Wednesday, 12 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.01) —At the conclusion of the debate on this legislation last evening I was dealing with some propositions that had been put by the Opposition about the nature of trade union training. The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) had made some observations about the need to train representatives of employers as well as representatives of employee organisations to try to harmonise the industrial relations arena. My comment at that stage was that the existing program at the Administrative Staff College at Mount Eliza met that goal of having joint training. The college is in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), and I know that he maintains a close interest in matters of this nature. It is important also to emphasise that the honourable member for Dunkley is someone who has had experience of the shop floor and the trade union movement. In projecting my comments this morning I am really saying that I believe that we, through the Trade Union Training Authority, have a responsibility to ensure that as much information and education as possible is provided to members of trade unions and their leadership to improve the performance of trade unions in the whole industrial relations arena. Last evening I was saying that I believe that we, as a community, have been very successful in that respect. Certainly my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley represents one of the very successful people in that sense, and I commend him to his electorate for that. I believe that it is important to understand that there has been a recognition by the Opposition parties-that trade union training is important. They supported it when they were in government and we are continuing that process. It was an initiative of Clyde Cameron and it was a very significant initiative because it laid the foundation for recognition in Australia that trade unionists and trade union leaders are responsible people. They are part of the community and, if they are treated responsibly, they can share in the partnership of the community. In fact, I think one of the matters that cause some concern and at times complaint by members of the Opposition is that we have members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions leadership coming to Parliament House to share in the decision-making at the national level. We believe that is appropriate and important. What needs to be understood by honourable members opposite is that a substantial body of the Australian community are members of trade unions and are responsible people. That is a view we hold but we also hold the view that having a properly structured education program that deals with some of the issues on the shop floor is important. I was saying last evening that I think one of the other obligations of the Trade Union Training Authority is to ensure that trade unionists as a group are aware of the wider implications of their activities. For example, if they got up a wage claim, what would be the impact of that wage claim on the overall economy? What would be the impact on the costs of a firm? What is a desirable way to go about having workers compensation? For example, are the current arrangements under common law the best? The view held on this side of the Parliament would be that this is not the case. My colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) will be interested in those issues, and I know that he has some concern about the workers compensation bill and its impact on the community. We are saying that trade unions, through an appropriate organisation such as the Trade Union Training Authority, can come to an understanding that it is important to have an effective workers compensation system. Where better to discuss workers compensation than in the context of a trade union training authority and the courses it runs? A trade unionist does not look just at getting up a claim under common law, but takes the view that it might be more intelligent to have a no-fault, single insurer workers compensation system that would lower administrative costs. This would get a lot of the lawyers out of workers compensation and get back to dealing with the real issues in the work place, which are industrial safety and minimising accidents. That is exactly the sort of thing that can be dealt with in the Trade Union Training Authority arena, and it is a subject I know is dealt with because I have worked on seven or eight courses. It is something of which Labor members in this place are acutely aware. As I was saying earlier, I think those are the sorts of issues Opposition members will also be aware of. I turn to another important area, and that is effective communication in the work place. It is one area that is taught in trade union training courses. By way of anecdote, let me point out to the House what I found in some research I was doing prior to a trade union course. I went to a major mining company and asked that company about its safety training arrangements. To my surprise the company representative said: `We have a lot of signs around the site which instance difficult areas where safety may be imperilled, particularly when driving a haul pack truck'. Did this company have any way of guaranteeing that its workers could read English? In fact, it had no such guarantee and there were some 17 language groups in that work place. On checking with some members of the work force, I discovered that their ability to read English was minimal. Their speaking skills were adequate but reading skills were quite minimal. What we determined was that many of the safety instructions were written in English and passed out. When it came to a case of whether workers on this mine site had adequate safety instructions, the answer clearly was no. That was an issue that could be addressed with management. I am not implying any neglect on the part of management, but I am saying that if there is a proper appreciation of what goes on in the work place and if there is concern about industrial safety, it is an appropriate arena through the Trade Union Training Authority to address job delegates and shop stewards. One can say: `Let us now look at whether the membership of your unions understand the safety training they are given'. I can also refer by example to experiences in the chemical industry. Mr Blanchard —And also the asbestos industry. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As my colleague indicates, the asbestos industry is an example where people in the work place were very early on aware that something was not quite right, but communication in the work place was often inadequate. Management was not picking up these issues early enough. There was a concern that people who felt that things were not right in the work place, believed those issues were not being properly addressed to management or, for that matter, to public health officials and safety officers. I thank the honourable member for Moore for his comment. It exemplifies the fact that what we are talking about is a positive and constructive approach to the work force and to the Australian community. We are aware of the high cost of workers compensation and the extraordinary burden industrial accidents place on the community. Neither of those is desirable either from a social humanitarian point of view or a strict economic point of view when one recognises the costs that have to be borne by the Australian community. We are in difficult economic times. We need to be sure that our industries are running as effectively as possible. One of the areas I have found very productive in relation to the Trade Union Training Authority is to talk to job delegates and union officials about how effective the communication was in the work place. I mentioned earlier the concern I have with the chemical industry area. Again, on inspection of a major chemical plant it was discovered that a substantial body of Vietnamese were working there. On checking, I discovered that many of them did not know where the safety showers were if a spillage occurred, let alone what sorts of reagents one might use to try to deal with a spillage. I am not implying any negligence or lack of concern of management or of the workers, but I am saying that that sort of issue when it arises can have extreme costs. Certainly the costs in terms of any kind of compensation that might arise from a major chemical spill can be significant. But it was much simpler to try to address that sort of issue in relation to a TUTA course and to say to job delegates: `How many of your people in that factory can, in fact, speak or read English? Do they know about the safety instructions? Do they know to what areas to evacuate? Do they know how to deal with reagents?' What I am suggesting is that these are the sorts of issues that, in a non-partisan way, one can deal with in the context of a TUTA course. The TUTA has shown itself to be very effective there. I believe that its major objective has been largely fulfilled in terms of treating unionists as partners in the Australian community and recognising that we have a responsibility to give them as much information as possible. Honourable members will be well aware that, over time, there has been, naturally, a tendency for managements to encourage their members to attend appropriate tertiary institutions to upgrade their qualifications. That is something that we all commend and it is something that is very necessary. My own experience in that area shows that a lot of people were being encouraged by major corporations and small business to go and do both basic degrees and higher degrees and to undertake extra study. But an area that was neglected, in my judgment, in looking at the background of many people going through these courses in tertiary institutions-to a lesser extent in technical and further education, where I think that many people who become workers in the work place go through technical education, certainly in the trade courses-is that there was often a ceiling on their attainment. The TUTA has been directed to try to rectify some of that imbalance. So, a person who has had the shop floor experience and has become a job delegate with a union is then afforded the opportunity to understand something about economic policy: `What is it if we push for a wage claim? What impact might that have on the costs of our employer? What might be the wider repercussions if we push for that claim and there is a flow-on of that claim? What impact do our activities as a union have on the wider economic scene? What sort of issues should we be addressing in terms of our own members and their ability to pay off their commitments in terms of their family life, and so on? What is the political framework in Australia? How might we address ourselves to that?'. It is not to simply say, `Oh, that is none of our business; others will look after that,' but to say intelligently, `What role do I, as a worker, play in relation to the wider community?'. These are sensible issues to be addressed. I have seen them addressed in many forums of the TUTA. I believe that this community-and I say that in the full sense of community, that is, the members of the opposition parties and the members of government, as a community in Parliament-must recognise that responsibility towards the Australian community. I believe that there are many honourable members in this place who have had experience both of trade unions and of employers, who would recognise that, the more that we can have a skilled, educated work force, the more effective we shall be as a country. In recent times we have seen the benefits of many very capable people in the trade union movement coming into the wider community, in the sense of parliamentary roles and in the sense of their role in consultation with governments, both Federal and State, in their capacity to work on boards, and so on. The whole concept in Western Europe of the wider role of unionists playing a part in the community is being seen in Australia. I can recall the horror that was expressed by some conservatives in this community when we might have thought, as a government, that we would put trade unionists on boards of management; yet we must recognise that people who run trade unions often run substantial enterprises, in terms of both the membership and the activities in which the union gets involved and the finance with which the union might deal if it runs its own credit unions, building societies, and so on. We see people with considerable skills in the trade union movement come into this place and make a contribution. I believe that we, as a government-and I would hope, as an opposition-recognise that that is a substantial role, and that the more we can take that positive attitude towards trade unions, the more effective we shall be as a country, the more we shall get out of our country, and the more satisfaction people will get from playing a part in that community. The issues that I have addressed today are issues of concern to the wider community, but certainly we on this side of the House recognise our responsibilities in that respect. Accordingly, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.15) —Discussion of the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 provides some scope for bipartisan agreement in this place. Matters such as occupational health, safety in the work place and worker participation in some forms of management or the ownership of businesses provide at least some common ground. Nonetheless, market research, not to mention individual members' common sense and observations, shows us that the power of trade unions is of enormous concern to a great many Australians. In my view, the root cause of this concern, as market research bears out, is the prices and incomes accord and the blatant examples of union bullying. At the outset I stress that any member of the Government who would accuse members of the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia of being anti-trade union or in some way of being against the concept of organised labour is delving into the realms of the ridiculous. I suggest that our record when in government bears out our claim that the Opposition represents the interests of all Australians whether in trade unions or outside them. We certainly developed a number of mechanisms for a consultative process, not the least of which is the National Labour Consultative Council, made up of the Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and business representatives. The hallmark of a Liberal-National Party government is that we provide proper consultation on an equal footing between the parties with the Government, made up of elected representatives, being the final authority or arbitrator of disputes. In that way we are very much distinguished from this Government, which excludes to a far too great extent the business representatives and, at the same time, surrenders, again to far too great an extent, power to the ACTU. In my view and in the view of my colleagues, the prices and incomes accord not only provides a centralised wage fixing system which has no regard whatever to the capacity of individual industries to provide increased wages and improved conditions at work but also entrenches a rigid labour market which locks out the unemployed, especially the young unemployed. Members of the Opposition and, for that matter, of the Government are alarmed when, every day, they come into contact with unemployed people, including the young unemployed, who are disillusioned and who are suffering, not only from the financial disadvantages that surround unemployment but also from all the associated mental and family pressures, the decrease in self-respect, the lack of training in a discipline and the lack of experience which provide the tools for employment. No member can help but be personally touched by the numerous cases of people who are suffering from being out of work. In my view the ACTU is failing in its responsibility to those who do not have employment and, therefore, are not card-carrying members of one of its affiliates. The ACTU is concerned wholly and solely with the proportion of the Australian adult population with jobs. It can be said that the new privileged in Australia are those who have jobs. The leaked Cabinet submission, supposed to have been tendered to Cabinet by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), shows what we knew some time ago-that employment in this country has stagnated. The opportunities for increasing employment will diminish over time and the unemployment rate will increase. The tragedy of that is self-evident. Yet where are the constructive proposals by the trade union movement for freeing up the labour market so that many unemployed people can obtain work? Three great examples highlight just how a freeing up of the rigid labour market can provide employment to the mutual benefit of employee and employer. Those examples are well known, not just to every individual member of this Parliament but also to the wider Australian community, being the Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets and Wagga abattoir matters. In each of those examples it was proved conclusively that where employers and employees can strike their own individual bargains, businesses can continue and indeed flourish to the betterment of the employees. