislation to Cabinet for approval. I am delighted to think that the shadow Minister is interested to know when the Government proposes to carry out ALP policy. I would be even more interested if the honourable gentleman would tell me what the policy of the coalition Opposition is on this very vital social problem. Just as this Opposition cannot make up its mind on issues such as privatisation or industrial issues, when one comes to-- Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The way in which the Minister is answering the question is obviously not relevant. He is not responsible for our policy; we are, and we have one. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —I would have thought that if the honourable gentleman wants to be responsible for the implementation of our policy I am entitled to ask him precisely what his policy is because if we, like most citizens, look at the position of members of the Opposition on Aboriginal land rights we can take our pick from any one of half a dozen positions. Let us look at it very quickly. The shadow Minister, to his credit, says he believes in the principles of land rights and that is Liberal Party policy. His problem, of course, is that Mr Hassell-I think he is still the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia; one can never be quite certain-said that under no circumstances will he support the principle of land rights. Only yesterday in the Senate the two former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs were saying how proud they were of the achievements of the former Liberal Government in the area of land rights. They were proud of the legislation in the Northern Territory. They admitted-- Mr Connolly —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. We asked a very specific question: What is the Government going to do about its own policy? The Minister refused to answer and keeps raving on as usual. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield will please stop taking frivolous points of order. Mr HOLDING —The two former Ministers admitted the legislation needs some amendments, but they were proud. What is the position of the Leader of the National Party of Australia? He went to a conference in the Northern Territory and said of this legislation, of which his colleagues are so proud, that he was ashamed to have ever voted for it. At least that is one for the record. For Aboriginal people to get this Leader of the National Party to admit even the existence of a sense of shame is no minor achievement. Let us turn to South Australia. The position of the Leader of the Opposition there is that he is proud of land rights legislation, it is not an issue in South Australia and the legislation is working well. It is interesting to note that the legislation that we have been trying to develop is based upon the South Australian model which the Liberal Leader of South Australia thinks is all right. Let us move to the position of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the former Chief Minister. Government members-Where is he? Mr HOLDING —He has taken up residence in Queensland and is fixing up his house. He feels the best way to represent the Northern Territory is by living in Queensland. That is dedication! When he was Chief Minister in Darwin, he said of the land rights debate: . . . the debate does tend to emphasise the bad things about land rights mainly because the media, always anxious for sensation, gives wide publicity to bad things at the expense of the good . . . He went on to say that land rights had produced real achievements for Aboriginal people in the Territory. That was a matter of only 18 months ago. What did he say in Perth during the recent election campaign? He said there that nothing had been done for Aborigines. How many positions is this Opposition entitled to have on this issue? One can take one's pick. It is important not only for Aboriginal people but also for the rest of Australia to know what the real truth is in terms of where this Opposition stands on this issue. I will finish with a quote from two eminent Western Australians, because the situation in Western Australia has deteriorated as a result of the efforts of Opposition spokesmen, such as the honourable member for O'Connor who has said that he is completely opposed to land rights under any circumstances. I quote from two prominent Western Australians with experience in land rights. They say: In Western Australia it has become fashionable to ridicule and condemn this spiritual association with the land- Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence. By no definition of the word `relevance' in the Standing Orders can any of the claptrap we have heard from the Minister have any relevance to the question I asked of him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will finish his answer. Mr HOLDING —On the question of relevance, let me say that having consulted with all groups I am trying to find out what is the position of the Opposition. I will finish with this quote, which is an apt summary of the position in Western Australia. I repeat: In Western Australia it has become fashionable to ridicule and condemn this spiritual association with the land, to insult Aborigines to whom it is still of great importance, and to assert that sacred sites are found only after mineral exploration has uncovered promising finds on Aboriginal land. I believe that that statement is as accurate now as it was when it was made. Mr Tuckey —Who said that? Mr HOLDING —The names of the two prominent Western Australians were no other than Senator Chaney and Mr Viner, former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr HOLLIS —Is the Minister for Communications aware of reports that people in the Wollongong and south coast regions will lose their television viewing if WIN4 television moves from its present transmitting frequency? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some of the recent misleading publicity on this matter. While it is true that WIN4 must move from channel 4 and that ultimately it will operate on an ultra high frequency channel in Wollongong, many of the reports on this matter have failed to mention the fact that WIN will not move from its present frequency for three years, so it is not an immediate step. Nor have these reports made it clear that the move has been designed to avoid causing major disruption to the viewing habits of most Wollongong and South Coast residents. South Coast viewers in Bega, Moruya and Bateman's Bay will continue to receive WIN from translators on very high frequency channels 6 and 11 and therefore will not be affected by the change. The reception of the present WIN service will not be affected in any way for those viewers by the movement of the main station to UHF. I remind honourable members also that under the Government's equalisation program South Coast viewers, like all other viewers in population centres throughout regional Australia, will have access to three commercial television services in the near future. In the case of Wollongong, when one adds the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, this will result in five local television services in addition to the services received from Sydney. The normal VHF television band, as many honourable members would be aware, is becoming overcrowded with television and frequency modulation radio services and these new commercial television stations will all be introduced on UHF, which will allow high quality reception to be provided without disrupting long established reception of the existing stations. That will mean that WIN will not be alone on UHF three years down the track. When it makes the move it will be one of five local services operating in Wollongong on UHF. The SBS is already on UHF in Wollongong and three commercial services will be on UHF. The ABC currently operates its Wollongong translator on VHF and will move to UHF at about the same time as WIN. Wollongong viewers, therefore, need not be concerned about some of the publicity on this matter, which has been unduly alarmist to say the least. Mr HODGMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to the Belconnen Mall $2.4m tax windfall. I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Australian Taxation Office carry out any valuation whatsoever of the millions of dollars worth of plant and equipment at the Belconnen Mall? If not, why not? What has been the Prime Minister's relationship with Westfield Property Trust and its senior management? Did Westfield Property Trust build, and does it own, the Boulevard Hotel? Mr HAWKE —In regard to the first part of the honourable member's question, concerning whether the Taxation Office undertook certain investigations, I am not aware of that. I will ascertain that. Mr Hodgman —Why not? Mr HAWKE —It is not my portfolio responsibility. That is the main answer to the question, but I am more than happy to ascertain the appropriate response to the honourable member's question and give it to him. In regard to the rest of the honourable member's question, let me say this: It is a sad irony, I believe, that those who live in a moral wasteland are so quick to attribute the same condition to others. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Can the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House of the latest figures in relation to the debt level in the rural farming sector? How many farmers are estimated to be at risk in financial terms? What impact has the Government's floating of the dollar had on rural incomes? Mr KERIN —In answer to the first part of the honourable gentleman's question, the latest figures available to me are those to 30 June 1985. I willingly concede that those figures are slightly out of date, which is why I had a meeting recently with financial advisers from banks and other financial organisations. The number of farmers in zero debt, in terms of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey, has gone up from 25 to 28 per cent during the two years to June 1985. The number of farmers with less than $20,000 debt has gone down from 24 per cent to 18 per cent. As at 30 June 1985, the best estimate we had was that 46 per cent of all farmers had virtually no debt. We have a great skew in debt figures. At the other end of the scale the number of farmers with more than $150,000 debt has gone up from 10 to 12 per cent and the number with debts between $100,000 and $150,000 has gone down from 10 to 9 per cent. The rest are in between. We have a skew; a large proportion with little or no debt and another group at the top end who have very high levels of debt. There are all sorts of explanations for that. Most farm sales and farm acquisitions of additional property take place after a crisis. Following the drought that we had and with the reasonably buoyant times in dairying, sugar and some of the horticultural industries, many people went into buying properties in the early 1980s. Many of those people are now caught with very high interest rates. The second part of the honourable gentleman's question referred to the number at risk. Again I would say that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics measure of people at risk is those with assessed negative farm income in the coming year and with less than 70 per cent equity. About 5 per cent of the total number of farm holdings were at risk last year. It is estimated there will be about 7 per cent at risk this year. There are all sorts of estimates of the value of the devaluation to the farming sector. The lowest estimate that I have seen is $1.6 billion to $2 billion. The highest estimate that I have seen of the disadvantage of the devaluation to the farm sector is half a billion dollars-$500m. That is, there is a netting out effect because the devaluation has meant higher costs for fuel, fertilisers and chemicals. What is the effect of all this? Of course, there are quite a few theories around at present in regard to the interaction between the exchange rate and interest rates. The first thing that farmers should be focusing on is not the overall exchange rate but the real effective exchange rate-that is, the exchange rates that our farm exports face. The real effective exchange rate now is about 60c in the dollar as opposed to 69c to 70c overall. So that means that there has been a 33 per cent drop in the value of the dollar, so far as the farm sector is concerned, since we took the decision to float the dollar. That is by far the most effective devaluation that we have ever faced. That devaluation would advantage our exporters as nothing else has. It has helped them enormously-by anything up to $2 billion. What the economic witch doctors of the other side of the House are saying, of course, is that what we should do is flood the money supply to get the interest rate down because we are proping up the exchange rate with the interest rate. That is just simply not true. It is a nonsense. It is the product of their fevered minds and imaginations. Interest rates at present are all about tempering the high rate of domestic demand and also squeezing down on imports. There is some evidence that that is working, as can be shown by today's balance of trade figures. What is not really working, of course, is that we are not really getting the full flow-on of the effective devaluation. In other words, we are not getting the additional moneys from the world markets. That is why we say that 90 per cent of the distress in the farm sector at present is a result of world markets being corrupted. We are not getting the benefit that we should be getting from the devaluation. That is the major problem. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Does the Government intend to abolish or radically change the isolated patients accommodation and travel assistance scheme that provides essential support to isolated people seeking specialist medical treatment? Dr BLEWETT —The States and the Commonwealth Government have had for some months now a working party looking at ways of improving the isolated patients accommodation and travel assistance scheme, both in its coverage and, of course, in the way that it is delivered. On the receipt of that working party report there will be further discussions between me and State Health Ministers. Of course, I will report to this Parliament on any changes that are made. The purpose of that working party with the States is to seek to improve the scheme, particularly in many of its delivery aspects. Mr KENT —Is the Minister for Communi- cations aware that viewers of the Special Broadcasting Service are disadvantaged by the decision to change the broadcast to the ultra high frequency because alterations to television sets and aerials necessary to receive this frequency are costly? Mr DUFFY —When the Liberal-National Country Party Government introduced the SBS in 1977-78 it took the decision that the SBS television service would be an ultra high frequency service on channel 28. That decision was endorsed by the present Government. Channel O, a very high frequency channel, was used by SBS on a strictly limited basis to allow SBS to publicise that its real service was being transmitted on channel 28. In my view this decision was an error because unfortunately channel O, the VHF channel, was publicised and channel 28 was initially forgotten. As channel O is particularly susceptible to electrical interference it is a difficult channel in the cities. Further, it is just not practical to generate sufficient power to enable channel O to cover Melbourne, or for that matter Sydney, in an adequate way. I remind honourable members of the millions of dollars spent by the late Reg Ansett to get off channel O and on to channel 10 so that that television service could provide a proper coverage. SBS in Sydney and Melbourne is the only broadcaster in Australia allowed the luxury of operating two channels in the one city at the one time. This has been an unnecessary waste of money and an unnecessary waste of the spectrum. This was an interim measure only and I announced that there would be a change by 31 December 1984. I announced that 16 months prior to that date. As a result of representations, the date was extended to 6 January 1986. The Connor Review of the Special Broadcasting Service recommended that the date be extended to June 1986. As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that channel 0 and channel 28 continue. SBS was always to be a UHF service and the question was one of timing. It was simply a question of when SBS should change to the UHF channel. In the ultimate the only argument was whether the changeover would take place in June 1986, January 1986 or June 1985. The change took place in January 1986. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Australia-Japan Foundation for 1984-85. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australia-New Zealand Foundation for 1984-85. The report was circulated to honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the second periodic report submitted by Australia in accordance with Economic and Social Council Resolution 1988 (LX) concerning rights covered by articles 10-12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pork Promotion Act 1976, I present the annual report of the Pork Promotion Committee for 1984-85, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. The report and statement were circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Education report covering the period 1 January 1984 to 30 January 1985. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 63M (1) of the Audit Act 1901, I present the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Ordinance and Regulations 1936, I present the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board annual report for 1984-85. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools Loans Guarantee Act 1969, I present the independent schools report for 1983-84 on statements of the payments made during 1983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Transport annual report for 1984-85. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —I am pleased to present for the information of honourable members the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on dining candles from the People's Republic of China (Anti-Dumping). The report was circulated to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for the construction of carpark lighting at the Administrative Building carpark between Walpole Crescent and Kings Avenue. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the National Capital Development Commission Parliamentary Zone Development Plan together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, this matter arose the other day. If what the Minister is saying is, as his colleagues said before, that there was a statement already circulated to honourable members in the mail, there would be no objection. But we object to the Minister simply saying: `Here is a statement, we table it, end of subject'. The Minister may wish to clarify that it has been sent. The Minister may wish to say that the statement has been circulated to honourable members and that would be a different matter. It is simply not good enough to table a statement in that way. Mr SCHOLES —It is a practice which has been used in this House for matters that have to come back to this House. This is a matter which will go to the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House under the Parliament Act, and any action on the material concerned will require the approval of both Houses of this Parliament. The practice of tabling statements of that nature was initiated some time before this Government came to office. If the honourable gentleman objected to it, he had an opportunity, if he was here at that time, to do so then. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, I present a proposal for the Construction of a National Bicentennial Science Centre in the Parliamentary Zone. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 33 (4) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 79zh of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the annual report of the Special Broadcasting Service for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian Film and Television School Act 1980, I present the Australian Film and Television School annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 27 (2) of the National Library of Australia Act 1960, I present the annual report of the National Library of Australia for 1984-85. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Aboriginal Development Commission for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for 1984-85. General Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, in two material particulars by the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —A few minutes ago in the House, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) asserted that I, personally, had endeavoured to sell the Belconnen Mall. That statement is not true. Secondly, and more importantly, he completely misrepresented the question I put to him in the House yesterday. I ask the honourable members to refer to Hansard, at page 467. It will be seen very clearly that the question was directed to a tax windfall-- Mr Young —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the way in which personal explanations are being sought in this House. The honourable member for Denison now seeks to go on with his personal explanation on the basis that the Prime Minister misrepresented the question he was asked. That is not a personal misrepresentation of the honourable member. The Minister at the table can answer the question in any way he wishes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was allowing the honourable member for Denison to get to the point where he was personally misrepresented. The honourable member for Denison would know as well as the Special Minister of State that Ministers can answer questions in any way they wish. The honourable member for Denison may proceed, but he should stick to the point where he personally has been misrepresented and should not argue the question. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be precise. It is a very serious misrepresentation-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Could the honourable member for Denison get to telling the House where he was misrepresented. Personal Explanation Personal Explanation Personal Explanation Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I will. I refer to page 467 of yesterday's Hansard. The question set out there makes it quite clear that I was asking the Prime Minister to explain how it was that the lucky purchasers of the Belconnen Mall received- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows that one is allowed to say where one was misrepresented, but one is not allowed to argue the case. The honourable member is flying very close to the wind in attempting to use evidence in Hansard to show where he was misrepresented. Could the honourable member get precisely to the point of where he was misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes. The Prime Minister lied about the question I asked in the House yesterday. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw. He knows it is grossly unparliamentary to say that a member has lied to the House. Mr N.A. Brown —Except for the Prime Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party will find himself having an early shower if he says that again. Mr N.A. Brown —I was making a statement of fact, which is different, with respect, to the Prime Minister using the word. Mr Sinclair —It is a fact. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —It has been validated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party has been here long enough to know that one is not supposed to interject while the Chair is addressing the House. If the right honourable member does not remember that, I am reminding him now. If he continues he will be dealt with, as will the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and anyone else who transgresses. The honourable member for Denison knows that it is unparliamentary to call another member a liar. I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Before the Leader of the Opposition gets up and tells me that somewhere in the Hansard someone has got away with this before, I point out that that does not mean that someone is going to get away with it again. While I am in the chair, I will not tolerate members of the Opposition calling members of the Government liars and I will not tolerate members of the Government calling members of the Opposition liars. Will the honourable member for Denison withdraw? Mr Howard —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: You rightly anticipated that I would rise on this. Given the new regime in the chair and the exhortations for consistency and fairness, I think that members on this side of the House are entitled to know where the Chair stands, and fairly stands in a situation where there lies unrepudiated in the records of this Parliament a claim by the current Prime Minister against a former Prime Minister that the former Prime Minister was a liar. You are asking people on this side of the House to accept the strictures. We have already lost one of our number. Frankly, the Opposition does not regard it as a satisfactory state of affairs for such a set of double standards to continue to exist. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I thought I put my view quite succinctly to the Leader of the Opposition, his Deputy and the Leader of the National Party. My view, while I am in the chair, is that people in this House should not describe other members in those words. I am not in a position to rewrite the Hansard record. If the Leader of the Opposition was unhappy with rulings that were made in the past, I have no control over that. Mr Young —We weren't happy with a few that were made by Billy Snedden. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As the Special Minister of State has said, he and members on his side may have some difficulty with other rulings that were made in the past. What we are talking about is the ruling today, whereby I am asking the honourable member for Denison to withdraw the remarks he made. I trust that he will do so. He can then get on with his personal explanation. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of your ruling, I withdraw. It is a very serious and, I submit, damaging misrepresentation of any member of this House when an answer is given which conveys to the Parliament and the public that a totally different question had been asked. This is the point- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. If an answer is given that does not suit the member, no doubt that is unfortunate for the member. Mr HODGMAN —No, sir. It is a different point. I am not making it clear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —A member cannot necessarily get the answer that he wishes. A Minister can answer a question in any way he feels. Will the honourable member for Denison tell the House where he was personally misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I was personally misrepresented because the Prime Minister came into this House and asserted that I had asked a question relating to loss of taxation revenue-that is, to the Commonwealth-in the transaction between the Commonwealth and Westfield Property Trust and the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. That was not the question I asked. I seek leave to read the question that I did ask, which is totally different. Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your previous ruling when you said that if a member does not get the answer he wants that does not give him justification for raising a point of order. My complaint is that yesterday I asked a question. I asked the Prime Minister to table a document in this Parliament. It took him 24 hours to produce the document. Then he came into the Parliament and gave an answer to a question which I did not ask. He has misled the House and he has misrepresented me. I think that I am entitled to your protection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As unfortunate as it may appear to the honourable member for Denison, if the Prime Minister did not answer his question either by tabling the documents that he wished him to table or by answering in a different way, that is his prerogative. The honourable member for Denison has made his personal explanation. He has put his point and his personal explanation on the record. I think that there is no point in pursuing this matter any further. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat and I call on the Clerk for petitions. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, would you please hear me? This is a very important point. I do not disagree with what you have just said. You are not just the property of the Government; you are the property of the House. I seek your protection to put this point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw the imputation there, because I am not the property of anybody. Mr Hodgman —There is no imputation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member resumes his seat for a moment I will read the question to which he is referring. Mr Hodgman —Thank you, sir. You will very quickly see the point-what the Prime Minister has done. It is disgraceful behaviour. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I must say that I fail to see where the honourable member has been misrepresented by what the Prime Minister said today in response to the question the honourable member asked yesterday. Mr Hodgman —Sir, if I could have said this without being interrupted by the Special Minister of State I would have said very simply that- Mr Young —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr Hodgman —Excuse me, I am on my feet. You have no right to interrupt my point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Special Minister of State has a point of order. I hope that it is a point of order. Mr Young —I have been the most tolerant Leader of the House in terms of listening to honourable members opposite making their personal explanations. Mr Hodgman —I was on my feet, sir. My point of order is that I was on my feet addressing you on a point of order when the Minister rose, interrupted and tried to take your attention from my point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has a right to take a point of order when he wants to do so. Mr Hodgman —Not true. If he stops behaving like a boofhead and stops interrupting I will get the thing over. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I think that we have pursued this issue far enough. I call on the Clerk for petitions. Mr Donald Cameron —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member for Denison is in the middle of a point of order nobody can interrupt, even the Prime Minister. With great respect, I think that you should consult the Clerk and allow him to continue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member had been taking a close account of the proceedings he would be aware that I had asked the honourable member for Denison to give me a few moments to read the question that he said caused him some difficulty. I read the question. I then said to the honourable member for Denison that I felt he had gone about as far as he probably was able to go on the issue. I then said that I intended to call on the Clerk for petitions. The honourable member for Denison jumped to his feet. The honourable member will recall that I had not called the honourable member for Denison on a point of order because at the same time the Special Minister of State got to his feet and I called him. The position we are in now is that we have run this issue about as far as it is able to run. I call on the Clerk for petitions. Mr Hodgman —I now take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It had better be a relevant point of order. Mr Hodgman —It is a relevant point of order. I take a point of order. Do you give me the call, sir? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented by the-- Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hodgman —Honourable members opposite do not understand that when one takes a point of order one is entitled to explain it. I was misrepresented by the Prime Minister in that he alleged that I asked a question about loss of Commonwealth tax revenues when I did not. I asked a question about a $2.4m windfall in tax to his rich friends in private enterprise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison has told the House where he believes he was misrepresented. He has certainly adopted a long-winded approach to do it. The Clerk will now present petitions. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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 McArthur,Mr Shack and Mr Shipton. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of out inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; The Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; Any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. 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 in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the US Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26-1-85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur and Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location 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 at an early date discuss and give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum of the people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we oppose the Government's decision to amend ``The Repatriation Act''. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should repeal the Repatriation Act Amendments Bill 31.5.85. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That consistent with our Christian faith, being concerned for the natural environment and nurturing use rather than exploitation of the earth's resources ask that the Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland because of their rare, ancient and irreplaceable nature be protected for the long term benefit of all mankind. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (1) Immediately nominate the region for the World Heritage List and protection under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. (2) Give full support to the implementations of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Working Group on Rain Forest Conservation including the full funding proposed by Mr Cohen for the program. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that 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 ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse effect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices adds to farm costs and further reduces the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the new Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble 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 systems, 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 Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages, on a permanent basis, in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request that Community Language Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Language programs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. 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 principal 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) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on health fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 T.V. stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. 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 assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory Identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. By declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-85) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: Intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament; Remove U.S. bases from Australian soil; Keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in 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 Staples. 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 weapons tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: Inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising 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 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 total disallowance of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr 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 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 proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's 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 of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The impact on family motorists, rural producers, small business and other Australian consumers of the Government's deceptive conduct on fuel pricing. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.14) —There appears to be no end to the occasions on which the Government intends to deceive the Australian public on the question of fuel pricing. We must remember that when we talk about the price of fuel in Australia we are talking about something that affects every single sector of the Australian community. It is fair enough to say that whether one lives in the cities, the provincial areas or the bush, the price of fuel is of enormous daily importance. For example, the use of the family motor car is one of the most regular methods of ordinary pleasure taking by low income families in Australia and it passes strange that a government that historically has prided itself on representing the cause of low income families in Australia should be shaping up to cheat that very section of the Australian community of the full benefit of a fall in the world price of fuel. We can be certain of one thing: The Government could not reach a decision yesterday, not because it intends to pass on the full benefit of the fall in the world price of oil but because Government members cannot agree on the method they will choose to cheat us of the benefits of that fall. That is why the Government could not reach a decision yesterday. All this talk about complexity, budgetary difficulties and volatile markets, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reminds me, is nonsense. There is only one thing that makes markets volatile in Australia at present and that is the asinine economic predictions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Financial and other markets in Australia would be soothed if the Prime Minister would stop making economic predictions because every time he makes such a prediction the wrong thing happens. He told us a couple of weeks ago that interest rates would come down. Ever since then those interest rates have firmed. He said that the value of the Australian dollar would stabilise between 72c and 75c. That of course did not happen. I return to the issue in front of us-the price of fuel. It is as well that we remember what is on the record. As I said on Monday, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have made enough commitments to cover all the walls of Kirribilli House and the Lodge put together. The Prime Minister is setting out to earn for himself yet another description-the great bowser bandit of 1986. The Prime Minister is hell-bent on denying not only to the family motorist, but also to our hard-pressed farmers and small businessmen, the benefit of a policy which time and again he promised he would give the Australian public. If we go back to March 1982 when the present Treasurer was the spokesman on Minerals and Energy, we find that he said: Any fall in Saudi prices must be passed on to Australian motorists in lower petrol prices. That is what Mr Keating said in March 1982. On 9 February 1983 the Prime Minister said this: Petrol prices will be immediately cut by about 3c per litre under a Federal Labor government. That promise was made in February 1983, but of course early 1983 was a vintage time for promises by the Prime Minister, as indeed has been the period preceding any Federal election in which the Prime Minister has been involved. In March 1983 he promised that there would be no capital gains tax. In March 1983 he promised that there would be no assets test. In November 1984, before the 1984 election, he promised that there would be falls in interest rates in 1985. If we look back at the record it is little wonder that we find yet again a litany of broken promises. This bowser bandit has become one of the great breakers of promises in this country's political history. In no area is the Prime Minister more guilty of breaking promises to the Australian public than in the area of fuel pricing. To deny the Australian public the full benefit of the fall in the world price of oil breaks years and years of campaign promises made by both the Prime Minister and the present Treasurer. There is no way that the Prime Minister can credibly escape responsibility. When he talks about complexity, difficulty and problems and asks the Australian public to understand the difficulty of the Government, I say to him and to the Treasurer on behalf of the Opposition and the Australian public that if there is any complexity, difficulty, pain or problem, it is all of the Government's own making. The Government cannot expect any sympathy from this Opposition or from the long-suffering Australian public which daily is becoming more cynical about the lengths to which this Government will go to break its promises. It is important that we understand this matter because the Government, the Treasurer in particular, is running this peculiar argument which says: `Please don't be too hard on us; please don't take it out on us because really we did not know any of this was going to happen. When something happens that you do not expect and it creeps up on you and disturbs your best laid plans, you really cannot be held politically accountable for it'. Leaving aside for a moment whether that charitable interpretation of political events was ever applied by the Australian Labor Party when it was in opposition, let me say to the Treasurer and