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I do not want to interrupt the honourable gentleman, but we are discussing a Bill that relates to the participation of officers and employees of the Trade Union Training Authority in the election of staff representatives to regional councils. I suggest that the honourable member try to be relevant to the Bill. There is a certain latitude given-but I think he is straying too far from the text of the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —I certainly appreciate your guidance, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that a great many issues involving this particular legislation and aspects of the trade union movement have been discussed by previous speakers and doubtless will be discussed by speakers following me. Nonetheless, I will certainly take on board your comments. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member that I am not aware of what happens when I am not in the chair. Mr McGAURAN —Sadly, in all of these trade union disputes it was shown that the trade union movement, represented by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, was reluctant-indeed, refused outright-to come to the rescue of those it ought properly to protect, its own members. Also, I feel that these disputes have shown that the ACTU is not concerned about the wider implications for those involved, such as employers. Mr Hand —I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, you have just made a ruling about speaking to the Bill. Whilst I and, I am sure, the Government are happy to debate the issues raised by the honourable member, they have absolutely no relevance at all to the matter before the Chair. Madam SPEAKER —I take on board what the honourable member for Melbourne has said. However, he would be aware that the Bill was debated last night when I was not in the chair. If other members have widened the debate, it is incumbent on the Chair to allow a certain degree of flexibility. I am expecting the honourable member for Gippsland, however, to return to the text of the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —Madam Speaker, as you will be aware, the Trade Union Training Authority is made up in part by several regional councils which have enormous responsibilities not just for union training but, in a wider sense, for representing the trade union movement in all of its aspects. It is my belief that authorities such as the Trade Union Training Authority ought to give more consideration to a freeing up of the rigid labour market. In addition to the concern of a great many Australians in regard to trade union power there is the widening concern with unemployment benefit. This is a matter on which I would think most honourable members are approached on a daily basis. I believe that the unemployed should work for the dole-a work benefits scheme, in other words. The way to do this so that it would fit in with the Trade Union Training Authority is to pay the unemployed-they would have to work-award rates for casual or part time work. Madam Speaker, as you will be aware and as no doubt the Trade Union Training Authority will be aware, most awards have a casual or part time component. It is my argument that the unemployed should be paid according to this casual or part time award up to the limit of the dole. Mr Hand —I take a point of order. Casual rates, for the information of the honourable member, are paid by the Trade Union Training Authority. The point he is making has absolutely no relevance at all to the legislation before the chamber. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The honourable member for Gippsland cannot be relevant to the Bill by just introducing the words `Trade Union Training Authority' here and there. I now request him to be relevant to the Bill before the House. I have given him a certain amount of flexibility but the honourable member for Melbourne is correct. The honourable member for Gippsland is not really speaking to the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —The Trade Union Training Authority has widespread power encompassing a number of aspects relating to education and training. I believe that that body ought to concern itself with the wider aspects of unemployment and ought to educate those who attend its schooling not to automatically expect unemployment benefit in the event that they do not continue to have jobs. Unless there is a major realignment of attitudes we will continue to have a rising unemployment rate. I believe that the trade union movement at large and the Trade Union Training Authority specifically would support a work benefit scheme because, obviously, it would mean increased membership for trade unions. The important aspects of working for the dole would be, firstly, to give the self-respect and experience necessary to enhance the prospects of obtaining employment and, secondly-probably just as importantly-it would flush out those who do not want to work. By paying casual or part time award rates a person would work up to the $90-odd that a single person receives in unemployment benefits. That person would be paid by local government and local government would be reimbursed by the Government. The unemployed would report to local government. For instance, if the metal industry had a casual award rate of $9 a single unemployed person would work 10 hours. If local government could employ that person over and above these set hours all the better. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will now speak to the Bill or I will require him to resume his seat. Mr McGAURAN —The Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill has very important implications, not just within union training as established in each State by the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975; it has even further implications for the trade union movement as a whole and for those who belong to that movement. The influence of bodies such as a trade union training authority cannot be overstated. If we are to tackle the structural problems in the labour market, bodies such as a trade union training authority have to look beyond their traditional role. If there is not a change in attitudes I despair for the unemployed. Unless we bite the bullet and adopt a work benefits scheme we will not reduce government expenditure-the fraud and waste that undoubtedly is encompassed in the payment of unemployment benefits. We will also not give the unemployed the opportunity to obtain employment at a later date. I appreciate very much the tolerance that you have shown me, Madam Speaker, although to my mind I have kept reasonably-or at least to the same extent as other speakers-within the scope of this legislation. In drawing to a conclusion I reject out of hand any suggestion that members on this side of the House do not feel as deeply about the unemployment problem as do those opposite. If I may speak on behalf of my colleagues, we feel that union power in this country is exaggerated. It has an undue influence upon this Government at the expense of the very people it purports to represent, that is, its members, and certainly at the expense of those it unashamedly does not represent-the unemployed. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.30) —I rise in support of the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986. I wish to express a brief comment to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). His speech shows quite clearly what little knowledge he has of the Trade Union Training Authority when the only reference he can make to it is to mention its name from time to time during his comments. He would do well to visit the Trade Union Training Authority either in his State of Victoria when he is there or in any other State when perhaps he is on holiday or on parliamentary business. Instead of coming in here and using the debate for purposes other than than for which it is intended, that is, to discuss the amendment to the Trade Union Training Authority Act, he would do well to see what these people do. This Bill has been introduced to overcome a possible anomaly in the interpretation of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975, as amended last year. As honourable members will recall, several amendments were made to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975 in the autumn session of Parliament in 1985 through the auspices of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985. Those amendments concerned changes to the structure of TUTA's policy making and advisory councils. Principally they involved the abolition of the existing Australian Council for Union Training and its replacement with a restructured body incorporating increased trade union representation and inclusion of an elected staff representative. For those who may not be aware of this-obviously, I refer to people such as the honourable member for Gippsland-the Australian Council for Union Training is the duly constituted body authorised under the Act for formulating the policy of the Authority. The amendments also resulted in reforms to the structure of the State councils for union training which in the process were renamed regional councils for union training. The primary function of the restructured councils is to provide advice and to make recommendations to the Australian Councils on the training needs in respect of States or Territories in which the councils are located and to ensure that the training provided is in accordance with the policy formulated by the Australian Council for Union Training. Membership of the regional councils was expanded to include an additional representative of the relevant State trades and labour council, a nominee of the national director of TUTA and an elected staff representative. These changes were seen as necessary following an extensive review process carried out in 1978 which found that significant administrative problems were impinging upon the satisfactory attainment of TUTA fundamental objectives. One of the major recommendations of that review was to develop mechanisms for greater staff participation and input into the decision-making process. This recommendation for greater industrial democracy was acted upon by the Government and resulted in the aforesaid amendments. However, post facto, their passage through Parliament, it became clear that, in respect of the section dealing with the staff representation on regional councils, a potential problem could arise in relation to staff nominations on the Victorian regional council. As it read, the amended section 20 (1) (e) of the principal Act could be interpreted to mean that the staff employed at TUTA's national training centre, Clyde Cameron College, situated in Wodonga in Victoria, could be entitled to participate in the election of staff representatives on the Victorian Council for Union training. Such a practice was clearly not intended in the 1985 legislation. The Bill currently before the House is designed to overcome that potential difficulty. It ensures that staff members located at the regional office in Victoria have the sole responsibility for electing their staff representatives to the regional council and that only staff from the Victorian centre can nominate for the position. I wish to point out that the Victorian TUTA has had a long-standing practice of inviting a staff representative to observe its council meetings. This has been done on a rotational basis. Now that the practice is enshrined in legislation, with full rights of participation, it is envisaged that the staff representative will become permanent rather than changing with each meeting. Once this Bill is passed, the way will be open for the Victorian TUTA to elect its staff nominee and for the process of formal staff involvement in the decision-making process to begin. It is currently the practice of the Victorian Council for Union Training to meet approximately every three months. The forty-seventh such meeting was held on 10 February 1986. It is common for these meetings to receive various reports and submissions on a range of activities conducted by the Victorian centre and, where appropriate, to make recommendations relating to the substance of those reports. Perhaps the most important report is submitted by the program sub-committee, which is the only sub-committee of the Victorian Council for Union Training. It is that sub-committee which has the real responsibility for administering the centre and for formulating policy in between meetings of the broader Council. The main functions of the program sub- committee include: Recommending to the Victorian Council for Union Training and other appropriate bodies on the future direction of the Victorian centre in relation to the types and quantities of training courses; within the guidelines issued by the Executive Board of the Australian Council to translate broad plans for the utilisation of the centre's resources into appropriate programs; to report to the Victorian Council on progress and success of the Victorian centre's courses; and to suggest modification of the existing courses and the introduction of new courses in line with changing needs and circumstances. As can be seen from the depth and variety of the matters handled by the program sub-committee it is indeed a very important committee within the overall decision-making structure of TUTA in Victoria. It is therefore most appropriate that one of the six members of this sub-committee is an elected representative from the training staff, as the Bill provides. The inclusion of a staff member is not only in keeping with the changes to structures within TUTA introduced last year but also is a long-standing practice in the Victorian centre. Since the subject matter of this Bill deals principally with the Victorian centre, I would like in the time remaining to speak of the achievements of the Victorian TUTA under the good management of its Council, its program sub-committee and its Director, Geoff Fary. The Victorian TUTA, which is located in a magnificent Victorian mansion in Drummond Street, Carlton, in my electorate, has improved its performance record in each successive year of operation. I invite honourable members, as I am sure the Victorian TUTA would invite them, to call in if they are in the vicinity of the city and have a look at the facilities in this quite magnificent building. One criterion for judging the effectiveness of TUTA's operation is its student numbers. In this respect the Victorian centre has an extremely good record of growth, from a average student enrolment of 1,268 between 1975-76 and 1982-83, representing 18.2 per cent of TUTA's total student intake, to a student participation level of 3,218 in 1984-85, representing 22.1 per cent of TUTA's total student intake. More than 1,900 students have participated in TUTA's courses in the first six months of 1985-86, indicating a continuing pattern of growth for Victorian TUTA in this financial year. Other criteria for judging performance also indicate that the Victorian TUTA is going extremely well. Estimates as at 31 December 1985 indicate that the centre is running 13.2 per cent ahead of its target in terms of total training days and at the same time the average rate of attendance has increased to 23.6 per cent, which exceeds the Authority's overall average. I also point out for the information of honourable members that the Victorian centre has consistently met every program policy requirement made of it by the overall Authority. The program policy requirements to which I refer have been determined by the Executive Board of TUTA, and include the provision that no less than 55 per cent of courses should be devoted to basic job representative courses. Forward projections indicate that some 62.9 per cent of courses run in Victoria are basic job representative courses. It would do the honourable member for Gippsland and others well to look at these sorts of statistics because they indicate that TUTA has been extremely successful. Another provision was that no more than 20 per cent of courses should be conducted for single unions-in Victoria that figure is currently 15 per cent-and that no more than 15 per cent should be occupational health and safety courses. The figure in Victoria is currently 11.9 per cent. As honourable members can see, the Victorian TUTA is operating well within the parameters laid down by the Authority. It is my understanding that it is the only State to have achieved this result. It has done so at the lowest cost per training day of any centre and is also the most self-reliant. The use of external tutors reflects very well upon the determination and attitude of the centre's staff. I take this opportunity to commend the staff for the excellent job they do in training so many unionists in representative skills and industrial knowledge. Time is against us. I have far more to say in praise of the Victorian centre but I will conclude with the following words: The centres are now in a situation where real democracy and worker participation can occur as a result of the passage of this amendment to the legislation. I commend the centres for the work they have been doing. I wish them well in the future. I congratulate the Government on introducing this important amendment and hope that members of the Opposition will try to relate their comments to TUTA and the Bill before the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.41) —I am interested in the latter part of the introductory speech by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) to the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill. He stated: The measures contained in recent amendments of the Act, including this Bill, will assist in the further development of an efficient, progressive and well-led trade union movement which is of crucial importance to all Australians. I do not think anyone could quarrel with those sentiments, especially the last part of the sentence. The Minister continued: The education of leaders and potential leaders of trade unions in developing and improving their skills and industrial knowledge is clearly a national responsibility. Those are ringing words and I only hope that this organisation will do something to further the aims of those statements. However, I am aware that we are considering an amendment to a Bill which affects an organisation that costs the Australian taxpayer something like $7m a year. I have always thought, whilst I subscribe to the betterment, by education, of any organisation in the community, that this is a very one-sided payment. I cannot see how $7m is balanced between management and unions in Australia. Therefore I approach any discussion of this organisation with some cynicism, knowing that it was formed by a Labor Government for the supporters who put that Government into office. There seems to be no redress in the balance of power on the industrial front with $7m going to the other side of the question. However, it is, as the Minister has said, a national responsibility to see that education in this field is carried out properly. I would like to know-I hope the Minister will answer this question when he sums up the debate-how responsible is this organisation. I have studied very briefly the syllabuses of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority in the annual report 1984-85 which, I believe, is the last one available. I notice there are courses on a number of areas which are of vital importance. There are industry courses. I notice with interest that the accord is one of the matters that are studied. So politics enters very significantly into the study of the Australian Trade Union Training College because the accord is very much a product of a political agreement between this Government and industry unions in Australia. My thoughts went further and I asked myself: How often are the students who are part of this syllabus training exposed to the theories of democracy? So often in the union movement we see the negation of democracy. Recently, I raised directly with the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) a question about the undemocratic processes of unions in my capital city, Adelaide, in placing prominent signs stating `No ticket, no start' on two government building projects of which the Minister is the project manager. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know from your study of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, that there is no provision under law for such a sign. Therefore, it is really breaking the law of this nation. Unions, whose members are working on government projects managed by a Federal Government department, are breaking the law. I wonder whether there is an emphasis in the syllabuses which are presented on the fact that all sides in the industrial front must obey the law. Section 47 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act simply grants power to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to give preference to members of an organisation. It does not allow compulsory unionism. It does not allow `no ticket, no start'. It seems to me, in looking at the headings of the syllabus of industry courses-which, as I have said, include such a political factor as the accord-that there ought to be some balancing of the argument that the law must be obeyed and that unions should be at the forefront of it. We know that, from day to day, there are many instances off practices under union control which are obnoxious in this country. For instance, a constituent has been to my office within the last three weeks who once again has lost half of the goods that he has imported from Italy and which were in transhipment in a container from Melbourne to Adelaide. He said: `Quite clearly you can see where the fist has been put through the boxes and the goods have been taken out'. These sorts of practices are directly related to what unionists are taught about their control of the industrial scene. I would very much like to know-I think the Minister should answer my question-what work is put in? What is offered in these courses to make sure that unions and union leaders are taught that there are two sides to this question and that they must use their best endeavours to uphold the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the law in general? I would like to know how much exposure to democracy in the truest democratic sense and the responsibility of the whole community these union leaders are put to. So I approach this question of this body's operation knowing that there is an enormous requirement for betterment of standards of union leadership. I have raised two points: Firstly, the pilferage which goes on continually at an institution such as the Melbourne docks and the transhipment field and, secondly, the illegal acts that take place on a project under the direction of a Federal Minister who sits in this House who replied when I wrote to him that he would take no action to have the signs taken off the fence of a Commonwealth project. Mr Donald Cameron —What? Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister for Housing and Construction said in writing that he would take no action to take the signs off the fence of the two multi-million dollar projects he manages in Adelaide-which state: `No ticket, no start'. So by his actions this Government is now backing compulsory unionism and it is going outside the law in so doing. I reiterate that there is an enormous requirement to remove from the union movement these practices which are obnoxious to nearly all thinking Australians. If this $7m, or part of it, is allocated for this purpose of raising the standards of union conduct that will be a fine thing, but I do not see any reference to it in the legislation. I hope that some syllabus may be added to cover the requirement that study will include a general community obligation. I must say that I am disappointed in this area in relation to the reply the Minister gave me and in the fact that the Government has always walked around this question of compulsory unionism. It walked around it again in recent times in the Mudginberri dispute where the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) refused to supply to an industry meat inspectors, which, of course, he is obliged to provide under the law, and where the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who is in charge of national parks in this House, did not prosecute a picket line which was established in an area of national park where no one else can camp. This sort of favouritism has gone on far too long. I hope that there can be a greater exposure of what the Australian Trade Union Training Authority does at the shop level to see just what it is teaching and to ensure that there is a greater emphasis on the democratic and law abiding aspects of unions than obviously there is in the community now. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.50) —I take a great deal of pleasure in speaking to the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill because it is a very significant Bill, not so much in terms of the minor machinery change but in terms of the principle which is involved, which is a very far-reaching principle. I think for far too long the view has been held that a dangerously false dichotomy has been drawn between the interests of management and labour. The Australian Labor Party has perceived this for a long time. For far too long in the history of industrial relations in Australia, management has seen its task as encompassing the entire area of decision making and the labour force has seen its task as being the recipients of the decisions that are made concerning every aspect of the work that is to be done. In other words, our history of industrial relations has given credence to the view that management is the thinker and the workers are the doers. Apart from the falsity of the assumptions underlying this view the result has been extremely costly in the history of this country-costly socially, politically and industrially. First of all, it has resulted in a great waste of talent and of wealth, of intelligence and ideas. Secondly, it has resulted in many instances of wrong and even very stupid decisions being taken that have had far-reaching effects. Thirdly, it has led to the alienation of a vast army of workers down through the years. We have seen engrained in our culture the view that it is the rightful province of management to make decisions and for management alone to do so. As I have indicated, this is not only wasteful but also unnecessarily divisive. It is not of much assistance to the process of technological change, for instance. The work force can hardly be blamed for suspecting, as a motive of management, that technological updating is being done with a view to cutting jobs. Employees suspect that management will use its power to reduce the conditions of employees. All too often this is the case although as a generalisation it does an injustice to many employers, especially those in small businesses. Nevertheless, it comes down to an issue regarding power. Management knows this and, from its experience, so does the union movement. In fact it is because of this realisation that the union movement was formed. Over a century the experience of the union movement led unionists to recognise that the only protection the worker had in this industrial relations system was to unite to ensure that the power of the pound-now the dollar-was met by the collective power of numbers. While it has been recognised for many decades by wiser thinkers that the best businesses were those in which trust could be developed, the will to share the power of ownership and also decision making has been lacking. In fact these days it is necessary for this principle to be given special government support. Unfortunately, we hear that so clearly in the speeches of the Opposition. It is very sad indeed. I happen to believe that while we have a great distance to go in this respect it is vital to pursue this course if the nation is to prosper and be able to compete internationally. It would make little sense in fostering such a principle of industrial relations in our industry and commerce if those who are supposed to teach others the skills required to share in the power of decision making are not given the opportunity to take part themselves in their own work place. This point is made clearly by the Minister in the final paragraph of his second reading speech when he said: The education of leaders and potential leaders of trade unions in developing and improving their skills and industrial knowledge is clearly a national responsibility. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985 in order to exclude from election to and to participate in the election for membership of the regional councils of the Trade Union Training Authority those officers and employees of TUTA whose responsibilities are national rather than State in function. They will of course be eligible for membership of and to vote in elections for representation on their national bodies, but the principle of participation in decision making is the same. Therefore, an anomaly is being removed. The Government believes that this recognition of the principle of shared decision making is not only democratic in orientation but makes business sense. Shared decision making is also aimed at reducing in the industrial relations area the significance of the master-servant relationship that diverts attention from the need to develop harmonious and co-operative work places. As one who has an abiding interest in the spirit of co-operativism, I see the development of shared decision making as being one step in the direction of true ownership of power. For this to be complete, workers must become the peers of all those in the factories or other work places. This can be achieved only when all who work there actually own the plant. I witnessed co-operative ownership on a systemic scale when I visited Mondragon in northern Spain. In the primary co-operatives-that is not primary industry but is a technical term for the nature of the co-operative-all those within the plants have equal shares, and that is equal equity and, likewise, management is chosen co-operatively. All must share in making the decisions that ultimately are enacted to run the plant. Mr Donald Cameron —Are you advocating this? Mr MILDREN —Of course I am. If the honourable member had been in the House occasionally, he would have heard me speak on this topic. Those involved also have to share responsibility for the decisions taken. I would like to see the principle of co-operativism as it applies in Mondragon given sincere consideration in Australia. One of the important facets of that kind of system is that it removes the major cause of alienation, and that is the lack of a sense of ownership, of power over decision making in the plants-not simply just power over money. That is an obsession unfortunately among some people, but is only one aspect. The thrust of this amending Bill and its main Act provides us with an opportunity to help both unionists and management to recognise the merits of shared power. I commend the Act itself and certainly this Bill which seeks to amend it. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.00) —The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) made almost laughable observations when speaking on the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill. I refer specifically to his party room, because in the last few days we have been hearing reports on AM of Labor Party backbench members getting up in the party room and complaining about the fact that the Ministry is hugging and hogging all the decision making and that the private members are not being heard. Mr Duffy —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a somewhat wideranging debate, but examination of the principal Act of 1975 will show that the affairs distorted or correctly put of the Australian Labor Party Caucus have no relevance to this Bill at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I uphold the point of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I wonder why, Mr Deputy Speaker, you allow the honourable member for Ballarat to roam across Spain and other places and yet adopt this particular view on my remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not reflect on the Chair. If he had regarded the point as worthy of being taken he would have taken it at the time. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I was making comparisons with the utterances of the honourable member for Ballarat on workers' participation. I might say, without pursuing the matter too far, that I also have seen this co-operative approach behind the Iron Curtain where the workers have the say. If one compared the Australian standard of living to that of the Iron Curtain countries and Spain, one would see a vast difference. People can be participators in democracy in poverty if that be their wish, but there is always some price to pay. Personally I am not opposed to management consulting with workers. I wonder whether this is something that is taught at the Trade Union Training Authority. I wish to make some suggestions in relation to the Authority. The $7m which is being spent represents an effective subsidy to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It was introduced originally by the Whitlam Government. It was left in place by the Fraser Government. Yet if we look at the growth in expenditure, we will see that in the last couple of years under the Hawke Government the expenditure has increased beyond the inflation rate. The Authority has a staff of 107 and the figure of $7m is a direct subsidy to individual unions training people in this area. The excuse offered by the Government, and particularly by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), is contained in a comment made by the Minister in May last year which was as follows: The education of leaders and potential leaders of trade unions in representative skills and industrial knowledge is a national responsibility. I suggest that is not quite the case. It is simply another pay-off to the union movement-a way of confirming the union movement as the pre- eminent player in the industrial relations world at the expense of the private sector and, indeed, even the public sector. If the Minister were correct, it could be argued that the education of leaders and potential leaders of businesses in representative skills and industrial knowledge is also a national responsibility. From those observations three distinct approaches can emerge. The first is that the Authority should be forced to move to a full cost recovery policy charging trade unions the full cost of putting their officials through TUTA courses. Heaven knows, every little worker out there is paying well in excess of $100, many of them several hundred dollars, to belong to some of these unions. A fair question to ask is: what are the unions doing with all their money? When one considers the thousands of millions of dollars controlled by the trade union movement, one feels that if trade unions believe in TUTA some of this money should go to pay for the existence of this organisation instead of its being a drain on the taxpayer. There is no valid reason why the general body of taxpayers should foot the bill for the training of shop stewards and unionists who then use their new-found knowledge to extort concessions from both government and the private sector. An alternative would be to make the Authority into an industrial relations training authority. The Government is very concerned about the preservation of the centralised wage fixing system. One has only to look at the Authority's annual report for 1984-85, on page 5, to see that. It states: TUTA has continued to pay special attention to new developments in trade union activity, mainly arising from the implementation of the Accord between the ACTU and the Government. One can substitute the initials `ALP' for `Government'. It goes on to say: These developments have been monitored to ensure that TUTA programs and courses are kept up-to-date and relevant. A kit called `Unions in Accord' has been prepared . . . Really, TUTA is simply an arm of this Government. It is being used for political purposes by this Labor Government. That is not surprising because, instinctively, that is the course of action that it would take. But the point that I am endeavouring to make is that the Government should be prepared to extend TUTA's training facilities to the lower and middle management levels of companies that have to deal with the union officials that it is training. A third alternative would be that as TUTA, as presently constituted, is of sole and direct benefit to the ACTU, the Government should sell it off to the ACTU as an act of privatisation. If the ACTU wants this college, why can it not pay for the college? Why should it be a drain on the taxpayer? If the Keltys and the Creans of this world are happy to have their foot soldiers educated in the ways of industrial relations, let it be at the unions' expense, not at the taxpayers' expense. I refer the House to appendix two of the report, which deals with the unions represented at TUTA courses. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will be very interested in this comment, as I point to the fact that the Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australasia spent in this particular year of the annual report, 1984-85, 55 1/2 student training days on courses. I now refer to a letter, written on 18 June 1985 by the Secretary of the Federated Furnishing Trades Society, an organisation that spent 55 1/2 student days at TUTA in 1984-85. This is the type of industrial blackmail and anarchy that must be being taught. Either they are thickheads or they are disregarding what they are taught, or this is what they are being taught. The letter states: To all employers . . . This is from the union secretary in the glass, carpet, curtain and blinds industry. After 55 1/2 days at this college, let us get into the tone of this letter. It states: It has come to the Union's attention that numerous employers (which the Union has a record of)- Big Brother at work- in the glass, carpet, curtain and blinds industry have `pussyfooted' around long enough in joining and signing employees into the A.U.S.T. scheme. Then comes the next line, underlined: Don't say you haven't been warned!!! Employers have been warned continuously since Christmas time that they must- `must' is underlined- join and sign employees into the scheme. The Union has decided that `pussyfooting' around by employers, whether big or small, will not be tolerated. To ensure the message is loud, clear, understandable and that the union means business, strike action has been agreed to. `Strike action' is underlined. The letter continues: Members in the above industries will be called off the job for 24 hours with pay, and if this does not bring any results then members will stay out and bans imposed until every member is joined and signed into the scheme. The next line then states: Two weeks to achieve results. That is underlined. It continues: The Union will allow employers two weeks to join and sign up their employees into the scheme, which will be backdated from the 1st of March. The reason for such short notice is because employers have been `pussyfooting' around for too long and their luck is now at an end. In two weeks the next computer read-out for who's joined the scheme and how many employees are active will be released and unless you are on it look out. Mr Tuckey —What is the AUST scheme? Mr DONALD CAMERON —That is a superannuation scheme. The productivity case has not even been heard yet; this is last year. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has just come into the chamber. He always seems to be here when I am speaking, which is good. But is this the type of rubbish and standover tactic that people are being taught at this college? This is from a union that had just spent 55 1/2 student days on the courses run by TUTA. Al Capone is being made to look like an amateur by the approach that is being used. I just wonder whether this side of the House and the Government side have been too gentle in allowing this operation, this trade union college, to just drift along. Its activities have never been properly examined. The grants just increase every year, with inflation and new schemes. It wants this for this and that for that, and yet what are we getting out of it? We are certainly seeing more sophisticated guerrilla warfare on the industrial front. The Government says: `Oh, but the number of strike days is down'. But in terms of the effectiveness of the strikes that are called, one must say they are infinitely more superior in destroying this nation's economy, in bringing employers to their knees, than they have ever been. Indeed, one has only to stand in this very place to realise that. Come meal time here yesterday and with 15 minutes notice-great effectiveness; I would bet that those concerned had been to TUTA-everyone was out and the dining room was closed. We had the charade of hungry Labor members, who are telling this country how wonderfully they have done in industrial relations, lining up outside and jumping into cabs or Commonwealth cars, going off to restaurants or fast food places just to get a feed. What a direct contrast this is to the claims that they make about how wonderful the industrial relations scene is. I have not looked carefully, but I bet that members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia have been to TUTA. Yes, they have been to TUTA. In fact, they spent 638 student days there. That union brings the transport industry to a halt at the shortest of notice, and it costs this nation millions of dollars, and yet we listen to the piffle that comes from the Government side as to how everything is under control. The reality is that the old rough-style strike days are over. A sophistication is entering into industrial relations these days, or industrial gangsterism-`Hit them where it hurts the most. Knock off their ankles. If employers have billions and billions of dollars tied up in capital, as many have, they are the most susceptible to strike action because they cannot afford to say no, because every day that the plant is stopped it is costing millions of dollars, and if they made only, say, $30m profit in the last year, within 10 days they will have wiped off a year's profit, so they will have to give in. So we establish a precedent there and then move in on the smaller guys'. That is the way it works. I ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), whether he believes that the Labor Party is so in the grip of the trade union movement that it does not even have the courage to squeak, let along to speak up. Finally, I refer to the annual report of TUTA, in which it says that it is concerned about the high percentage of the people who attend its courses who actually come from the public sector. It says that 67 of those who attended State centre courses were from the public sector. That means that 67 per cent of those attending are coming from Public Service unions. It is no wonder that the Government is having difficulties controlling its own. No wonder we have in Australia today what I regard as gutless strikes. Before I was elected to the Parliament 20 years ago I was an industrial officer on the waterfront employed by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. One could not help sometimes but have a bit of admiration for the old wharfie. When the wharfie closed his Gladstone bag and said `I am off'' at least he was saying `I am going off pay'. At least he put his money where he put his mouth. However, the Public Service trade unions today-I used the word `gutless'-adopt a selective approach and apply bans in certain areas. They say: `We want to come to work and get our pay, but we are not going to do the entire job'. They dislocate the community and even the Government by these bans. Yet they are not prepared to put their mouths and money together. They want to be paid but they also want to create chaos and disorder. They know that when they are dealing with the Australian Labour Party in Government they are going to win. Honourable members opposite are also gutless. They rarely have the strength to stand up against their union masters and take them on. What this country is craving for is a government that is prepared to say: `Okay, if you are not prepared to do all the work you are supposed to do, we are not having you here'. We saw that attitude during the Fraser years. I am not saying that peace reigned supreme immediately after that was said. Sometimes there were after effects. One of the reasons the Queensland Premier has been so successful is that he will not stand for pussyfooting by the unions when the living standards of the people of the State are at stake. He will stand up and win. The trouble with the Australian Labor Party Government in Canberra is that it does not have the fortitude to even try to stand up, let alone win. Perhaps the privatisation of TUTA would be a great thing, but I guess that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other organisations would say: `We do not mind the taxpayers paying for this college, as long as we do not have to pay for it ourselves.' Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(11.17) —As previous speakers have outlined to the House, the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 relates to the participation of officers and employees of the Trade Union Training Authority in the election of staff representatives to the regional councils for union training which have been established in each State. I think we should look at the actions of trade unions in this country and the way in which they-or at least their extremist elements-have operated during the last 30 or 40 years to subvert in many ways the country and its economic performance. A couple of days ago I was interested to read a letter in the Australian from Mr R. J. V. Smyth of Dalkeith, Western Australia, which was headed `Exporting our disease?' He pointed out that the Federal Government is funding a visit to South Africa by senior officials of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to establish an Australian training program for black unionists. A number of questions were asked in the letter. Mr Smyth quite correctly pointed out that the public needs to know the exact purpose of the training. Is it to build up in South Africa the sort of union power we have running the Government in Australia? Why, as the Australian Council of Trade Unions has expressed its abhorrence of apartheid, is the proposed training specified for black unionists and not for black and white unionists? Exactly how much is all this-the present trade union junket, the associated expenses including no doubt the cost of 5-star hotel accommodation and the future training-going to cost the Australian taxpayer? I could add another question to that list. What role is the Trade Union Training Authority going to have in this charade? How does the Government justify intervention in the industrial affairs of another country? How would the Government react if an overseas country decided to take trade union officials overseas and teach them a thing or two? I suppose that, as far as industrial disruption is concerned, there is very little one could teach some of our trade unionists. It might not be a bad idea if a couple of them were sent to Britain or, for that matter, even to Queensland where Mrs Thatcher and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen respectively could point out that no community in this modern day and age can tolerate the undermining practised by extremist elements in trade unions which we have seen in recent times. It is less than 14 months since the Queensland Premier turned on the lights and the Queensland National Party Government proved that no civilised society can tolerate unions deciding when industry, commerce and the ordinary citizen are to have electricity available. The Queensland Government has been rewarded with unprecedented support. It is interesting to note that the opinion poll published last week in the Bulletin showed that backing for the National Party in Queensland is up to 38 per cent, which is about the percentage of support it received in the last election. The National Party Government in Queensland is right on target to be re-elected at the State election later this year. We have heard a lot from various honourable members about matters relating to the Trade Union Training Authority. We have in the Parliament an excellent shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. He is, of course, none other than the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). He pointed out to the Government last year, when the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 was brought in, that it was not correct for changes concerning the Trade Union Training Authority to be made by an omnibus Bill. He emphasised that it should be done under the provisions of a substantive Bill. The Government, in its rush to get these matters before Parliament-we all know how legislation is rammed through this place without proper discussion-and in its continuing determination to ride roughshod over the rights of the people of Australia insisted upon getting the Bill through last year without proper consideration. This is what occurs when governments do not take into consideration the need to debate matters fully so that we can get through this House proper, reasoned and rational legislation which serves the purposes of its proponents. The original legislation was poorly and sloppily drafted. Now the Government's chickens have come home to roost. Honourable members opposite now have to crawl back into the Parliament to bring forward for debate today the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986. It is also a sad state of affairs that, once again, the Government has reduced the time available for debate on legislation. Some honourable members will have only 10 minutes to debate the Bill. It is unfortunate that this is the case. Once again there is to be a muzzling of members of parliament on both sides of the House. The Government should avoid this situation in future. This is one of the occasions where the steamrolling of legislation through Parliament to save time has resulted in the necessity for a further debate. It is a bit like being penny wise and pound foolish. The Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill might appear to some people to be procedural, innocuous or harmless. It might appear to be a Bill which should be supported. The activities of trade unions in this country and the way in which they operate are however a tragedy. One could be forgiven for wondering whether the industrial lawlessness and disruption which we are treated to in Australia is in some way the responsibility of the Trade Union Training Authority. If we have trade unions acting like this after they have been through the Trade Union Training Authority, one worries about the quality of their training. One wonders about the teaching that is given in that place. Are they encouraged to disrupt society, because that seems to be the case. It is unfortunate that at the moment in Australia we have a Federal Government which is a government by the unions, of the unions and for the unions. It is about time the Government recognised that the ordinary citizens of Australia do not want their rights trampled on. The ordinary citizens of this country expect that the Government they elect to office will govern the country. We remember the charade of the Tax Summit where we had options, A, B, C and D. We know the final option that emerged was the only true option-option ACTU. We know that the Government was not prepared to take firm decisive steps to reduce the crippling tax burden which confronts the men and women of Australia. The Government insisted upon bringing in a capital gains tax. The Government insisted upon doing so many things which will be disastrous for the taxpayers of this country. We find that there is quarantining of farm losses, negative gearing has been abolished and there is no longer any reward for initiative, enterprise and hard work. The Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 is a Bill which exposes this Australian Labor Party Government for what it is. It exposes the Labor Party Government as an administration which treats Parliament as a rubber stamp. It is a Government which is prepared to ruthlessly use its numbers time and time again to force through ill-conceived, ill-thought out and hastily drafted legislation. It was bad legislation that came into the House last year. This legislation rectifies that bad legislation, but it is an indictment of this Government and this Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that it is necessary for the House to debate this Bill today. The National Party of Australia supports this Bill but it is important that the Government takes heed of the fact that we will continue to urge that all legislation coming before this House be properly debated because that is the role of Parliament in a democracy. I hope that in future the Government will not ram legislation through without giving members the opportunity to debate it adequately. This legislation merely rectifies an earlier mistake. Let us hope that this is the last time Parliament will be called upon to bail the Government out of a very difficult situation. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.29) —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 but I also welcome the opportunity to see sitting again in the galleries of this House the figure of Sir Reginald Swartz-the originator of the Swartz award at Question Time. He will know what I am referring to in relation to that matter. I might say that the Government of the day has carried the Swartz award to unprecedented heights since it has been occupying the Treasury benches. We are discussing a Bill today relating to the Trade Union Training Authority. This is a body which attracts a considerable expenditure by the Government of taxpayers' funds. This Bill gives us all an occasion to look at some of the public comments we encounter about the basic role of trade unions. I regret that there is an increasing concern in the community about trade unions' attitudes to their social responsibilities. It is a very understandable concern that is being expressed widely in the community at present. The expenditure of taxpayers' funds on the training of unionists is therefore of the very highest importance. During this debate I have not heard anybody say that unions should not exist but there are a great number of members on both sides of the House who would take the view that unions have become arrogant in their use of power and have at times acted to the detriment of their country and of their membership-not all unions, I hasten to point out, but certainly some would spring readily to mind. The training of trade union leaders takes place against the background of a demand in the community for trade unions to be more far seeing in their approach to their responsibilities. For years, as we have heard during this debate, Australia has been plagued by wildcat strikes in essential services-in transport services, in the railways, in the air transport system and in the oil industry. The habit developed that some of these key unions would go on strike when school children were about to take holidays or when families were joining up for Christmas festivities. Indeed, it was very difficult for people to plan to fly anywhere during holidays. We have had strikes on catering, luggage carriers, air hostesses, stewards, oil tanker drivers, pilots and engineers. It is hard to imagine any area of trade union activity which is more calculated to create disruption. It was the personal inconvenience suffered by so many ordinary Australians which has lost trade unions the high respect which pioneers of the trade union movement earned for their members. It is clear that training of a sophisticated order is required to produce a greater knowledge of the economic and social environment in which we all live and to create a greater understanding, as I have already said, of the responsibilities of trade unions and their officers. We have all seen the economic distress caused by the militant selfishness of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation. It seems to me that an essential part of the continuing process of training is a greater management-worker involvement to break down the them and us syndrome so beloved by extremists. In my view the development of the concept that both management and worker benefit from a ready and informed understanding of each others problems has been far too long delayed. In saying that I would not like it to be thought for a moment that I believe all the faults lie with the workers. All too often there are cases when employers create problems and, in fact, when they are their own worst enemies and when they demonstrate little apparent understanding or appreciation of the problems faced by their employees. Having said that, it is clear that Australia cannot prosper with its present rag-bag of industrial laws and practices. The relationship between government and the union movement has to be more clearly defined and the traditional pre-eminence of government preserved. One of the quite depressing features of this present Government is the clear public subservience which its relationship with the trade union movement demonstrates. We know too that the Electrical Trades Union in Queensland fell into confrontation with the government there with its wildcat strikes in mid-summer. We all know that the Premier acted against the arbitrary use of union power and used exceptional measures to do it, but in so doing he certainly had the people of Queensland behind him. If we had had better trained union leadership, surely there would have been a better appreciation of the public interest demonstrated by the leaders of that union. Of course, there was a great deal of huffing and puffing from the Australian Council of Trade Unions in relation to that particular strike and those actions by the Queensland Government and it attempted some absurd intimidation, but there it ended. The crucial fact is that the public, for very good reasons, is now suspicious of trade union power, and this suspicion is having a profound political effect. This is an unfortunate development to which training should be directed. The 1980s, both here