his colleagues that that argument cannot be run on the facts anyway. When the Government made its promises in September last year to cut taxes it knew it had a potential problem on the oil price front. The Government knew that. There is no way on earth that the Government can go to the Australian public and say: `Please don't kick us for not giving you the full benefit of the fall in the price of oil because we really did not know that this was going to happen when we promised you all those tax cuts back in September last year'. The truth is that the Government is well aware-it has been well aware for over 12 months-of the enormous volatility in world oil markets. Here in a speech made to the Committee of Economic Development in July last year, two months before the Keating tax package was brought down, Senator Gareth Evans canvassed in detail the implications of a fall below $US20 a barrel in the world price of oil. However, in the face of all that did the Treasurer worry about the budgetary gamble that he was taking when he brought down his taxation package? Did he mention it in his statement of 19 September? Did he enter the caveat that he could not deliver those tax cuts if the price of oil fell? No, there was not a word of that. He decided to take this enormous budgetary gamble. It is not being wise after the event that I now raise this matter because I draw the attention of the House to the fact that at a Press conference I held on 20 September, the day after the tax package was brought down I said: The most conspicuous feature of the package last night is the long term budgetary risk that it involves. By 1987 the Government has committed itself to taxation cuts of $4.5 billion yet the revenue yield from last night's measures is less than $1.5 billion and that means that they will need to get $3 billion in 1987 from the old friend fiscal drag or further expenditure cuts. That's a very risky Budget strategy indeed. For a Government to commit a large part of its revenue budget two years in advance; that's almost an unprecedented Budgetary gamble for any Government to undertake. That was the reality. It was plain enough to me as a former Treasurer that this Government was taking an enormous risk. It should have been plain enough to the present Treasurer and the Prime Minister the enormous risk they were taking. This is particularly so in view of the well advised knowledge of the Government about the volatility of world oil markets. I say to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer that they cannot run the argument that they did not know there was going to be a problem. I knew there was going to be a problem. Other people around the country who follow these matters knew there was going to be a problem. The Government has no earthly excuse for now being in a situation of having to say: `We can't keep both promises. Please don't take it out of our political hide'. I have news for the Government: We are going to take it out of the Government's political hide. The Government deserves to have it taken out of its political hide. It knew what an enormous budgetary risk it was taking. We have another peculiar argument run by the Government. When I say to the Government, as the Opposition says, and as the long-suffering Australian public says, if it has a budgetary problem what it has to do is cut its own expenditure-that is what we say to the Government-- Dr Theophanous —What are you going to cut-welfare? Tell us. Mr HOWARD —Then of course the champions of double standards on the other side of the House jump up and tell us: `Please tell us where you are going to cut. Will you please say where you are going to cut'. I want to say to the honourable member who is exploding over there in the corner and to all honourable members on the Government side that they have now been in power for three years; they have had three Budgets and two mini-Budgets and, probably, they have got another mini-Budget in the pipeline for May this year. As far as I am concerned and as far as the public in Australia is concerned, the expenditure priorities of this Government are of its own making. If this Government has got a budgetary problem it is a problem of its own making because this Government has added its own expenditures according to its own priorities in the three Budgets which it has brought down. When I say to this Government that it should find the room I am saying that it take out of the Commonwealth Budget expenditure programs which it put there which it need not have put there. If the Government had not been elected to office the Commonwealth Budget would not contain the absurd and bloated expenditures on Medicare that honourable members opposite have added. These fearless expenditure cutters and these great controllers of public expenditures had a mini-Budget last May. Honourable members raced in here with great sound and fury and said: `We have toiled for months. We have denied ourselves holidays. We have made ourselves nervous wrecks. We have taken $1.2 billion out of prospective Commonwealth expenditures'. That is very impressive. That is a remarkable exercise in fiscal nerve. What happens? The Budget comes along, the Government leaves that $1.2 billion out of it and adds a new $1.5 billion. That is a great exercise in saving. I say to the Treasurer, I say to the Government and I say to anybody else who is running an argument on this matter that we will say what we have to say about expenditure at a time of our choosing. It will not be at a time of the Government's choosing. We have no intention of diverting the public spotlight from the difficulty the Government has at present. Dr Theophanous —Because nobody would vote for you. Mr HOWARD —The more the honourable member interjects the more persuaded I am of the great difficulties which the Government has. The Government has got itself into this jam. It has promised more than it should have promised. The Government misled the Australian public about the extent of the budgetary problem. The Government pretended that everything was marvellous. The Government has lived a lie about the conditions of the Australian economy now for months. It is starting to come home to roost. The Government is starting to be revealed for misleading the public in the way it has. I can tell the Government that there is no way on earth that we are going to relieve it from the glare of the public spotlight. The Government has earned every minute of it. The Government will get every minute of it. Honourable members opposite are the people who promised the earth. They promised no capital gains tax; they broke that promise. Honourable members opposite promised to preserve the value of pensions; they broke that promise. They promised lower interest rates; they broke that promise. They promised lower fuel prices; they are in the midst of working out how they are going to break that promise. I can promise honourable members opposite that they will endure every minute of the public spotlight that those broken promises entitle them to. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.28) —This matter of public importance is a spurious, hollow matter if ever we have heard one. I am reminded of the saying: The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on. The caravan of good government is moving on in spite of the huffing and puffing that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). It is moving on in spite of the baying from his minions who sit behind him trying to bolster him in his position, which is a very, very dicey position because of the poor standing that he and his Party have in the Australian community generally. The Australian community understands what the Government's policy is in relation to fuel prices. It is a policy which is clearly determined and which will continue to be clearly determined for the overall benefit of the Australian people. We are not going to indulge in the colourful, opportunistic language such as that which we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition. We are not going to indulge in the flowery concepts which he puts across. We have got the business of government before us. We are facing it responsibly. This is in spite of the fact that as usual there are difficult circumstances to overcome. We cannot in any way apologise for the decision which was taken yesterday. We do not need to apologise for that. We are hoping that it would be possible to make an earlier decision on fuel prices, but no decision is needed until 1 March. As we addressed the problems, it was found that there was still volatility in the fuel market and it was clearly necessary to wait until 1 March until matters had settled further. I make no apologies for that decision. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) makes no apologies for it and the Government makes no apologies for it. What did we have from the Leader of the Opposition? We had sheer opportunism. We had colourful language which does a great disservice to his credibility. He was elected to the leadership of the alternative government of this country on the basis of credibility. In these sorts of statements he is doing nothing more than undermining the very credibility that allowed him to reach the high office that he has now reached. It is really sad for this country that he is indulging in this sheer opportunism. I remind the honourable member, as I said to him the other day, that he ought to read the document brought out by Mr John Valder, who was then President of the Liberal Party in New South Wales and who is now the Australian President of the Liberal Party. That document was brought out to try to put into perspective the shocking loss sustained by the Liberal Party in the March 1983 election. If there was one message in that document it was that the Liberal Party should go for credibility rather than opportunism. For a while, the present Leader of the Opposition went for credibility instead of opportunism. We are hearing smear opportunism from him now and it does him no good whatsoever. The latest gimmick which he and his front bench-and his suffering back bench, when it gets an opportunity, which is not often-are using in this Parliament is to say: `Look, we are not in the position of government; you are in the position of government. We can be as free as the breeze in being opportunistic and in lacking credibility. We can say that we can be all things to all men because we are in opposition and therefore do not have to be credible'. That is what the Opposition is saying to us and to the Australian people. It is really saying to them: `You are mugs and you will put up with us being opportunistic and not being credible'. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that it will get him nowhere to say: `You are governing. We can be as irresponsible as we like. You are the ones who have to say who is going to cut government spending and where. We don't have to say it. We will make our statements about expenditure at a time of our choosing'. Over the last few weeks we have all heard those statements ad nauseam. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that it will get him nowhere because the Australian people want constructive criticism from an opposition. They do not want mere destructive criticism. They want to be able to hear what are the alternatives. They want to be able to decide on the relative policies that are being put before them and they want to be able to decide between relevant and constructive policies, not the sort of destructive nonsense we have just heard from the Leader of the Oppo- sition, who spoke for a quarter of an hour when he led for the Opposition in the discussion on this matter of public importance before the House today. The Government's position is this: The oil parity price issue is being considered by the Government in the proper time frame that the Government has until it has to make a decision on 1 March. We have said we will announce a decision prior to 1 March, and we will do that. Placing this issue into perspective, I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition, as Treasurer, imposed the biggest taxes ever on the Australian people in the name of the Liberal Party and the Fraser Government. He imposed the biggest taxes ever on the businesses and farmers of this nation too. He grabbed huge increases in oil revenues and he spent them while he was the Treasurer. What credibility does this present Leader of the Opposition, of all people, have? When he came to office, crude oil and liquid petroleum gas excise made up 1.4 per cent of government revenue. He, the man who has been huffing and puffing in the House today, pushed up the oil taxes to 9 per cent of tax revenue. Under the Labor Party Government, that figure has been reduced from 9 per cent to 6.8 per cent. Between 1977-78 and 1982-83, the Leader of the Opposition, as Treasurer of this nation leading for the Fraser Government in that sphere of activity, pushed up Commonwealth oil revenue by 700 per cent. At that time, the present Treasurer (Mr Keating), who unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon, as he was obliged to leave the House five minutes ago, called that move taxation by stealth. I do not back away from that commentary; nor does the present Treasurer. (Quorum formed) The Opposition's tactic in calling quorums is to stop the Government from putting its point of view. I give a warning that if quorums are called in future when we are debating matters proposed by the Opposition we will move on to the next business. This matter of public importance was proposed by the Opposition, not by us. If the Opposition does not want free speech and if it does not want an answer to propositions it puts in this Parliament, it must take the consequences. Calling a quorum has done nothing but waste time. Before the quorum was called, I was showing how the Leader of the Opposition hooked the Commonwealth Government into oil tax revenue. He was the person who reduced the deficit by imposing these fuel taxes. As soon as the big increases in oil revenue dried up, the Howard deficit blew out to a massive $9.6 billion. That is the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition; yet he has the gall to come into this Parliament and to raise an issue such as this. He sits opposite and he thinks he can demand cold turkey to get the Commonwealth off the situation he set up. He now thinks that, at the drop of a hat, we can move away from it. He refuses to detail where he would cut government spending. The honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) was pointing out by interjection just how incredible and lacking in responsibility the Opposition is in not naming the areas in which it would cut government spending. That is indeed what it would do. Its policy has always been the same-to set up razor gangs or the like. The only answer that the Opposition had to all problems, and it was no answer, was to slash government spending and put people into unemployment. Where would the Leader of the Opposition cut spending? Would he cut defence funding? Would he cut education funding? Would he cut welfare funding? Would he cut pensions? Would he cut assistance to farmers and small business? Is that what he wants to do? Would he cut expenditure on roads? Do the farmers who are outside the Parliament today want subsidies to farmers and roads to be cut? These are the implications of what the Opposition is saying in the opportunistic policy it puts before us. What hypocrisy it is for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the living standards of ordinary Australians when all he would do is slash spending in the way I have just indicated. His record, and the record of the Liberal and National parties of this nation, is one of slashing of government spending. They pushed up unemployment to 700,000. They are the ones who shattered the living standards of the Australian people. We have managed, through the policies of the last three years-the policies of growth-to put another 600,000 of those people back into the work force and to give prosperity where it did not exist earlier. For years the Leader of the Opposition said he was fighting inflation first, and he got nowhere. Under the Liberals, all that the Australian nation got was double digit inflation, and the living standards of ordinary Australians, wherever they came from, were ripped apart. Of course, we must remind ourselves that honourable members opposite are not only bankrupt when it comes to where they would cut government spending and what they would do as an alternative strategy; they are also bankrupt when it comes to a wages policy. The very kernel of what we have managed to achieve is the prices and incomes accord. We take an opportunity like this, in a debate on economic issues, to remind the Australian people that honourable members opposite, the alternative government, have no policy to take the place of the prices and incomes accord. They are totally opposed to wage indexation. They were opposed to wage rises worth $54 a week to the average wage earner between 1983 and 1985. The Leader of the Opposition says that the current national wage claim should be discounted not by 2 per cent but by much more. What nonsense it is for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the interests of ordinary Australians when he would discount the wages of ordinary Australians by so much more than the 2 per cent allowed for in the accord. The Opposition wages policy is an economic battleground which follows the British example and is intended to smash the trade unions and directly reduce the living standards of the ordinary working Australians who are mentioned in the proposal before the House. I could list how the Opposition opposes tax cuts, how it opposes Medicare. It refers in this proposal to rural producers. But the Leader of the Opposition did not mention rural producers in his speech, despite the couple of thousand who are outside. I only wish I had time today to address the problems of the rural producers. They can rest assured that the Government will take a responsible attitude to all these issues, including fuel prices. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being nearly 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hurford-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments. No. 1-Page 2, clause 3, after definition of ``Schedule airport'' insert the following new definition: `` `securities' includes stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, notes, bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange and similar instruments or documents;''. No. 2-Page 3, clause 3, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(4) A reference in this Act to dealing with securities includes a reference to- (a) creating, executing, entering into, drawing, making, accepting, endorsing, issuing, discounting, selling, purchasing or re-selling securities; (b) creating, selling, purchasing or re-selling rights or options in respect of securities; and (c) entering into agreements or other arrangements relating to securities.''. No. 3-Page 4, after paragraph 7 (2) (b), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(ba) ensures that, as far as is practicable, the level of noise at airports is not such as to be detrimental to the communities near airports; ``(bb) ensures that, where land at a Federal airport is to be used for a purpose not directly related to aviation, being land in respect of which a lease, licence or authority has been granted to a person (other than the Commonwealth), the use would, if the land were not in a Federal airport, be allowed by the law of the relevant State or Territory (including laws made by a relevant local government body); ``(bc) ensures that where a building is to be erected on land at a Federal airport for a purpose not directly related to aviation, being land in respect of which a lease, licence or authority has been granted to a person (other than the Commonwealth), the design and construction of the building would, if the land were not in a Federal airport, be allowed by the law of the relevant State or Territory (including laws made by a relevant local government body); ``(bd) ensures that the Corporation and the communities served by Federal airports are good neighbours;''. No. 4-Page 31, paragraph 56 (4) (c), line 2, before ``the basis'', insert ``shall specify''. No. 5-Page 31, paragraph 56 (4) (d), line 4, before ``the reason'', insert ``shall specify''. No. 6-Page 37, paragraph 72 (2) (c), line 43, leave out ``offices'', insert ``officers''. No. 7-Page 38, paragraph 72 (3) (c), line 21, leave out ``offices'', insert ``officers''. No. 8-Page 38, sub-clause 72 (3), line 24, leave out ``(e)'', insert ``(d)''. No. 9-Page 38, sub-clause 72 (3), line 30, leave out ``(f)'', insert ``(e)''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation)(3.44) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to Two sets of Government amendments were moved in the Senate. One set relates to the correction of printing errors and the other to an expansion of definitions and additional definitions that were added as the Government saw fit. The third set of amendments were moved by the Australian Democrats and have been accepted by the Government. They are in accordance with the Government's philosophy in respect of the operation of the Federal Airports Corporation. Indeed, they reflect the objectives we have set for the Corporation. We are pleased to move that they be agreed to. They further enhance an excellent piece of legislation, and I believe that the Democrats have taken a responsible approach to the consideration of the Bill, for which I commend them. I do not at this stage, in the limited time available, propose to reiterate the responses to the arguments put by the Opposition in the second reading debate. In fact, listening to the debate, nothing was raised that had not already been canvassed by government, and that I had not already explained previously. In those circumstances I am pleased to commend the amendments to the Committee. I add this point: I did refer to ex gratia payments in lieu of payment of rates. That issue was dealt with in my second reading speech. I refer those honourable members who are interested to that part of my speech. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.46) —The Opposition does not oppose these amendments and proposes to support the Government on their inclusion. I have been called upon to draw the Government's attention to a couple of matters in this regard. The first amendments, Nos 2 and 3, I understand deal with tightening of the Act of a procedural nature. Amendment No. 3 states: . . . ensures that, as far as is practicable, the level of noise at airports is not such as to be detrimental to the communities near airports; ensures that, where land at a Federal airport is to be used for a purpose not directly related to aviation, being land in respect of which a lease, licence or authority-- I stress the words `lease, licence or authority'- . . . the use would, if the land were not in a Federal airport, be allowed by the law . . . More importantly, it refers to `land in respect of which a lease, licence or authority has been granted to a person other than the Commonwealth. This clearly refers to commercial transactions. We want to remind the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) what commercial transactions mean. It would appear today that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) showed a substantial lack of understanding. If the Minister, in relation to these agreements, allows persons to have plant and equipment, I will explain to him what the basic commercial facts are. Plant and equipment which is owned by a corporate body or someone dealing with a corporation of this nature will be depreciated and when it is depreciated it is tax deductible. However, on the sale of that plant any price in excess of that depreciated value is taxable in the hands of that same body. I instance the Federal Airports Corporation or the Belconnen Mall. In other words, a tax is then applicable; but if as a process of that the value of the goods sold is increased in the hands of the purchaser, the purchaser then has the opportunity to gain additional tax deductions because it has a higher rate of depreciation. If a corporation is not subject to taxation, there is a clear loss to the Commissioner of Taxation by that activity. On the other hand, if a corporation is subject to normal taxation-I am not sure, for instance, whether this body is subject to normal taxation and/or whether the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is subject to normal taxation-it will be taxed on the additional value of those depreciated goods. Those depreciated goods would then be taxed in the hands of the Government, but it would obviously devalue the sale by any amount of taxation-in the case of the Belconnen Mall, by an amount of $2m. It is equally applicable to the Corporation we are dealing with here. So we are looking at one of two things. When one revalues plant in the process of a sale, one either transfers a tax liability from the purchaser to the vendor-for instance, the Canberra Commercial Development Authority or the Federal Airports Corporation-or, if that body is not subject to tax, one gives a tax-free income to the purchaser or a tax benefit, as in the case of the Belconnen Mall, of $2m. I just wanted the Minister to understand how the commercial arrangements of his new Corporation will work. Clearly the Prime Minister does not understand it. The Prime Minister believes-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Keogh) —I am sure the Minister appreciates the economic lesson, but I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that he is getting away from the specific amendments that the Committee is considering. Mr TUCKEY —Amendment (2) on page 3 states: . . . creating, executing, entering into, drawing, making, accepting, endorsing, issuing, discounting, selling, purchasing or re-selling securities; . . . I am touching on the commercial facts. I will finish very shortly, but I want to repeat this for the Minister because his Prime Minister does not understand and I am deeply concerned. His Prime Minister stood up here today and, he believes, explained away the accusations of the Opposition, in particular the accusation of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He believes he has explained away the accusation that a $2m tax benefit has gone to the new purchasers of the Belconnen Mall and possibly a tax dodge if the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is not subject to tax. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor must be relevant to the specific amendment before the Committee. I appreciate that he might be endeavouring to illustrate his point of view by taking this particular example, which he well knows does not have anything to do with the matter before the Committee. I suggest to him that he has had a pretty fair chance to explain his point of view and he might now return to the specific amendment. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Mr Deputy Chairman. We are being asked to endorse certain amendments to the legislation which specifically deals with commercial transactions. The proposed authority is an identical entity to the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. At this stage I think it is incumbent on the Opposition to draw to the Minister's attention the types of disasters that might occur with his new Corporation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has done that. If the honourable member refuses to return to the amendment, I will ask him to resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —I will read the specific amendment again. It states: . . . creating, executing, entering into, drawing, making, accepting, endorsing, issuing, discounting, selling, purchasing or re-selling securities; . . . I draw honourable members' attention to the commercial factors of that. I ask the Minister specifically-this is not being confrontationist or anything else-to be careful that he does not take the Prime Minister's advice on these matters because the Prime Minister used to manage Bourke's store and it went broke. He seems to be very deficient in advising people on commercial matters, as he has demonstrated in this chamber today. I do not want this Minister to confuse that advice in administering these amendments. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(3.55) —When the Australian Bill of Rights Bill passed through this chamber last year, many people on this side of the House took the view that it was a frivolous but potentially sinister Bill. I now want to draw the House's attention to a very persuasive document put out by the Government of Norfolk Island drawing attention to the way in which the Bill, which extends to Norfolk Island, will override many of the fundamental laws of Norfolk Island and give people who are affected the right to appeal to the Human Rights Commission. The three laws in particular are: The immigration laws, the voting laws and the public employment laws. The Bill of Rights extends to the Northern Territory and gives every Australian citizen, which includes Norfolk Islanders, the right to freedom of movement within Australia and Norfolk Island. To give Australian citizens the freedom to go from Sydney to Melbourne is nothing. It is giving them nothing because they already have that right. But to give all Australian citizens the right to go to Norfolk Island, which the Bill would apparently do, would be a catastrophe for Norfolk Island. It is a small island of eight kilometres by five kilometres and has a permanent population of a little under 2,000, and the expert investigations have indicated that it should not exceed 2,000. An unrestricted increase would be possible under this legislation. This is of serious concern to the Government of Norfolk Island, which has put out this pamphlet which I draw to the attention of the honourable members. To give unrestricted access so that the population could increase by thousands would be a catastrophe. It would be ecologically damaging for obvious reasons in terms of its effect on land and tourism and it would be culturally damaging because this is a fairly finely-balanced community of about 2,000-a third Pitcairners a third from New Zealand and a third from Australia. The basic culture is Polynesian or Pitcairner. There can be no doubt at all that massive influxes of mainland population would undermine these cultural traditions, such as the unique language-the more or less Polynesian language of the island-the extended family system, the traditional agricultural practices and other Polynesian cultural traits still found on the Island. It would also be economically damaging because of its effect on land values and because of its transformation of the economy of the island. Yet this unrestricted immigration with rights of appeal to the Human Rights Commission would follow from the application of a Human Rights Bill. The second matter is voting rights. The Bill of Rights gives every Australian citizen the right to vote at elections. Again, that is ridiculous as far as mainlanders are concerned because they already have that right, but Australian citizens do not have an automatic right to vote on Norfolk Island. To be able to vote for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly a person must have lived there continuously for three years and must satisfy the Administrator that he proposes to live there indefinitely. Under the Bill of Rights any Australian who has lived there for a year-there could be thousands of them under the Bill of Rights-would have the right to vote in the Legislative Assembly and, therefore, would take over the island from the Norfolk Islanders. Naturally, the Norfolk Islanders are concerned about that. The third point of concern is that the Bill of Rights guarantees every Australian citizen the right of access on general terms of equality to public employment. Australian citizens do not have that right under Norfolk Island law. The right to work in the Public Service there is largely restricted to permanent residents of the island. It is the biggest employer on the island and the biggest employment opportunity for Norfolk Islanders. If Australians have the right to take it over the Norfolk Islanders will lose their main source of employment and will probably be forced to emigrate. In terms of public employment, voting rights and immigration, the Bill of Rights would override Norfolk Island basic laws and transform the Island, and it is therefore a matter of great concern. I think the Government should use the opportunity in the Senate to do something about this before it is too late. It is another example of the Government rushing through with legislation in relation to Norfolk Island without consulting the island or the island Government. The Norfolk Island Government's report states: The Norfolk Island Government has tried to promote consultation on the issue . . . with the Commonwealth Government. The Norfolk Island Government has met difficulties . . . The opportunity to examine the Commonwealth's arguments in favour of extension of the Bill . . . has not been forthcoming. The Norfolk Island Government does not know what views (if any) have been expressed at a Departmental level on the Government's concerns. Nor does this Government know how, or why, the proposal to extend the legislation to the Island came about. The legislation should not extend to the Island. The case is very powerfully put in this Norfolk Island Government position paper and it is not too late for the Government to amend the Bill in this important respect. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.00) —I bring to the attention of the House a matter which shows how desperate the campaign in Dale by the Liberal Party of Australia was to hold that seat in the Western Australian election. To do so the Liberals reached new depths in gutter politics by preaching to the racist element in the last week of the election campaign, linking the Australian Labor Party candidate, Philip Vincent, who has assisted Aboriginal people in his capacity as a lawyer, both on an individual basis and by presenting submissions to the Seaman Aboriginal Land Inquiry. I can speak personally because I know that Mr Vincent is a man of character and great social conscience who has given up much of his time to help one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia, the Aboriginal people. He ran a very clean campaign and anyone associated with that campaign can vouch for that. The attack made in the full page advertisement in the Comment News said that Mr Vincent was an ex-Aboriginal Legal Services lawyer. I ask the House whether that is a crime. I think it does him a lot of credit that he gave up a lot of revenue that he could have earned in private practice to look after Aboriginal people. The advertisement goes on to say that he was at the centre of the notorious Noonkanbah dispute. The only reason it was notorious was the jack-boot tactics of the previous Government. The advertisement states further that he was involved in the preparation of Aboriginal claims for huge areas of Western Australia during the Seaman land rights inquiry. That was a properly constituted inquiry which set out to do some justice to the most disadvantaged group in our society. By taking out that advertisement in the last week of the campaign, which gave Mr Vincent no chance at all to respond to that attack by innuendo, the Liberals did themselves a great disservice. Not only did they put the advertisement in the newspaper, but also they letterboxed the advertisement. I know for a fact that the member for Dale, Mr Cyril Rushton, personally handed out this disgraceful rubbish, this trash, and it does him no credit as a member of the Western Australian Parliament that he stooped as low as he did. The Liberals went further still. On polling day they put full sized advertisements, as allowed by the electoral laws, on every polling booth in Dale. As far as gutter politics go, that is about as low as one can go. The candidate for the Labor Party, Mr Philip Vincent, is a man of great character, who fought a very clean campaign and did not deserve the trash he got from the Opposition. I am proud to say that the other person whose face appears on that advertisement, Mr Ian Pratt, was defeated and that is some consolation to Mr Vincent for the dirty campaign which was run. Cyril Rushton may have won the election with his tactics, but he has shown himself to be a person of very low morality when it comes to election campaigns. On the other hand, Philip Vincent can hold his head up high because at least he ran a clean campaign and was unlucky to lose. One of the factors in his loss was the dirty campaign which was run against him in the last week before the election. The Liberal Party has hit rock bottom when it involves itself in tactics such as those. In the last Federal election we saw how the Liberals stooped to scaring pensioners in an attempt to pick up cheap votes. In Western Australia they appealed to the racism of people on the issue of land rights, which caused an excellent candidate in Philip Vincent not to win the seat of Dale. The margin in the last election was only 10 votes and it was a seat which under normal circumstances the Labor Party should and would have won. A scurrilous attack such as this on the candidate for Dale was a major factor in his not winning that seat. Parliaments in Australia should look at ways in which we conduct ourselves in the last week of a campaign. If tactics such as these are allowed to go on, where candidates are allowed to be attacked by smear and innuendo, we do the electoral process no good. We should take a deep look at these dirty, filthy tactics which have been trotted out by the conservative parties in the last week of the campaign. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(4.04) —Last night the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) spoke in this House to rebut claims made by Senator Michael Baume in another House. The claims by Senator Michael Baume were that the Australian Labor Party members of parliament from the Illawarra region had denied the opportunity to other non-Labor members of parliament to represent their region in a deputation made to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in regard to the closure of an Australian Federal Police post in Wollongong. Both Senator Michael Baume and I, as the member for Gilmore, consider ourselves to be within the service area of that Australian Federal Police post based in Wollongong. Both of us believe that we are both rightfully due to be concerned about the possible closure of that post. Both of us should have been included in any deputation of members of Liberal, Labor or National parties to the Minister on this important matter. We agree that the first priority of the Australian Federal Police work in that region should be in dealing with the drug problem. Every member of this House will agree that the drug problem is one of the most serious social problems in this country. Any approach made by the Australian Parliament should be a bipartisan approach. Unfortunately, the approach made by the four Labor members of parliament from the Illawarra region tried to created a political fence between the role of the Australian Federal Police and the representation of the region's parliamentary representatives. Both Senator Michael Baume and I are deeply concerned about the possible closure of this post. He was one of the first off the mark with a public outcry about the possible closure of this post. He has given notice of motion in the other House expressing his concern. With the indulgence of the Chair, I table the Press release of Senator Michael Baume and his notice of motion. Leave granted. Mr SHARP —The service which the Australian Federal Police force is giving to the Illawarra region is crucial to that region. It is absolutely vital that this post be maintained. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Macarthur announce yesterday that the Special Minister of State had decided to keep open the post until Easter. I am sure that all members of the region would want a guarantee from the Special Minister of State that this post will remain open after Easter and will continue to provide a local service to the people of the region. Even though that service in the past has required only three or four people, I believe that the local knowledge, expertise and awareness of the Australian Federal Police of what goes on in the Illawarra region is crucial to the successful activities of the Australian Federal Police in that region. I have been told by officers of the Australian Customs Service, who, unfortunately, are very undermanned in that region, that the Australian Federal Police presence in that area helps them to cope with difficult situations where they may have only part of the information from their own resources. But by speaking to the local AFP people they can get information and by putting together the two pieces of information they can come up with an answer and perhaps gain a conviction. It was very sad to see that only two weeks after the announcement that the AFP post in Wollongong would be closed, 12 people appeared in Wollongong courts on alleged heroin charges involving many millions of dollars worth of this dangerous narcotic. Only this week in my electorate NSW police stumbled upon one of the first designer drug factories that have been discovered in Australia. The subject of designer drugs is a new phenomenon in Australia. It has been seen in America and it is one of the most dangerous and insidious forms of drug manufacture which is creating more deaths than the normally naturally produced heroin and other narcotics. It is absolutely vital, if the people of the Illawarra region are to have a proper service provided for them-a service they expect and for which they pay tax-that the AFP in Wollongong provides that service. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.09) —I had prepared a totally different speech, but I cannot let the comments of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) pass without answer. Senator Michael Baume and the honourable member for Gilmore are grandstanding again, claiming that the four local Australian Labor Party members from Illawarra were engaged in some political stunt in approaching the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) regarding the closure of the Australian Federal Police office in Wollongong. Let me assure the honourable member for Gilmore and members of the House that a meeting of the four Labor members was held in my office on the day we became aware of this matter. We immediately approached the Special Minister of State. We have been in constant telephone contact with the Minister. I have in my office the letters that I wrote on behalf of the other three members, which are all signed by us. We have made constant approaches to the Special Minister of State. I ask the House to compare this with the approach of the honourable member for Gilmore and Senator Baume. Despite the adjournment speech that was made by Senator Baume the other night, despite Press releases that have been issued and despite notices of motion that have been given in the Senate, I was informed yesterday that Senator Baume has not approached or written one letter to the Special Minister of State on this matter. So much for his concern about drug problems in the Illawarra. Of course, the honourable member for Gilmore, who has recently been junketing around South East Asia, has been putting out scare stories. Apart from speaking to the Press, the honourable member casually mentioned this matter to the Special Minister of State yesterday. If the honourable member has written to the Special Minister of State, I challenge him to produce the letters here. He cannot produce the letters. If Senator Baume and the honourable member for Gilmore have the great concern they say they have, why did they not contact the Special Minister of State? They are very good at issuing Press releases to television station WIN, the Illawarra Mercury and other newspapers. All they can do is issue Press releases. The honourable member for Gilmore is always putting out Press releases about the Fleet Air Arm museum in Nowra. He has never once discussed this matter with me despite the fact that his office is about five doors from mine. Senator Baume and the honourable member for Gilmore talk about regionalisation. However, the four Labor members from the Illawarra have shown how regionalisation can work. We constantly work and have meetings together. Senator Baume and the honourable member for Gilmore are the great grandstanders of the Parliament. They put out Press releases to WIN television, the Illawarra Mercury and all the rest criticising the local Labor members. We are talking about something to which there should be absolutely no party political approach. There should be a regional approach to the drug problem. It is up to Senator Baume and the honourable member to approach us about this matter. However, they wanted to get in on the act when they heard that we were going to have a meeting with the Special Minister of State. Why did they not come to see us three weeks ago if they wanted to do that? Oh, no, they would not do that. They put out their Press releases to the Illawarra Mercury and WIN television. They said what great people they are and drew attention to the great concern they had about drugs and everything else. The honourable member for Gilmore, who has junketed about South East Asia, has been making all sorts of speeches about drugs. However, what do they do when it comes to the local problem? They do absolutely nothing. As I say, all the Press releases in the world will not do anything. It was decided at the meeting yesterday that the Australian Federal Police office in Wollongong will not close next Monday. The four local members managed to ensure that the office remains open. There is going to be a thorough inquiry into all these problems. If the honourable member for Gilmore, Senator Baume or anyone else has evidence, let him come forward and give it instead of grandstanding. If the stories that have appeared in the local media are true and can be substantiated, I am convinced that the local office will not be closed. I agree that it should remain open. I am not in favour of it being closed and I will do everything in my power, as I know the other three Labor members will, to see that the Federal Police remain in Wollongong. However, we will do it on the basis of genuine interest, not like Senator Baume and the honourable member for Gilmore, through grandstanding. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.15) —Madam Speaker, I think this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the high office of Speaker. I do that with all the understanding I can. Congratulations. Mr Cohen —Nice try. Mr TUCKEY —Those who took the odds-on have lost their money already. I want to raise a couple of matters. I refer to the impression that the Government is trying to give to the people of Australia on various issues. The first of those issues, of course, relates to the answer given today by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to a question relating to the sale of the Belconnen Mall. Just a few minutes ago I sought to point out the basic commercial facts of revaluing upwards the plant and machinery that has been devalued for tax purposes. I am not really sure whether the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is a taxable entity in terms of income tax. If it is not, the arrangements by which particular items of plant were increased 100 per cent in value must lead to one of two situations. If it is not a taxable authority, there has been tax evasion of approximately $2m in that transaction. If it is a taxable authority, there has been a transfer of tax liability from the purchaser to the vendor, namely a government institution, of $2m. That, of course, is tantamount to a price reduction of $2m. I hope that the Prime Minister will explain that to the people when he next comes into this place, because he clearly did not understand that today. We are well aware that the Prime Minister's lack of commercial knowledge and administrative procedures is one of his great problems. The honourable gentleman may think he has satisfied the Australian business public by his explanation today. However, even the smallest businessman clearly understands the basic rules of taxation-that one can make deductions when depreciating goods, and that one is taxed on the differential if one then sells the goods for a higher price. I am also concerned about the constant misleading of the Australian public on the state of the economy. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who is also the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, quoted the ANZ Bank document entitled `Business Indicators' which he said was influential and reliable. I would like to read to the House what the September 1985 issue No. 186 of this document had to say about our economy. The document stated: . . . Over the past two years GDP- that is gross domestic product- (in current prices) rose by A$42 billion, and was largely financed by gross public sector borrowings of over A$30 billion and net capital inflow, mainly in the form of borrowings, of A$17.5 billion. I guess the private sector did that. By means of simple arithmetic, I am able to work out what those figures mean. If I add borrowings of the public sector and the private sector capital inflow together, I get a figure which is $5,500m in excess of the dollar growth of the economy during that period. What would happen if any private small businessman went along to his bank manager and said: `Look, I have just had the greatest of years; my business has grown by $1m but please do not remind me that I borrowed $1.1m from you at the beginning of the year and that amount is included in the turnover'? Any businessman who told that to his bank manager would be run out of town. On the basis of the simple figures as presented in the ANZ Bank `Business Indicators' over the two years to June 1985, the borrowings of the public sector plus the capital inflow of the private sector from overseas exceeded the actual dollar growth of the economy by $42 billion. I wonder whether the Government is still conscious of what the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is reported to have said by the Bulletin of 3 December 1985. Senator Walsh, talking about the State Energy Commission in Western Australia, is reported to have said: The SEC is borrowing money to pay the interest on money it has already borrowed. In the private sector a firm in that position would be placed in receivership. Its directors would be placed in gaol. I believe that Australia incorporated is run by the present Labor Government. I wonder whether the Government agrees with the comments of its Minister for Finance. I believe that the figures that I have just given show how things are going. The reality is that the Government has borrowed $20,000m in three years by way of deficit funding to keep Australians happy. However, unfortunately, our children will be confronted with the results of that policy. Everywhere we look we see a prosperity that is funded on borrowing. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(4.20) —Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. It is needless to say, as your neighbour and a long time admirer, how elated I am at your elevation to high office. I was visited recently by one of our senior citizens, Mr Frederick Bailey of the Senior Citizens Village in Brighton. He came to discuss the means test and taxation of retired persons. Mr Bailey, who is now 81 years old, came to Australia from London in 1921 and worked hard all his life here. He had seven children. As a result of his migration there are now about 100 Baileys in Australia-all hard-working family people who, like Mr Bailey senior, never have been on the dole or on any other social security payment. After a lifetime of honest work, when Mr Bailey retired he had no property. He owns today a 1959 Vanguard motor car. He also had $16,000 invested with Esanda Ltd which is now only $15,000 as he had to withdraw $1,000 to pay his taxes, and he has some mining shares that have never paid a dividend. He paid $1,500 donation to the units as a condition of entry but has no equity in the village. Even though he has no assets or property, because of the income from his $15,000 investment, Mr Bailey is on a reduced pension and on top of that, he has to pay a few hundred dollars taxation annually. He wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and I agree with his statement in his letter, which said: My assets are so minimal I feel I should be free of means testing and taxation. Of course, I agree with Mr Bailey, and I am sure that there is something fundamentally wrong with our taxation system when people have to pay taxes on their income from a life saving of $15,000 while speculators in share takeovers make $15m overnight without paying a single cent in taxes. There is something fundamentally wrong with our tax system when it allows the rich to avoid legally, and evade illegally, their obligations. Since Federation the conservatives, the servants of the establishment, enacted taxation laws full of loopholes for the unscrupulous rich to use, while they made damn sure that the rest of the community had to cough up. Since Federation the conservatives, the representatives of the landed gentry and the rich, made sure that the laws, especially the taxation laws, favoured the rich and discriminated against the poor. Even though the objective of our progressive taxation is to finance government spending and to divert resources to the public sector, as well as to redistribute wealth, the propertied classes and their shifty lawyers managed to make a mockery of our tax system. They used with immunity every illegal means to evade and every possible legal means to avoid paying taxes. For many years the ordinary Australian taxpayer was unaware that the rich had shifted the tax burden on to their shoulders. If the House thinks I am being political, let me quote Professor Mathews, one of our foremost authorities on taxation. He wrote: Indeed, it is plausible to argue that the taxation system has become a major instrument for redistributing incomes and wealth in favour of the rich. As a result of the initiatives of the Hawke Labor Government, the taxation reforms arising from the 1985 taxation summit have gone a long way towards removing some of the tax loopholes and shelters which have for so many years allowed the wealthy to escape paying their fair share of the tax burden. However, inequalities and inequities still remain because there are hundreds in my electorate, like Mr Bailey, who are taxed on their very modest savings, while those who are rich invest their loot in antique furniture, works of art and property, luxury yachts and mansions, so as to avoid taxes. As we have initiated the most extensive overhaul of the taxation system since Federation, the Labor Government must now go further and ensure that the Baileys in our community are not called on to pay taxes, but those speculators and parasites who are hauling in big profits from capital gains and those who are hiding their accumulated wealth in property and other assets which are not taxable are called on to pay tax. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.24) —I also take this opportunity of joining other members in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on your elevation to your high office. Before proceeding, I would like to comment briefly on the contribution made by the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). My colleague the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) has advised me that he and Senator Michael Baume asked to be included in the deputation to see the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) but that they were refused access. Mr Hollis —That is a lie. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. In line with the Deputy Speaker, I rule that those words cannot be used in this House. Mr Hollis —I withdraw. Mr SLIPPER —The two honourable gentlemen sought inclusion in the deputation to see the Special Minister because they were concerned about the closure of the Australian Federal Police office, but they were told that they would not be included in the deputation. It would merely have required the placing of two more chairs in the Minister's office so that there could have been a unified, non-political approach to this very important matter. Mr Sharp —That is correct. Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to be of assistance to the honourable member. A little over a week ago a newspaper in my electorate carried the headline `Bed Crisis Festers, Bribie Pensioners Take on the Government'. I refer, of course, to the crisis in nursing home accommodation on Bribie Island. I do not intend in this adjournment speech to be political because people in the area who are members of all political parties are very concerned about the present situation. I commend the population of Bribie Island, regardless of their politics, for the unified way in which they have come together to try to redress the present problem. This afternoon I would like to explain to honourable members why the people on Bribie are perfectly justified in seeking government interest in their plight. Since mid-1985 there has been a great deal of concern on the island regarding the failure to provide additional nursing home beds for aged people. I have been approached as Federal member, along with the State member and council representatives, to give support to a submission by the Bribie Island Retirement Village for an additional 20 beds. I wholeheartedly offered my support. Public meetings have been held. At a recent meeting called by the Bribie Island Ratepayers and Progress Association, a sub-committee comprising Bribie representatives of Meals on Wheels, Senior Citizens, Red Cross, the Ratepayers Association, the Retirement Village, the Returned Services League as well as the Caboolture Emergency Care Organisation was formed to work together to obtain approval for the additional beds. As Federal member I was there. I was pleased to see Mr Bill Newton, the State National Party member present along with the Shire Chairman and local councillors. Rarely before has there been such an issue to unify people on Bribie Island. As far as the people in the area are concerned there is a distinct anomaly which must be rectified. At the current time there are 70 pensioners, all with government approval, awaiting beds in the island's only nursing home. Nearly half of these people are residents of Bribie. The former representative of this area, the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann), who was also aware of the problem, has expressed the belief that the number of people listed for nursing homecare on Bribie would be much higher except for the fact that people are not placing their names on the list because they realise the hopelessness of applying under the present circumstances. In the last 12 months there have been only 11 new admissions. We have a situation where people are dying while their names are on the waiting list. It is a real tragedy that we are told that there will not be additional beds made available for Bribie Island until the year 2000. The percentage of people on Bribie who are over the age of 55 is 35.9 per cent, whereas in the whole of Caboolture Shire it is only 19.5 per cent. Under the present rules, Bribie is treated simply as part of the Shire, whereas it should be considered a separate entity for the purpose of calculating its entitlement to nursing home accommodation. I commend all those people who have joined with me in trying to alleviate the crisis. I reiterate that it is a non-political issue. It is tremendous to see the way the community has got behind this great need providing an example to all other communities. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.28) —I wish to speak briefly because like you, Madam Speaker, I have to get the five o'clock plane. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) have both spoken this afternoon in relation to the proposed closing of the Australian Federal Police office in Wollongong. There are a couple of things that ought to be put straight. I was never approached by Senator Michael Baume or by the honourable member for Gilmore with a request to visit my office on this matter. I have checked with my office and no such approach was made. I do not think anybody has ever approached my office and has been refused the opportunity to see me or a member of the AFP, should that have been necessary. I was made aware of the problems concerning the announcement by the honourable member for Throsby a couple of weeks ago, and I said that I would arrange a meeting in Canberra with the operation's eastern region manager, Ray McCabe, as soon as that was possible. The arrangements were made. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), the honourable member for Throsby, and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) were included in those arrangements. They came to my office and put their points of view. I make it clear to all members that I cannot interfere with the day to day operations of the Australian Federal Police. We set the priorities and the Commissioner, who was appointed by the previous Government and with whom I have a very good relationship-I will continue to do so only as long as I do not interfere with what are his proper duties-has agreed that as a result of the representations made to me and via me to him and the other officers of the AFP, we need to get straight what are the necessities of having an AFP office in a regional area such as Wollongong. While many allegations are made about drugs and so forth in the southern districts- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Does the Minister require the debate to be extended? Mr YOUNG —Just for a couple of minutes. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 4.40. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.30) —While there are many allegations about criminal activity, this does not show up in the records or the intelligence of the AFP. As the honourable member for Throsby said, it is now beholden on the people of that area who perhaps hold these views to go to the inquiry, talk to the AFP people who will be doing it and put forward their representations in order that when the final decision is made-which again will be made by the Commissioner of Police and not by me-it is made on the basis of what is in the best interests of the people of that area. I might say, in conclusion, that I warmly appreciate the manner in which all honourable members seem to think that the AFP is so important in their region. It is not always the case that the police force is so warmly accepted. I think that it is a proper way to go about it. I appreciate the decision that has been made by the Commissioner. Hopefully we will get a satisfactory result at the end of it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.32 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 14 February 1986: Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 14. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 8. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 4, 5. Customs Act-Notice-1986-No. 1. Excise Act-Notice-1986-No. 1. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 6. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 1. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 3. Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 7. Rural Industries Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 2. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 69-Health Authority. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 9, 15. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1481) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication: (a) When was it established. (b) Which section within the Minister's portfolio produced it. (c) How many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved. (d) How often is it produced. (e) By whom is it printed and what is the print run. (f) What is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated. (g) Who has editorial control. (h) What are its stated objectives and. (i) What are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) SCIFACTS (2)- (a) Established in 1983. (b) Produced by the Public Relations and Information Section of the Department of Science. (c) One staff member involved for approximately 20% of time. (d) Produced every two months. (e) Printed by Microsystems. A print run of 800. (f) Circulation is approximately 600, to Australian media. (g) Editorial controls rests with Public Relations and Information Section. (h) Objective is to keep Australian media informed of the activities of the Department. (i) Printed at cost of $800 per issue. (1) ASCENT (2)-(a) Established in 1983. (b) Produced by the Public Relations and Information Section of the Department of Science. (c) One staff member involved for approximately 65% of time. (d) Produced three times a year. (e) Usually printed by Canberra Publishing and Printing Co. The print run is 5,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 4,000. Sent to industry, research institutions (both government and private sector) and to academia. (g) Editorial controls rests with Public Relations Board made up of Department Secretary; Deputy Secretary; Assistant Secretary, Secretariat; Director of Public Relations. (h) Objective of ASCENT is to promote science and technology in Australia and inform of science and technology issues; to develop and build links between the various sectors-industry, government and academia. (i) Production cost is approximately $10,000 per issue. (1) Staff Information Bulletin (SIB). (2)-(a) Established 1983. (b) Produced by the Public Relations and Information Section of the Department of Science. (c) Two staff members involved 20% of time. (d) Produced each week. (e) Printed within the Department using photo- copying facilities with a print run of 450. (f) Circulation is 450 to all Departmental staff (including some absent staff members on compensation), international delegates, and to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. (g) Public Relations and Information Section has control of editorial. (h) Objectives are to notify staff of vacancies, and general information of interest to Departmental staff. (i) Production cost is approximately $2,000 per annum. (1) Science and Technology Statement. (2)-(a) April 1980. (b) Scientific Development Division. (c) 3 or 4 involves 1.2 person years. (d) Annually. (e) Arranged through AGPS total of 1,073. (f) Tabled in Parliament. Circulated to academics, business, government advisers, journalists and overseas. (g) Director, Indicator and Research Analysis Section, Scientific Development Division. (h) To provide detailed information about expenditure by the Commonwealth Government in support of science and technology, particularly research and development as part of the information base for those concerned with Australian scientific and technological policy. (i) Cost-$4,703. (1) Australian S&T Budget Brief. (2)-(a) December 1983. (b) Scientific Development Division. (c) 2 or 3 involves 0.1 person years. (d) Annually. (e) Arranged through AGPS total 1,000. (f) Circulated to Parliament, academics, business, government advisers, journalists and overseas. (g) Director, Indicator and Research Analysis Section, Scientific Development Division. (h) To provide a compact data source, complementary to the Science and Technology Statement and having a major focus on science and technology in the Commonwealth Budget, as part of the information base for those concerned with Australian scientific and technological policy. (i) Cost-$1,684. (1) Westpac Newsletter. (2)-(a) May 1984. (b) Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). (c) 5% of one man year-one staff. (d) Produced approximately quarterly. (e) Printed by Instaprint (primarily in-house at AIMS). Print run is 500. (f) Circulated to Australian researchers, WESTPAC National Members and Task Team, Working Group members, limited IOC and interested parties. (g) Chairman of WESTPAC. (h) Objective is information dissemination. (i) Cost-$1,500. (1) AMSTAC-Other Reports and Documents (2) AMSTAC also produces, on average, three reports throughout each year on matters which arise in the course of its investigations or which are directed by the Minister for Science. The objectives of these reports are to comment on, or to improve overall awareness of particular matters relevant to the marine sciences and technologies. These reports, once approved by the Minister for Science and AMSTAC as appropriate, are generally public documents but usually have a fairly limited circulation to specific interest groups or persons. These documents are produced in-house within the Department of Science and generally have a print run of less than 75 copies. They are listed in the 1984 AMSTAC Annual Report. (1) Antarctic Treaty Exchange Information (2)- (a) 1976. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Publications Officer and Assistant 6%. (d) Annually (in October). (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 200 copies. (f) Libraries, Antarctic community, interested parties. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Required under Article VII (5) of Antarctic Treaty. (i) Staff costs $3,700. (1) ANARE News (2)- (a) May 1981. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Editor and Publications Officer 40% and 8%. (d) Quarterly (monthly until June 1984). (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 1,500 copies. (f) Libraries, Antarctic community, next of kin of expeditioners, media, by request. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) To present information on Australia's Antarctic program. (i) Staff costs $18,000. (1) ANARE Handbook (2)- (a) 1980 (First Edition), 1982 (Second Edition). (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Publications Officer and Assistant 11%. (d) Irregular. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 2,500 copies. (f) ANARE expeditioners. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Introduction to Antarctica, ANARE and the Antarctic Division. (i) Staff costs $7,850. (1) ANARE First Aid Manual (2)- (a) 1979 (First Edition, 1980 (Second Edition), 1984 (Third Edition). (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Three-Publications Officer, Assistant, Medical Officer. 11%. (d) Irregular. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 2,500 copies. (f) ANARE expeditioners. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Practical guide to management of medical problems with emphasis on isolated conditions and cold environments. (i) Staff costs $8,750. (1) ANARE Field Manual (2)- (a) 1979 (First Edition), 1982 (Second Edition). (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Publications Officer and Assistant. 20%. (d) Irregular. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 2,500 copies. (f) ANARE expeditioners. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Contains recommended practice for field operations in Antarctica. (i) Staff costs $13,050. (1) ANARE Reports (Formerly included ANARE Data Reports, ANARE Interim Reports and ANARE Scientific Reports) (2)- (a) 1950. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Publications Officer and Assistant. 4%. (d) Irregular (currently 133 Reports). (e) Australian Government Publishing Service, print run 400 copies. (f) Libraries, Antarctic community, scientific community, by request. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Avenue for publication of significant and lengthy ANARE research that has undergone external review. (i) Staff costs $6,650. (1) ANARE Research Notes (2)- (a) 1982. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Publications Officer and Assistant. 58%. (d) Irregular (currently 28 Notes). (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 400 copies. (f) As for ANARE Reports. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Avenue for rapid publication of technical data and/or scientific results. (i) Staff costs $27,200. (1) Antarctic Press Clippings (2)- (a) January 1982. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Public Relations Officer and Assistant. 1%. (d) Irregular. (e) AGPS Document Reproduction Unit, print run 50 copies. (f) Largely internal. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Summary of Antarctic related articles appearing in Australian newspapers. (i) Staff costs $850. (1) Operations Manual (2)- (a) 1947. Revised format 1979. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Operations Manager and Publications Officer. 8%. (d) Updated annually. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 200 copies. (f) Antarctic Division staff, Antarctic stations and representatives of agencies working in Antarctica as part of ANARE. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Disseminate information and instruction to all people involved in ANARE. (i) Staff costs $5,600. (1) Operations Supplement (2)- (a) 1979. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Operations Manager and Publications Officer. 4%. (d) Annual. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 200 copies. (f) Holders of ANARE Operations Manuals. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Provide information on current season's ship and station operations and programs. (i) Staff costs $2,900. (1) ANARE Stores and Equipment Manual (2)- (a) 1979. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Supply Manager and Publications Officer. 8%. (d) Updated annually. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 100 copies. (f) Internal, Australian stations. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Stores list to facilitate re-ordering of station supplies. (i) Staff costs $5,320. (1) Communicating with Antarctica. (2)- (a) 1980 (First Edition), 1981 (Second Edition). (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Publications Officer and Welfare Officer. 8% (d) Irregular. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, print run 6,000 copies. (f) ANARE expeditioners and their next-of-kin. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) To detail the various ways families and Friends can keep in contact with members of ANARE during their term of service. (i) Staff costs $7,800. (1) Information Pamphlets 1 to 17. (2)- (a) 1979. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Public Relations Officer and Assistant, 1%. (d) Reprinted irregularly. (e) Local printers by competitive quotes, various print runs. (f) By request from general public. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) Inform public on Antarctic, source of project material for schools. (i) Variable. (1) Station Newsletters. (2)- (a) May 1981. (b) Antarctic Division. (c) Two-Public Relations Officer and Assistant, 1% (d) Monthly. (e) AGPS Document Reproduction Unit, print run 1,000 copies. (f) Family and friends of ANARE expeditioners. (g) Director, Antarctic Division. (h) To act as a source of regular news of station activities. (i) Staff costs $3,200. (1) Darwin Diagnostic Statement. (2)- (a) 1982. (b) Northern Territory office, Bureau of Meteorology. (c) 4 staff (3% total time). (d) Produced annually. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-126 (sales, subscriptions, official use and free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Supply of Meteorological information, furnishing advice on meteorological matters. (i) $938. (1) Daily Interstate Weather Bulletin (2)- (a) Not known. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-N.S.W. Regional Office. (c) 3 staff at (12.46% total time). (d) Daily. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-13 through subscriptions. (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update of daily interstate information. (i) $424. (1) Daily Rainfall Bulletin. (2)- (a) 1893. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-W.A., S.A., Qld, N.S.W., Vic. and Tas. (c) 16 staff (17.7% total time). (d) Daily. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-241 (sales, subscriptions, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update of daily rainfall information. (i) $49,812. (1) Daily Rainfall Map. (2)- (a) Not known. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Qld, N.S.W. and Vic. (c) 8 staff (11.71% total time). (d) Daily. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-91 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update of daily rainfall map. (i) $19,455. (1) Daily River Reports. (2)- (a) 1939. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-N.S.W., S.A., Vic. and Tas. (c) 10 staff (12.18% total time). (d) Daily. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-122 (subscriptions, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update daily river report. (i) $30,192. (1) Daily Synoptic Weather Chart of Australia. (2)- (a) 1972. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Head Office. (c) 2 staff (5.4% total time). (d) Daily. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-2,100 (distributed to Regional Office). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update daily synoptic weather chart of Australia. (i) $4,325. (1) Daily Weather Bulletin. (2)- (a) 1936. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-W.A., S.A., Qld, N.S.W., Vic. and Tas. (c) 16 staff (15.9% total time). (d) Daily. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-199 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update daily weather bulletin. (i) $63,774. (1) Weekly Rainfall Totals. (2)- (a) 1914. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-S.A., Qld, N.S.W., Vic. and Tas. (c) 12 staff (4.6% total time). (d) Weekly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-192 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update of weekly rainfall totals. (i) $11,603. (1) Weekly Weather Note. (2)- (a) 1938. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-W.A., S.A., Qld, N.S.W., A.C.T., Vic. and Tas. (c) 24 staff (6.5% total time). (d) Weekly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-167 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update of weekly weather note. (i) $26,297. (1) Monthly Rainfall Bulletin (2)- (a) 1907. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-ACT, SA, Qld, NSW and Vic. (c) 13 Staff (2.3% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-321 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update of monthly rainfall bulletin. (i) $5,321. (1) Monthly Rainfall Map (2)- (a) 1950. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-WA, SA, Qld, NSW, Vic. and Tas. (c) 17 staff (2.7% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-118 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Monthly issue of rainfall map. (i) $7,574. (1) Monthly Summary (2)- (a) 1918. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-SA, Qld and ACT. (c) 7 staff (1.4% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-81 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Summary of monthly information. (i) $994. (1) Monthly Rainfall Review (2)- (a) 1965. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Head Office. (c) 4 staff (9.5% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) 6 monthly period-contract commercial printer. (f) Circulation-470 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update on monthly rainfall review. (i) $5,557. (1) Monthly Weather Review (2)- (a) 1957. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-WA, NT, SA, Qld, NSW, Vic. and Tas. (c) 28 staff (17.5% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Varies. (f) Circulation-1,118 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Update on monthly weather review. (i) Not available. (1) Annual Rainfall Map (2)- (a) Not known. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Qld, Vic. and WA. (c) 8 staff (15.9% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-243 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) - (i) $546. (1) Perth Data Proforma (2)- (a) Not known. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-WA. (c) 3 staff (13.6% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-15 (subscriptions, official use). (g) Production Manager. (h) - (i) $317. (1) Hobart Daily Met Observations (2)- (a) 1908. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Tas. (c) 4 staff (4% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-100 (subscriptions, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Meteorological observations. (i) $148. (1) Hourly Rainfall Analysis (2)- (a) - (b) Bureau of Meteorology-WA (c) 3 staff (20.4% total time). (d) Monthly. (e) Copied in-house. (f) Circulation-13 (subscription). (g) Publications Manager. (h) Rainfall Analysis. (i) $424. (1) Australian Meteorological Magazine (2)- (a) 1952. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Head Office. (c) 4 staff (48% total time). (d) Quarterly. (e) AGPS. (f) Circulation-646 (subscription, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Chief Scientist Research. (h) Forum for meteorological researchers (international and national). (i) $30,640. (1) Drought Review Australia (2)- (a) 1965. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Head Office. (c) 4 staff (12.9% total time). (d) In times of drought. (e) 6 monthly-commercial printer. (f) Circulation-470 (subscription, sales, official use, free issue). (g) Publications Manager. (h) - (i) $6,193. (1) Weather News (2)- (a) 1956. (b) Bureau of Meteorology-Head Office. (c) 2 staff (35% total time). (d) 6 issues per year. (e) 6 monthly-commercial printer. (f) Circulation-550. (g) Public Relations Officer. (h) Information magazine showing developments in the Bureau. (i) $12,171. (1) IPS Predictions. (2)- (a) - (b) Ionospheric Prediction Service, Sydney. (c) Two man days. (d) Weekly or monthly. (e) IPS computer and Department of Defence (IPS radio and space services). (f) 400 copies x 40 pages. (g) - (h) - (i) 0.5 cents per page. (1) Technical Reports. (2)- (a) - (b) Ionospheric Prediction Service, Sydney. (c) - (d) On request. (e) Private firms. (f) 50-500 copies. (g) - (h) - (i) $2,000. (1) IPS Handbook H8. (2)- (a) - (b) Ionospheric Prediction Service, Sydney. (c) - (d) Updated every 2-3 years. (e) Private printing firm. (f) 3,000 copies-600 addresses. (g) - (h) - (i) $3,000. (1) IPS User Training Manual. (2)- (a) - (b) Ionospheric Prediction Service, Sydney. (c) - (d) - (e) - (f) 400 copies sold at $10 each-500 copies run. (g) - (h) - (i) - CSIRO (1) Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. (2)- (a) Established 1950. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 1.5. (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,900. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,700 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $150,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Biological Sciences. (2)- (a) Established 1948. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.75. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,700. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,500 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $85,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Botany Supplement. (2)- (a) Established 1972. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced approximately once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,100. (f) Circulation is approximately 900 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $60,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Botany. (2)- (a) Established 1953. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,400. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,200 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $60,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Chemistry. (2) - (a) Established 1953. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 5 (d) Produced 12 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,600. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,400 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $530,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. (2) - (a) Established 1961. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 2 (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,600. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,400 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Standing Committee on Agriculture. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $140,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. (2) - (a) Established 1950. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 1 (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,600. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,400 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $125,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Plant Physiology. (2) - (a) Established 1974. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.75 (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,350. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,150 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $80,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Physics. (2) - (a) Established 1953. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 1.5 (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,300. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,100 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $200,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Soil Research. (2) - (a) Established 1963. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5 (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,300. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,100 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $80,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Zoology Supplement. (2) - (a) Established 1971. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.75 (d) Produced approximately 10 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,200. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,000 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $125,000 per annum. (1) Australian Journal of Zoology. (2) - (a) Established 1953. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.75 (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,200. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,000 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $125,000 per annum. (1) Australian Wildlife Research. (2)- (a) Established 1974. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,400. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,200 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $96,000 per annum. (1) Brunonia. (2)- (a) Established 1978. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.25. (d) Produced 2 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 700. (f) Circulation is approximately 500 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO Editor. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $40,000 per annum. (1) ECOS. (2)- (a) Established 1974. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c Staff involved in production: 3. (d) Produced approximately 4 times a year. (e) Printed by A. E. Keating. The print run is 10,500. (f) Circulation is approximately 9,500 to general public. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO Editor. (h) Objective is to report on environmental science for the nonspecialist. (i) Production cost is approximately $150,000 per annum. (1) Rural Research. (2)- (a) Established 1952. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c) Staff involved in production: 3. (d) Produced approximately 4 times a year. (e) Printed by A. E. Keating. The print run is 12,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 11,000 to general public. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO Editor. (h) Objective is to report on rural science for the nonspecialist. (i) Production cost is approximately $150,000 per annum. (1) Scifile. (2)- (a) Established 1977. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.25. (d) Produced approximately 3 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 10,500. (f) Circulation is approximately 10,000 to science teachers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO Editor. (h) Objective is to increase current awareness of scientific development. (i) Production cost is approximately $15,000 per annum. (1) Industrial Research News. (2)- (a) Established 1957. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c) Staff involved in production: 1.1. (d) Produced approximately 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 5,750. (f) Circulation is approximately 5,000 to secondary industry. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO Editor. (h) Objective is to increase current awareness of CSIRO research of interest to industry. (i) Production cost is approximately $40,000 per annum. (1) Directory of CSIRO Research Programs. (2)- (a) Established 1976. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.6. (d) Produced approximately once a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 2,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,500 to information workers. (g) Editorial control is with CSIRO Executive. (h) Objective is to provide a comprehensive directory of CSIRO research programs. (i) Production cost is approximately $45,000 per annum. (1) CSIRO Index. (2)- (a) Established 1953. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 2. (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by Latrobe Studios. The print run is 850 (on microfiche only). (f) Circulation is approximately 800 to librarians. (g) Editorial control is with Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (h) Objective is to provide a directory of CSIRO research publications. (i) Production cost is approximately $25,000 per annum. (1) CRRERIS Index. (2)- (a) Established 1981. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 875. (f) Circulation is approximately 680 to energy workers. (g) Editorial control is with CRRERIS Editor. (h) Objective is information exchange between countries in Pacific and South East Asia. (i) Production cost is approximately $11,000 per annum. (1) CRRERIS Expert and Product Directories. (2)- (a) Established 1982. (b) Produced by Central Information, Library and Editorial Section. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 750. (f) Circulation is approximately 680 to energy workers. (g) Editorial control is with CRRERIS Editor. (h) Objective is information exchange between countries in Pacific and South East Asia. (i) Production cost is approximately $11,000 per annum. (1) Food Research Quarterly. (2)- (a) Established 1971. (b) Produced by Division of Food Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 1.3. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 2,700. (f) Circulation is approximately 2,000 to food industry. (g) Editorial control is with Divisional Committee. (h) Objective is to provide a general interest publication for the food industry. (i) Production cost is approximately $27,000 per annum. (1) Forest Products Newsletter (new series). (2)- (a) Established 1985. (b) Produced by Division of Chemical and Wood Technology. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 6,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 6,000 to timber industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to improve relations between research and industry. (i) Production cost is approximately $2,600 per annum. (1) Rebuild. (2)- (a) Established 1976. (b) Produced by Division of Building Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 12,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 10,000 to building industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to increase current awareness of Division's research work. (i) Production cost is approximately $30,000 per annum. (1) Australian Plant Introduction Review. (2)- (a) Established 1963. (b) Produced by Division of Plant Industry. (c) Staff involved in production: 1. (d) Produced 3 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 400 to agriculturalists. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide a listing of all introduced plants. (i) Production cost is approximately $4,000 per annum. (1) Coresearch. (2)- (a) Established 1958. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c) Staff involved in production: 1. (d) Produced 12 times a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 8,600. (f) Circulation is approximately 8,400 to CSIRO staff. (g) Editorial control is with Staff Editor. (h) Objective: staff newspaper. (i) Production cost is approximately $45,000 per annum. (1) CSIRO Alert. (2)- (a) Established 1983. (b) Produced by Science Communication Unit. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.75. (d) Produced 6 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 500 to technical media. (g) Editorial control is with Staff Editor. (h) Objective is to provide information on research developments for technical media. (i) Production cost is approximately $2,000 per annum. (1) Australian Forest Research. (2)- (a) Established 1964. (b) Produced by Division of Forest Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 600. (f) Circulation is approximately 500 to forest industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is publication of original research. (i) Production cost is approximately $64,000 per annum. (1) CSIRO Textile News. (2)- (a) Established 1975. (b) Produced by Division of Textile Industry. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced approximately 2 times a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 3,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 2,250 to textile industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide non technical information on Division's work. (i) Production cost is approximately $4,000 per annum. (1) Minerals and Energy Bulletin. (2)- (a) Established 1980. (b) Produced by Institute of Energy and Earth Resources. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced 4 times a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 2,400. (f) Circulation is approximately 2,300 to minerals industry. (g) Editorial control is with Institute Director. (h) Objective is to provide short items of interest to industry. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Water and Land Resources-Technical Memoranda. (2)- (a) Established 1959. (b) Produced by Division of Water and Land Resources. (c) Staff involved in production: 1. (d) Produced 20-40 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 200-400. (f) Circulation is approximately 200-400 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is the quick publication of results. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Water and Land Resources-Natural Resources Series. (2)- (a) Established 1984. (b) Produced by Division of Water and Land Resources. (c) Staff involved in production: 1. (d) Produced 2-3 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 800 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report results of major projects. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Water and Land Resources-Divisional Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1980. (b) Produced by Division of Water and Land Resources. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced approximately 3 times a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 500-600. (f) Circulation is approximately 500 to interested parties. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide information on Division's research results. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Water and Land Resources-Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1959. (b) Produced by Division of Water and Land Resources. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 2-3 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 900 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide summaries of major research projects. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Textile Industry `G' Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1960. (b) Produced by Division of Textile Physics. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced approximately once a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 1,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 850 to textile industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide technical details of Divisional work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Food Research Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1956. (b) Produced by Division of Food Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 1. (d) Produced 3-4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 300 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide detailed reports of major research work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Plant Industry Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1952. (b) Produced by Division of Plant Industry. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced less than once a year. (e) Printed by various commercial printers. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 450 to plant scientists. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide reports of specialised research. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Applied Physics Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1979. (b) Produced by Division of Applied Physics. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500-3,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 500-2,500 to research institutions. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide reports of specialised research. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Energy Technology Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1981. (b) Produced by Division of Energy Technology. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced approximately once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 250. (f) Circulation is approximately 250 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report on finished projects. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Arid Zone Newsletter. (2)- (a) Established 1956. (b) Produced by Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,200. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,000 to those involved in management of arid areas. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is communication between researchers and managers. (i) Production cost is approximately $3,000 per annum. (1) Atmospheric Research Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1983. (b) Produced by Division of Atmospheric Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 1. (d) Produced 3-4 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,200. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,000 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide reports of specialised work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Fishery Situation Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1979. (b) Produced by Division of Fisheries Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced approximately once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 400 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with SE Fisheries Committee. (h) Objective is to improve fisheries management. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Marine Laboratory Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1956. (b) Produced by CSIRO Marine Laboratories. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced 5-10 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 400 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chiefs of Division. (h) Objective is to provide reports of specialised research, new equipment, etc. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Chemical and Wood Technology Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1984. (b) Produced by Division of Chemical and Wood Technology. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced 7 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 300 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide reports of specialised research. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Wildlife and Rangelands Technical Memoranda. (2)- (a) Established 1969. (b) Produced by Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 1-2 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500. (f) Circulation is approximately 400 to wildlife workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report new techniques. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Wildlife and Rangelands Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1958. (b) Produced by Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced 1-2 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500-1,000. (f) Circulation is up to 800 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report specialised work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Soils Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1971. (b) Produced by Division of Soils. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.3. (d) Produced once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 1,600. (f) Circulation is approximately 1,400 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report specialised work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Soils Divisional Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1975. (b) Produced by Division of Soils. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.5. (d) Produced up to 7 times a year. (e) Printed by Division of Soils. The print run is 350-1,000. (f) Circulation is approximately 800 to soils research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide brief reports of Division's work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Tropical Crops and Pastures-Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1961. (b) Produced by Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.25. (d) Produced once a year. (e) Printed by Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. The print run is 700. (f) Circulation is approximately 600 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report specialised work. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Tropical Crops and Pastures-Technical Memoranda. (2)- (a) Established 1976. (b) Produced by Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.25. (d) Produced 4-5 times a year. (e) Printed by Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. The print run is 200. (f) Circulation is approximately 200 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to report techniques and data. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Genetic Resources Communication Series. (2)- (a) Established 1980. (b) Produced by Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced 2 times a year. (e) Printed by Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures. The print run is 200. (f) Circulation is approximately 200 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide data bank. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Entomology Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1957. (b) Produced by Division of Entomology. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 600. (f) Circulation is approximately 500 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide records of research. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Entomology Divisional Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1978. (b) Produced by Division of Entomology. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced 1-5 times a year. (e) Printed by Division of Entomology. The print run is 200. (f) Circulation is approximately 200 to automologists. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is the rapid publication of results. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Geomechanics Technical Reports. (2)- (a) Established 1963. (b) Produced by Division of Geomechanics. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced 1-5 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 250. (f) Circulation is approximately 100 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide summaries of research. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Geomechanics Technical Papers. (2)- (a) Established 1965. (b) Produced by Division of Geomechanics. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced 1-2 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 500-1,500. (f) Circulation is approximately 500 to research workers. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide detailed research results. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Geomechanics Coal Mining Report. (2)- (a) Established 1978. (b) Produced by Division of Geomechanics. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.2. (d) Produced 5-10 times a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 150-250. (f) Circulation is approximately 100 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to provide detailed research results. (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. (1) Geomechanics Computer Programs. (2)- (a) Established 1972. (b) Produced by Division of Geomechanics. (c) Staff involved in production: 0.1. (d) Produced less than once a year. (e) Printed by CSIRO Printing Unit. The print run is 200-500. (f) Circulation is approximately 100 to industry. (g) Editorial control is with Chief of Division. (h) Objective is to make available useful computer programs (i) Production cost per annum is small and variable. Official Journal and Indexes (1) Australian Official Journal of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs (main issue). (Apart from the main issue, various supplements are produced. These are shown separately below. (2)- (a) 1904. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) weekly. (e) Government Printing Office; 410 copies. (f) 160 subscriptions copies; 132 free issues to overseas industrial property offices and national libraries on an exchange basis, and library deposits in Australia; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office Publications Unit. (h) to meet legislative requirements-publishes details of official proceedings under the Patents and Trade Marks Acts. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Patent Abstracts Supplement to Official Journal (2)- (a) 1981. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) weekly. (e) Government Printing Office; 90 copies. (f) 50 subscription copies; 16 free issues; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (h) to meet legislative requirement publishes abstracts of patent specifications which have become open to public inspection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Patent Abridgements Supplement to Official Journal (2)- (a) 1981. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) weekly. (e) Government Printing Office; 190 copies. (f) 109 subscription copies; 33 free issues; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (h) to meet legislative requirements-publishes abridgements of accepted patent specifications. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Designs Supplement to Official Journal (2)- (a) 1982. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) fortnightly. (e) Government Printing Office; 110 copies. (f) 57 subscription copies; 9 free issues; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (h) to meet legislative requirements-publishes details of official proceedings under the Designs Act and of registered designs. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Trade Marks Supplement to Official Journal (2)- (a) 1983. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) weekly. (e) Government Printing Office; 310 copies. (f) 132 subscription copies; 131 free issues; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (h) to meet legislative requirements-publishes details of accepted trade mark applications. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Australian Patent Office Reports (Supplement to Official Journal) (2)- (a) 1984. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) irregularly (2 or 3 issues per year). (e) Government Printing Office; 300 copies. (f) 33 sales copies for regular orders; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Special Examination Section. (h) to meet legislative requirements-publishes reports of decisions by hearing officers in official proceedings under the Patents, Trade Marks and Designs Acts. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Annual Record of Patent Office Proceedings (2)- (a) 1904. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) Government Printing Office; 200 copies. (f) 61 subscription copies; 100 free issues; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (h) to provide an annual index of official proceedings under the Trade Marks Act. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Annual Record of Trade Marks Office Proceedings (2)- (a) 1906 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) annually (e) Government Printing Office; 180 copies (f) 43 subscription copies; 100 free issues balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit (h) to provide an annual index of official proceedings under the Trade Marks Act (i) see Attachment A GUIDES AND PAMPHLETS (1) Guide for Applicants for Patents (2)- (a) 1965 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) approximately each three years (e) Australian Government Publishing Service contractors; 5000 copies (f) 4730 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Technology Information Branch (h) to assist people wishing to obtain patent protection (i) see Attachment A. (1) Guide for Applicants for Trade Marks (2)- (a) 1974 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) approximately each four years (e) Australian Government Publishing Service contractors; 3000 copies (f) 2850 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Trade Marks Examination and Special Examination Sections (h) to assist people wishing to obtain trade mark protection (i) see Attachment A. (1) Guide for Applicants for Designs (2)- (a) 1982 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) approximately each four years (e) Australian Government Publishing Service contractors; 3000 copies (f) 2850 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Designs Examination and Special Examination Sections (h) to assist people wishing to obtain design protection (i) see Attachment A. (1) Notes on Patent Law (2)- (a) 1958 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) irregularly (last printing was in 1974) (e) Australian Government Publishing Service contractors; 500 copies (f) 50 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Patent Examination and Special Examination Sections (h) to provide a history of the development of Australian patent law (i) see Attachment A. (1) Patent Literature, a source of Technical Information (2)- (a) 1979 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) annually (e) Government Printing Office; 2500 copies (f) for free issue to the public (g) Patent Office, Technology Information Branch (h) to promote patent literature as a source of technology information (i) see Attachment A. (1) Directory of Services (2)- (a) 1982 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) annually (e) Government Printing Office; 2500 copies (f) for free issue to the public (g) Patent Office, Publications Unit (h) to provide a compendium of Patent Office services (i) see Attachment A. (1) Patent Concepts and Procedures (2)- (a) 1981 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) annually (e) Government Printing Office; 2500 copies (f) for free issue to the public (g) Patent Office, Technology Information Branch (h) to publicise information about patents (i) see Attachment A. (1) Questions and Answers about Patents (2)- (a) 1964. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) private contractors; 24,000 copies. (f) for free issue to the public. (g) Patent Office, Technology Information Branch. (h) to assist people wishing to obtain patent protection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Questions and Answers about Trade Marks. (2)- (a) 1973. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) private contractors; 20,000 copies. (f) for free issue to the public. (g) Patent Office, Trade Marks Examination and Special Examination Sections. (h) to assist people wishing to obtain trade mark protection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Questions and Answers about Designs. (2)- (a)1982. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) private contractors; 20,000 copies. (f) for free issue to the public. (g) Patent Office, Designs Examination and Special Examination Sections. (h) to assist people wishing to obtain design protection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) How to Apply for a Patent. (2)- (a) 1970. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) private contractors; 24,000 copies. (f) for free issue to the public. (g) Patent Office, Technology Information Branch and Special Examination Section. (h) to assist people wishing to obtain patent protection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) How to apply for Registration of a Trade Mark. (2)- (a) 1969. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) private contractors; 20,000 copies. (f) for free issue to the public. (g) Patent Office, Trade Mark Examination and Special Examination Sections. (h) to assist people wishing to obtain trade mark protection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) How to Apply for Registration of a Design. (2)- (a)1982. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) annually. (e) private contractors; 20,000 copies. (f) for free issue to the public. (g) Patent Office, Designs Examination and Special Examination Sections. (h) to assist people wishing to obtain design protection. (i) see Attachment A. EXAMINATION AND SEARCHING MANUALS AND TOOLS. (1) Patent Examiner's Manual. (2)- (a) 1957. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) approximately each five years. (e) Government Printing Office; 400 copies. (f) 100 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Special Examination Section. (h) to provide a manual for patent examiners and to publicise the basis of official practice. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Patent Cooperation Treaty Examiner's Manual. (2)- (a) 1981. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) approximately each five years. (e) Government Printing Office; 300 copies. (f) 44 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Technology Information Branch and Special Examination Section. (h) to provide a manual for patent examiners and to publicise the basis of official practice. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Petty Patents Manual. (2)- (a) 1983. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) approximately each five years. (e) Government Printing Office; 60 copies. (f) 20 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Special Examination Section. (h) to provide a manual for patent examiners and to publicise the basis of official practice. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Trade Marks Examiner's Manual. (2)- (a)1964. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) irregularly. (e) Government Printing Office; 300 copies. (f) 150 copies for sale to the public; balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) Patent Office, Trade Marks Examination and Special Examination Sections. (h) to provide a manual for patent examiners and to publicise the basis of official practice. (i) see Attachment A. (1) AU-A Patent Specifications on Microfiche (produced when specifications become open to public inspection. (2)- (a) 1978. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) weekly. (e) Patent Office; 26 copies of each specification (approximately 220 specifications per week). (f) 4 subscription copies; 8 free copies balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) no editing required. (h) to publish the full text of patent specifications which have become open to public inspection. (i) see Attachment A. (1) AU-A Patent Specifications on Microfiche (produced when specifications are accepted by the Commissioner of Patents. (2)- (a) 1978. (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit. (c) see Attachment A. (d) weekly. (e) Patent Office; 60 copies of each specification (approximately 150 specifications per week). (f) 6 subscription copies; 41 free copies balance for internal Patent Office use. (g) no editing required. (h) to publish the full text of patent specifications as accepted by the Commissioner of Patents. (i) see Attachment A. (1) Index of Constituent Particulars of Trade Marks on Microfiche. (2)- (a) 1980 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) monthly (e) Government Printing Office; 80 copies of each microfiche (approximately 9 microfiche per month) (f) 28 subscription copies; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Trade Marks Examination Section (h) to assist searching of trade mark applications and registrations (i) see Attachment A. (1) Microfiche Aid to Design Searching. (2)- (a) 1982 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) six-monthly updates (e) Government Printing Office; 20 copies of each microfiche (approximately 350 microfiche each six months) (f) 5 subscription copies; 2 free copies (1 Thailand Patent Office, 1 Northern Territory Library Service); balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Design Examination Section (h) to assist searching of design registrations (i) see Attachment A. (1) Devices on Microfiche (relating to the group of trade marks containing pictorial representations of human or humanoid figures). (2)- (a) 1984 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) six-monthly updates (e) Government Printing Office; 60 copies of each microfiche (approximately 68 microfiche each six months) (f) 3 subscription copies; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Special Examination Section (h) to assist searching of trade mark applications and registrations (i) see Attachment A. (1) Australian Patent Number Concordances on Microfiche. (2)- (a) 1981 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) four-monthly updates (e) Government Printing Office; 80 copies of each microfiche (approximately 5 microfiche each four months) (f) 14 subscription copies; 47 issues to subscribers to AU B microfiche; balance for free issue and for internal Patent Office use (g) no editing required (h) to assist searching of patent specifications (i) see Attachment A. ANNUAL REPORT (1) Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office Annual Report of Activities. (2)- (a) 1973 (b) Patent Office, Publications Unit (c) see Attachment A (d) annually (e) Australian Government Publishing Service contractors; 470 copies (f) 265 free issues to the public, government departments and overseas industrial property offices; balance for internal Patent Office use (g) Patent Office, Information Services Section (h) to provide a public report on Office activities (i) see Attachment A. Attachment A PATENT OFFICE PUBLICATIONS ESTIMATED COSTS 1985-86 Publication Estimated cost $ Printing Official Journal... 217,500 Official Journal Abstracts Supplement... 85,200 Official Journal Abridgements Supplement... 62,800 Official Journal Designs Supplement... 12,300 Official Journal Trade Marks supplement Australian Patent Office Reports... 6,000 Annual Records of Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Offices Proceedings... 40,000 Other publications... 44,200 Bindings of volumes of Official Journal, Annual Records of Proceedings, etc.... 9,800 520,900 Less Revenue (Sales and Subscriptions)... 246,700 Net printing cost of Patent Office publications... 274,200 Staffing Publications** Publications (incl. editing) 4 staff band 1 x $20,637 p.a. (weighted average salary)... 82,548 Sales and Distribution 4 staff band 1 x $20,637 p.a. (weighted average salary)... 82,548 165,096 * It is not practicable to separate the printing costs of minor and irregular publications, such as pamphlets, brochures, etc. ** The staffings costs shown relate to Patent Office Publications Unit staff only; other staff are involved in editorial work as a minor part of their routine duties as patent or trade mark examiners, etc. (Question No. 2992) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: 1. Does the law require that all domestic TV and radio reception equipment sold in Australia be equipped with all channels planned for use in Australia during the life of the equipment. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. There is no legal requirement at the moment for television or sound receivers sold in Australia to be equipped to receive all channels in the appropriate frequency bands. However, in order to exploit fully the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band for television broadcasting, my Department has been exploring with the industry the development of a standard which will require all future domestic television receivers sold in Australia to be equipped to receive UHF as well as the current VHF (Very High Frequency) transmissions. (Question No. 3034) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What was the annual percentage increase in real terms in (a) educational allowances available to adult Aboriginal students and (b) tertiary education allowances in each year from 1982-83 to 1985-86. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The table below shows movements in the levels of living allowance available to (a) adult students under the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme (Abstudy) and (b) students qualifying under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS), compared with movements in the Consumer Price Index for the relevant periods. In each case the relevant period is the twelve months to June of the year preceding the calendar year for which the allowance is provided. When allowance levels are being determined each year in the Budget that period represents the most recent twelve-month period for which actual CPI movement is known. Year Education Allowance ABSTUDY Weekly level Increase over previous year TEAS Weekly level Increase over previous year CPI Relevant period Increase $ % $ % % 1983... 70.75 12.3 (1) 38.65 20.0 1981-82 10.7 (2) 59.62 20.0 1984... 76.00 7.4 (1) 40.36 5.0 1982-83 11.2 (2) 62.25 5.0 1985... 78.96 3.9 (1) 44.51 10.0 1983-84 3.9 (2) 68.67 10.0 1986... 78.96 . . (1) 47.50 6.7 1984-85 6.7 (2) 73.28 6.7 (1) Maximum allowance for a dependent student at home. (2) Maximum allowance for a dependent student away from home or an independent student. (Question No. 3046) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Further to the Minister's answer to part (3) of question No. 1662 concerning the cost of university medical courses, do the figures supplied relate to annual or total costs. (2) What is the total cost to the Commonwealth of a medical course at each of the nominated universities. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The figures are average annual recurrent costs. (2) The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission does not collect details on individual students in particular courses. It collects global figures at departmental or faculty level from which average costs may be derived. Within the field of Medicine there is a wide range of courses, and costs will vary considerably depending on the subjects taken in a course. Cost figures provided in Part (3) of the reply to Question No. 1662 represent the average annual recurrent costs for all students. The medical course at the University of NSW is five years in duration and six years at the other institutions. On average, therefore, the total cost of a five year course would be in the range of $55,000-$65,000 and $66,000-$78,000 for a six year course. (Question No. 3079) Mr Blunt asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What progress has been made with the study being undertaken by the Office of Youth Affairs into the viability of self-sustaining communities. (2) When does he expect to announce a comprehensive Government policy on the issue. (3) Will he provide a summary of the conclusions reached to date by the study in respect of individual community projects. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Office of Youth Affairs has commissioned nine research studies on self-sustaining communities since 1983. (i) Training for Self Reliance and Co-operation, Co-operative Federation of Australia, commissioned in April 1984, consultation project. (ii) Analysis of Readers Responses to Questions About Government Funding of Alternative Lifestyles, Institute of Applied Social Research, Griffith University, commissioned April 1984. (iii) The Social Characteristics of Alternative Lifestyle Participants in Australia, Institute of Applied Social Research, Griffith University, commissioned November 1984. (iv) Working and Living Co-operatively, Work Resources Centre, Australian National University, commissioned April 1985. (v) Worker Co-operative New Enterprise Program, Small Business Centre, Preston College of TAFE, commissioned April 1985. (vi) Training for Self Reliance, Co-operative Federation of Australia, commissioned May 1985. (vii) Living on Rural Land Sharing Communities, Sustainable Lifestyle Education Collective, commissioned April 1985. (viii) The Feasibility of Establishing a Youth Co- operative Training Venture at Healesville, Victoria, June 1984, Michael Ireland and Associates. (ix) Training for Alternative Employment Opportunities, Community Enterprise Development Agency, commissioned April 1985. (2) Self-sustaining communities are one of many options the Government is looking at in the development of its strategy for young people. The Priority One package of policies is being further developed in the years leading up to the Bicentennial and beyond. (3) Reports have been received on seven of the studies and I have arranged for summaries of these to be provided to the Honourable Member. Summaries of the other two studies will be provided when reports are received.