and in England, will be known as the era when pressure of trade union power was challenged and brought under public responsibility and control. In Britain we have seen spectacular developments in the war against the arbitrary use of trade union power. A training system which assists in developing a more sophisticated approach in Australia is a socially important need. The leadership of unions is obviously of two types; containing those who welcome the widest and fullest participation of rank and file membership and those who abuse the rank and file unionists by seizing control of the union organisation and using it as an ideological cudgel to pursue action which keeps their paid leadership positions intact. Training should emphasise the importance of the relationship between the rank and file and the leadership of the unions. A basic effort is being brought to bear to produce a more democratic trade union system, one in which a minority of thugs, crooks or mischief-makers cannot easily con or coerce the membership. The role of training in this requirement is patently clear. In Britain in this connection government funded ballots have become a burning issue. We have to face such issues here. One major union, the Engineers Association, tested its membership which voted to adopt a system of secret ballots. The Trade Union Congress bureaucracy was outraged. Focus on rank and file responsibility has naturally attracted fresh attention to the need to provide the technical resources for secret ballots on trade union matters. The British Labour Party has re-arranged its attitudes which will greatly influence trade union requirements here. It now accepts the pre-strike ballot, although the party wants that placed in the union rule books rather than to have it as a requirement of statute. But the important thing is that the Labour Party in Britain has accepted the proposition of a pre-strike ballot. It accepts the need for a prohibition on picketing and secondary boycotts. We have seen here the ugly effects of the assertion by striking unionists of the right to intimidate and blackmail others who disagree with them. The simple fact is that we all have a natural right to withdraw our labour; that is, the right of an individual to strike. But when this right is exercised by others as a collective right it is perfectly correct for unionists to deliberate on the exercise of that right and, having deliberated, it follows that unionists and the public owe it to the existence of that right to ensure that it involves a proper process-not a casual but a systematic process. Training of leaders in this dimension is of the utmost significance. I welcome the observations of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems inquiry on the opportunity that still exists to bring a more effective balloting system into the election of trade union officers at a meeting. This Government boasts about its management of industrial relations, so I would be interested to hear from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) about his responses to the suggestions of the Hancock inquiry to strengthen the democratic process within the trade union movement. I note that the Department of Industrial Relations told the Hancock inquiry `that it is justifiable for legislation to establish detailed election requirements'. I would think that one of the requirements is to set a level for union turn out. We have a system of compulsory voting for members of this House. I note that the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union has a voting activity of about 18 per cent and the Australian Workers Union has between 16 and 18 per cent. These are major unions. Their contribution to the economy is major. Clearly, if the parliaments were elected on that basis they would be entitled to be disregarded as a source of responsible authority. It would be unthinkable to have members of this House elected with 18 per cent of the possible voting public taking part in that election. How on earth can the public be expected to support a union system which puts into power a leadership elected on the basis that I have just outlined, with 18 per cent of those eligible voting. I hope it is obvious that the drift of my remarks is that unions should not be disregarded as a national force and that training at the national and regional levels is a real responsibility. There is a real part to play. Some people are so disillusioned with the performance of the unions and the social traumas that they have caused that they crusade against full recognition of their part in the social process. I think that that sort of thinking is understandable but very wrong-headed. We in Australia need a flourishing secondary industry as an important replacement force in an economic recovery, but it is simply not there. Imports continue to rise. Retailers report that there is no significant processing of import replacement manufactures. The manufacturing sector has been decimated by an inability to continue to pay high wages which are often demanded without a full understanding of the effect on jobs. Obviously, that is of great significance to the overall economic well-being of this country. We cannot have trade unions continuing with that sort of short-sighted thinking if we are to have a successful development of the economy in such a way that all members of the community will benefit, not just the militant few. One of the problems with the training program is that the lecturers chosen may not be of the calibre to take a lateral enough view of the trade union role. I know that the much vaunted accord is a subject in the syllabus. I wonder which view of the accord is put. I wonder whether there is a dispassionate discussion about the benefits and non-benefits of the accord. There are serious criticisms of it. I wonder whether they are given an airing by those responsible for lecturing in the trade union syllabus. I mention just a few points in the hope that they will be addressed. The points I make concern the undesirability of the precedence of making tax the subject of negotiation outside the parliamentary framework. Would such an issue be put to trade union students or do they just get the Government view? How desirable is it to have a syllabus which fails to open up the wider question of the undesirability of a government and trade unions concerting to press an arbitral system into upholding government commitments to the trade unions? Surely these questions have a very wide significance. We are left to question whether the training authority adequately equips the union to deal with the broader question. If it does not, we will have a continuation of the short-sighted approach which has characterised history. Hopefully that will not be the case. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.43) —The first matter that should be put on record about the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill is that it has been reintroduced into this House and is taking the time of the House because the Government made a substantial mistake in its first arrangements for bringing in its omnibus Bill. It was warned by the Opposition at the time that it was overusing that facility. The time of the House is now being used to overcome that mistake. Various speakers so far have raised issues regarding the activities of the Trade Union Training Authority and the amendment in this legislation. One of the issues that come to mind is the cost and whether it is reasonable for this service to be provided by the taxpayer when we are aware that the financial resources of the union movement today are not inconsiderable. There was recent evidence during the Mudginberri dispute as to the financial resources of just one union, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which is not all that large in comparison with some others but which showed that many millions of dollars were available in reserve. That must be considered in the light of the fact-as I pointed out here yesterday-that expenditure by this Government on education has fallen from number three as a one-line item in the Budget to number five. In other words, expenditure on the education of young people and people in the tertiary sector, where training is also available on industrial relations, is falling relative to other expenditures in the Budget. One might question whether the Australian Council of Trade Unions could make the contribution to this organisation and allow that money to be transferred to lift government expenditure in the more traditional fields of education. One also wonders why we can continue to have money for TUTA when we find that in the very much truncated Industrial Relations Bureau, the only part that is left intact in the legislation by this Government-quite wisely-is the bit that provides for inspectors to go out and see that the financial affairs of unions are being appropriately managed and, for instance, that no one has his fingers in the till. But these inspectors no longer exist; they exist in legislation but not in fact. They have been transferred to other duties. No money is spent on that. We know why that is so. It was proven during the Queensland dispute. When the fines imposed on trade unions were not paid and the Premier of that State threatened them with action of liquidation, the fines were paid very promptly. This was not because the unions had no need to be frightened of being liquidated as they had the resources. But the first step to liquidation would have been a thorough investigation of their books. It is interesting that they were prepared to pay substantial sums, in the tens of thousands of dollars, rather than have that inquiry. One might ask why some of the funds that we spend on training trade unionists cannot be diverted to ensure that the average trade unionists, the fellow who pays his $150 plus a year for membership-often in circumstances similar to those brought to our attention by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron)-gets value for his money by the Government providing funds for inspectorial services that guarantee that his money is not only properly but also well spent. This is a matter of considerable concern to me. I turn to the actual teaching methods. I will expand this a little past the Trade Union Training Authority to the academic institutions which also teach in this area. I happened to be talking one day to a young student going off to a tertiary examination on trade union matters. He was taking a couple of units of industrial relations. I said to him: `How do you expect to go?' He said: `I will pass. I will not write a word that I believe but I will pass because I know what the examiner wants me to say'. This is the situation that exists. Is this what is happening at TUTA? Does one only get a credit or a pass if one answers in the traditional style or is credit given for someone who says: `I think strikes are an anachronism and that there are better ways by which today we can achieve the welfare of our members'? I imagine that a student would get a big `O' for doing that. He would be considered a student with no future. Yet, quite obviously, those sorts of mechanisms should be considered. The type of industrial practice still taught in Australia is the industrial practice of the 1900s, or the 1890s if one likes. There has been a great progression since that time. Our work force has become substantially more educated and more mobile and probably does not need that sort of assistance. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) mentioned the Queensland electrical dispute. It is interesting to me that those workers who heeded the call to return to work and would not take the sack-they went off to work when their leaders said that they should still strike-were blackbanned from their union and have no union representation. I read in the Press recently that they have taken a very simple step. They have hired themselves an industrial advocate, a free enterprise fellow, a lawyer with that type of training. Apparently, it is working very well. There is one significant difference between that and what they had before. They call him; he does not call them. They do not get phone calls from him telling them that they have to forgo a week's wages and go on strike. They do not have to go home to their wives and try to explain why they are not at work when there are bills to be paid. They do not get calls from him saying that people are cutting down trees in Tasmania or are going to build a dam or something and telling them to stop working. The fellow comes only when they call him. He gives them good service. He does not give them advice to go on strike. They are obviously very happy with the representation that they get. I bet they are getting it a lot cheaper than the original cost of their union fees. They pay only when they have a dispute or negotiations with management. That type of situation should be considered when one is discussing these arrangements. The tradition of the trade union must be looked at in the light of today's society. We are constantly told that our flag is no good. We are constantly told the Constitution is no good and has to be changed. But when there is talk about the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission Act, that is considered inviolate and perfect. Of course, the great pity of all that is that the major section of that Act, section 40, which states that the Commission will act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of a case, is ignored day after day. We get findings that state: `Well, we are finding on behalf of the unions because if we do not they will go on strike'. How the heck can that sort of decision relate to a section of the Act which refers to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case? Quite clearly, it has nothing to do with the substantial merits of the case. If it is one-sided, it has nothing to do with equity either. I just wonder how often that section is taught to the students at TUTA. Do they get told that that is the way industrial practice should operate? They should be told that. Time is short and there are couple of other aspects I want to mention. The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) talked about co-operative ownership. I have no objection to co-operative ownership. In fact, during my business career, I practised that in a number of arrangements with my workers in which they became part owners in equipment and other things to their financial benefit. But who pays? Does the honourable member for Ballarat suggest that co-operative ownership should be included in legislation passed here and that families and others, who have worked for many hours, should be required to hand over their assets to workers in order to have co-operative ownership? That would not be a sensible arrangement. His suggestion that workers, particularly trade unionists, should become deeply involved in management is not really supported by historical evidence. Historical evidence shows that, when the trade union movement got into Bourke's store, it went broke. When the trade union movement got into petrol resaling on very attractive terms-it got access to very cheap fuel-it found that it could not work it. Mr Blunt —What about fly-by-night travel? Mr TUCKEY —The same thing applied with ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, New World Travel and a couple of others. We found that they were not very good. I find in talking to members of the work force that generally they are not interested in being managers but they would like to share in some of the profits when things are good. It is interesting to think that a firm such as the Lincoln Electric Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd, without too much help from the trade union movement, has managed to operate in Australia for 50-odd years without a strike by offering a very sensible and laudable incentive scheme by which it provides some 25 per cent of pre-tax profits to a bonus pool. The distribution of that bonus pool is arranged quite sensibly on the basis of the job one holds and one's seniority in the company. One's performance is assessed by one's immediate suprior and, most interestingly, by the number of days one spends at work. If a worker wants to go off and take his duly allowed sickie, it will cost him money. I am told that the peer pressure in that organisation on new workers guarantees that management does not need to be around pressing people. If workers tolerate a bludger or a feather-bedding situation, it costs them money because it represents another slice of the cake or possibly a reduction in the size of the cake, neither of which appeals to the Australian worker. The Australian worker can work these things out but, of course, unions do not like that. Once the percentages are worked out and the original negotiations are carried out, as they were in Lincoln Electric 53 years ago, the unions are not needed to renegotiate the deal. All one has to do is maintain company profit and the employees' percentage as a sum expressed in dollars will grow. The percentage does not have to change as the years go by. But those who are drawing good salaries as trade union leaders and who go to TUTA are not taught those sorts of things. They are taught first: `Do not fall for that trick. Our little growth industry would disappear overnight if we had too many incentive schemes around the place. We don't want that sort of arrangement. Our power would disappear'. Finally, I would like to suggest that the J curve and the union effect on that is something else that should be taught at TUTA. I have talked to many people in industry and they have all told me why the J curve is not working in Australia. They say: `We are happy to use up our spare capacity but we are not prepared to invest our hard-earned funds in expansion to make Australia the great exporter it could be'. They all give one simple reason: `Why should I invest $50m or $100m to expand my factory and create jobs and have some unqualified and ignorant little shop steward tell me how to run it and when I can open and close the doors? Why should I make an investment on today's figures, not knowing when the Government will deliver accord stage 3 and leave me with a completely impossible cost structure with maybe 15 per cent superannuation or something of that nature? One cannot trust the present arrangement. One cannot invest'. If honourable members want the perfect example of that I can give it to them in my closing remarks. I refer to Leighton contractors and others which went overseas and did what all Australians and the Australian Government would love. They went out into the world market and won a major contract as a consortium of construction contractors. They won the Hong Kong light rail contract, which involved building a tramway in Hong Kong. They were dealing with a foreign administration that had only three basic questions to ask-how good, how soon and how much-and they answered those questions properly. The big profit to Australia was to be in the manufacturing of the trams, to be carried out by Comeng. The word got out that this contract had been won and representatives of the Electrical Trades Union-no doubt some of them trained in this TUTA place-came around the next morning and said: `We hear you have got the contract; congratulations-we want an extra $50 a week'. Of course, that was not in the quotation. They were not dealing with the Premier of Victoria and Victoria's Metropolitan Transit Authority, which would have rushed to the Premier and said, `The union boys are putting a bit of heat on, Mr Cain, can we have an extension to our contract?', to which he would have replied: `Yes, get it through the arbitration system; it is already written in your contract'. That does not come under a `how much' agreement with a foreign administration. The contract is signed, and that is the price. We all know the history of that little arrangement. Around $200m worth of exports were denied to Australia for sometime because Comeng said that while that pressure was on it would not sign the final contract, and it did not. Eventually Simon Crean had to say that if the problem could not be fixed they would have egg on their faces. The egg is still there because it is a very uneasy agreement at the moment, and that problem has to be overcome. It is time that TUTA taught people that if we want to compete in the outside world we had better learn the rules that apply out there, which are as simple as how good, how soon and how much. If we learnt those rules we might get some export contracts; we might see the advantages of the devaluation of our dollar and the J curve effect. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(11.58) —The Opposition will not oppose the Wool Industry Amendment Bill, which will change the organisational, funding and administrative arrangements for research in the wool industry. It will make those changes along the lines of changes introduced last year for rural industries research under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act and the Rural Industries Research Act. The importance of research and development to Australia's rural industries could not be more apparent at this time. No industry in Australia has done more to prove the importance of research and promotion than the wool industry. I must declare an interest because I am a wool grower, and I can say that I have never begrudged one cent that my family enterprise has had to contribute by way of levy to promotion and research because I believe that they have played a large part in keeping the industry in relatively good shape. Australia's farmers are recognised internationally as being the most efficient farmers in the world. This was expressed to me quite clearly when I was in Brussels and Rome in January. The reasons for this are numerous but there would be little doubt that research activities have contributed significantly to the pre-eminent position of Australian farmers. I want to pay tribute particularly to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation because I believe that it has played a monumental role in rural industry research. I wonder where our rural industries, our major export earners, would be today but for the excellent work of the research scientists at the CSIRO. We cannot praise them too much, because they have played a significant part in improving our export performance in the agricultural area and also have contributed indirectly to this country's standard of living. The wool industry remains one of Australia's foremost industries. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated the gross value of wool exports for 1985-86 to be in the order of $2.8 billion. This represents 26 per cent of total rural exports and 8 per cent of Australia's total exports, which are estimated to reach about $33 billion in 1985-86. Wool production will again be the second largest contributor to our country's export earnings this year. Australians still depend heavily upon the sheep and wool industry, which is second only to coal as an export industry. With oil prices tumbling it could again become Australia's number one export industry. I would hate to see that happen because the coal industry has attracted enormous investment, but with the crash in oil prices we will not maintain our markets unless we maintain a degree of efficiency in that industry. If current research in the genetic engineering field comes to fruition, many Australians may literally be riding on the sheep's back again. I refer to the genetic engineering research being carried out at present by the CSIRO. The first lambs from this program were born in the last couple of weeks and the CSIRO expects about 30 such lambs to be born this drop in the next eight weeks. A percentage of these lambs should be carrying the genes for extra growth potential. The supermouse has already been produced by this process, which indicates that experimental sheep may display a 25 to 40 per cent increase in growth rates, a larger body size and a leaner carcass. Research has also shown cysteine to be a factor in wool production. In the near future the gene sequence which gives the ability to produce excess cysteine should be able to be incorporated into the genetic makeup of sheep, promising to lift wool yields by as much as 35 per cent. Other research activities could well lead to development which will render redundant mulesing and castration processes. I would hope that that will occur because both operations are naturally very painful but in the current environment in which sheep are depastured they have been absolutely essential to avoid blowfly strike and the other problems that are also extremely cruel to sheep. Australian and world agriculture are on the verge of another revolution-the gene revolution. In order for Australian farmers to maintain their position as the best producers in the world they need to be able to take advantage of the latest developments in research. The wool industry has made significant advances in the last decade and much of this can be attributed to the fine research and development work of the CSIRO and the great work being carried out by the International Wool Secretariat at Ilkley in Yorkshire. I visited the IWS facilities at Ilkley and I was most impressed with the current wool research work being done there. I commend to anybody who is in the United Kingdom and is interested in the Australian wool industry a visit to the International Wool Secretariat facilities at Ilkley, which is doing very valuable work. It has made enormous strides in making wool more adaptable as a fibre and has also succeeded in diversifying the use of wool. As a result of the research that the Secretariat is doing it is very hopeful that it will not be long before wool will be mandatory in the upholstery of all aircraft because of its non-inflammable qualities. The Wool Industry Amendment Bill proposes new arrangements which are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of wool research and development. It is to be hoped that these changes will achieve these objectives. Any improvement will benefit the nation as a whole. However, the record of achievement is already very high. The Opposition and industry representatives support the amendments which provide that members of the Australian Wool Corporation will not serve beyond the age of 65 years and that the Corporation meet the travelling expenses of the Government member, as it does at present for other members while they are involved with Australian Wool Corporation business. The repeal of sections of the Wool Industry Act 1972 relating to the working capital trust fund, which was established to receive advances of government loan funds during the beginning stages of the reserve price scheme, is part of the evolutionary process as the trust fund is no longer required in order to maintain the scheme. The amendment to provide that the proceeds from the sale of wool stores will be used specifically for the benefit of the wool industry is a just and reasonable proposal. The Bill will effect changes to wool research arrangements similar to those introduced last year for other rural industries under the Rural Industries Research Act and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act. The amendment will establish the Wool Research and Development Council which will be required to prepare a five-year research and development plan, an annual operational plan and an annual report which is to be presented to the Wool Council of Australia and to be tabled in the Parliament. The Opposition fully supports the Government's intention to obtain the greatest value for the dollars spent on research and full accountability for the funds spent. To this end the development of a five-year strategic research and development plan or plans is a move in the right direction. Last year in the debate on the Rural Industries Research Bill I expressed the need for close and full consultation with the industries concerned to ensure that research activities are directed towards industry objectives. It is therefore pleasing that the Australian Wool Corporation will continue to have responsibility for wool research under the new arrangements and that the five-year research and development plan will be prepared in consultation with the Wool Council of Australia. The research directed by the Australian Wool Corporation and the promotion directed by the International Wool Secretariat since the early 1970s have made a major contribution to wool's recovery in world fibre markets from the crisis period of the late 1960s. Wool now ranks amongst the more secure of Australian agricultural industries and that is no accident. In 1969 eminent people such as Professor Gruen had written off the wool industry. There was a crisis in the wool industry when the so-called free auction system was being manipulated by unofficial buyers' cartels. Of course it was also suffering from competition from synthetics and the very life of the Australian wool industry was being squeezed by those factors. Many people were prepared to write off the Australian wool industry at that time. Indeed, the industry was torn apart by divisions between the then Graziers Association of New South Wales and the then Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation which could not come to an agreement on how the future of the Australian industry should be handled at the marketing level. I well recall the great efforts that Sir William Gunn made to try to convince the Australian industry that change was required, that the marketing system had to be changed and that there was a great need for promotion and research. I recall the occasion when he was showered with flour bombs at Hamilton, but that far-seeing and courageous man led the fight to a very successful conclusion. It was the grass roots of the Australian wool industry, the woolgrowers themselves, who ultimately responded to public meetings around Australia, particularly eastern Australia, some of which were attended by 2,000 and 3,000 people. They really took the bit between their teeth and demanded changes from their industry organisations that proved to be of tremendous value to this nation. Of course it was the actions of the then Minister for Primary Industry, Doug Anthony-he was a tremendous Minister-Sir William Gunn and others, with the support of grass roots woolgrowers, who took the bit between their teeth and salvaged the industry from the jaws of defeat. Mr Braithwaite —You were involved in that, weren't you? Mr HUNT —Yes, but I do not like blowing my own trumpet. It was the creation of the Australian Wool Industry Conference, the Australian Wool Commission and the major contribution to wool research and wool promotion by growers and the then Government, and the wool deficiency payments to growers which salvaged hundreds of woolgrowers from bankruptcy. Research by the CSIRO and other bodies to improve the methods of treating wool for apparel purposes, improvements in the marketing system and the magnificent promotional work of the International Wool Secretariat have all retrieved Australia's unique merino wool industry from the fate that Professor Gruen and others had forecast. However, we must not become complacent about the future of the industry. We have seen the crash in oil prices. Wool is in a very competitive market and if more funds need to be expended and if more needs to be done it should be done to maintain this great natural fibre's position in the fibre world. The continuation of the Australian Wool Corporation's responsibility for wool research will help to ensure a co-ordinated approach to wool promotion marketing and research. The Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, Mr David Asimus, stated: The co-ordination of research, the determination of priorities and accountability for direction and detail will be greatly improved by these arrangements. The responsibility for identifying the needs of the wool industry in respect of research and development will rest with the Wool Research and Development Council which will incorporate these needs into the five-year plans it develops for wool research and development. These plans will define the principal objectives of the Australian Wool Corporation and the Research Council in meeting the needs of the industry. The requirement for the Chairman of the Research and Development Council to consult with the Wool Council of Australia in developing the R and D plans is a positive development. The Wool Research and Development Council will consist of nine members. The Chairman will be appointed by the Minister from Australian Wool Corporation nominees. Four members, who have special expertise, will be selected by the Research Council's selection committee and the remaining four members will be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Australian Wool Corporation. The five-year plan will provide the basis for the development of annual operational plans which will detail research and development activities to be funded by the Corporation. The Opposition supports the proposals which will improve the basis for framing research and development policy and assessing the effectiveness of research and development in achieving the objectives identified by the industry. The Research Council will be accountable to the industry and the Parliament by way of producing and presenting an annual report-this is a necessary discipline-which will measure the achievements of the year against the aims of the five-year and annual plans. The financial administration of funding wool research and development will be removed from the Department of Primary Industry and in future will be administered by the Australian Wool Corporation. The Wool Research Trust Fund has a 1985-86 budget of $25m. In addition, the Fund has reserves of $44m. The placing of the financial administration of these moneys with the Australian Wool Corporation should give wider investment opportunities for these funds and so make more money available for research and development activities in this important industry. The Bill will remove the special arrangements which have existed for the funding of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in relation to wool research. In future, applications for wool research funds by these organisations will be considered with all other applications. I am sure that the CSIRO will not lose out as a result of that competition because it has already proved that it is capable and that the projects are of tremendous benefit. I think the competition itself is desirable. The Government's stated intention with these changes is to ensure that all wool research proposals are evaluated in a co-ordinated manner against the objectives and priorities specified in the five-year plan. I trust that this is in fact the case and that it is not merely a further extension of the Government's move to reduce the level of emphasis by the CSIRO on rural industry research. I have written on occasions to the Minister responsible in this matter. It would be quite unfortunate if, in giving attention to other industry research needs, this research area of the CSIRO was starved of funds, or there was an effective transfer of funds away for that purpose. I think it would be very unfortunate if that occurred and it could have very damaging effects in the longer term. As I said earlier, the CSIRO has contributed significantly to the wool industry in the past and it should not be restricted in its important role of contributing to research and development in all rural industries in an effort to satisfy the Government's effort to find resources for other industry research. Indeed, not only has the CSIRO provided an excellent research effort for the wool industry, but also it has provided the current distinguished Chairman of the International Wool Secretariat in London, Dr McPhee. I have the highest regard for Dr McPhee and his excellent team in London. As I said earlier, as a wool grower I do not begrudge one cent of the 8 per cent of the gross proceeds that are deducted from each year's wool clip for research promotion and market support. The wool industry is Australia's most efficient industry. It is our second most significant export industry and, as a nation, we still have a vested interest in this great industry. No industry in Australia enjoys less effective assistance than the wool industry. No industry in Australia is more dependent on a competitive, economic environment. No industry in Australia is more determined to obtain relief from the high costs flowing to the industry from the protectionist policies benefiting some sections of secondary industry. All the research in the world will not redress this problem. No industry in Australia is more exposed to Australia's high wages and wage on-costs, which are second to none in the world. It does not matter how much money is spent on research, that fact remains. No industry in Australia is being hurt more by the inflexible wages policy brought about by the accord and the manipulation of the monetary system forcing up the value of the Australian dollar and forcing interest rates to record levels. If funds are to be found for additional economic research it ought to be into this area. I fear that the Government has been bleeding Australian farmers to death. It has systematically ripped off resources from the primary industry sector. In its successive budgets the estimated costs of these actions to rural Australian industries exceeds $440m. I do not think that everybody realises that. I think those of us who represent rural constituencies ought to fight these cuts. It does not matter how much money we spend on research, we will not make up the difference simply by spending money on research while those sorts of things are allowed to drain funds away from the productive sector. The ransacking of rural Australia could not have come at a worse time with the farm debt up 21 per cent to $8 billion and these record high interest rates. The Bill devotes its intention to trying to improve the performance of these industries through research. But heavens above, extensive research needs to be done into what sort of effects these actions are having upon the longer term viability of these industries. It is no good trying to save the accord mark 2 by manipulating the economic system and accelerating the transfer of resources away from the least protected farmers in the Western world who are undertaking their activities on the lowest priced land yet receiving the lowest return to capital this year-minus 6 per cent-which is their second worst year on record in spite of the fact that we have not had a drought. Unless the Minister's statement on 15 April redirects resources into rural Australia we will see a wholesale national smash of agriculture on a scale probably not yet experienced. Eastern Australia is on the threshold of a further drought. Australian farmers have no resources left to cope with a further seasonal disaster. Once again I refer the Parliament to the 14-point plan I put forward on behalf of the Opposition which was detailed to this House on 13 February. The Government must act on this plan. Unless the Government is prepared to go down this track on 15 April-I think it is 14 or 15 April-its rural package will be a sham and a public relations exercise that will not be accepted as a genuine attempt to redress the difficulties being faced by Australian farmers at this crucial period. Whilst the research Bill is important, because I am sure it will assist in the longer term, there are some very serious immediate problems facing this industry as indeed the other industries. The Australian economy is on the threshold of a great economic crisis and it is amazing how few people outside the rural sector seem to have acknowledged it. It amazes me how many people are not even aware or choose to ignore the fact that our overseas debt has doubled in two years to more than $70 billion and that our balance of trade has reached a record deficit and shows no prospect of improvement. It must be a matter of grave concern to every member of the Government. It is a matter of grave concern to honourable members on this side of the House and it will become increasingly a matter of great concern to the Australian people. Mr Fitzgibbon —Your major concern should be that the farmers will not let you talk to them. Mr HUNT —That is nonsense! It is very unkind of the honourable member to say that. But it is essential to adopt policies that stop this haemorrhage, this redirection of resources away from the rural sector. The Government could very quickly help by taking away some of the cost imputs that are the result of government policy, removing sales taxes on oils and lubricants and passing on the full benefit of the fall in oil prices. Mr Snow —Why didn't you do that? Mr HUNT —We adopted the import parity pricing policy. We followed it but this Government has not followed it when world parity prices fall. This is why so many people are upset and they will remain upset. This Government should replace the tariff with bounties on agricultural chemicals, machinery and parts and reduce interest rates generally by relying less on monetary control and the manipulation by the Reserve Bank of Australia to try to prop up the dollar. There should be an immediate provision of substantial funds for rural debt adjustment, The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has made an attempt in this area. I was pleased with his statement this week. The additional funds that he has allocated to the States will help but a lot more will be required because I forecast that, by the end of this year, we will see an economic and financial crisis affecting a very large percentage of farmers throughout Australia. Rural and debt adjustment will need to be funded on a much more substantial scale. The new capital gains tax, the quarantining of farm losses-wretched tax packages that were introduced to satisfy a certain section of the Labor movement-will have to be dropped. If not, we shall see a continuing crash in the equity of farmers around the countryside. They will find that they have overborrowed. The two measures strangle the chance of selling property when farmers are not able to carry on. Those two measures have locked those people into that situation. The prospective effect is already being felt in land valuations. One has only to talk to any stock and station agent or land valuer or anybody else who is close to the scene to appreciate that those two tax issues are already strangling the jugular vein of the farmer. Mr Peter Fisher —The price has dropped from $800 to $400 a hectare in the last six months. Mr HUNT —That is incredible, and I need say no more. The abandonment of export inspection charges, the restoration of the tax benefits, and the income equalisation deposits are other important considerations. It is imperative to achieve steady but certain reductions in tariff and to make a major assault on world markets. I commend the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, on his meeting with President Reagan scheduled for April. I hope that he makes a sustained effort to solicit the support of the United States of America and other Pacific basin and Third World countries to make sure that agriculture is included on the agenda for attention in the forthcoming round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the longer term that will be vital. We face the prospect of a trade war in agriculture. Already the effects of what has happened have tended to reduce the prices of so many agricultural commodities. This will take time. There will be no immediate relief from the Prime Minister's efforts, but in the longer term they may bear fruit. In the meantime, urgent action is required to reduce the cost inputs in agriculture. A statement in April on these issues is essential because these points must be dealt with. If they are not dealt with, one will only fiddle with the problem at the edges. The whole macro-economic area needs urgent surgery and attention. The Opposition supports this legislation and will give it speedy passage. The changes made in the research area for the wool industry are progressive and will help to improve the general thrust of industry research. The Opposition commends the Bill. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.27) —I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. I endorse the hopes of the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) that the trip by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to meet President Reagan and talk to people in the United States of America will succeed. I believe that we have already made progress through the visits of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to the European Community, and more recently through the visit of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and his discussions with European Community and United States officials. The main purpose of this Bill is to implement organisational, funding and administrative changes to research arrangements set down in the Wool Industry Act 1972. Significant things have happened in recent years in the areas of blowfly strike, rye grass toxicity, wool harvesting, measurements and foot care. There have also been developments-for example, competition from other areas. I know that the Deputy Leader of the National Party disparaged the Government somewhat, especially in criticising the accord between the Government and the trade union movement. That accord was accepted by the National Economic Summit in 1983. I remind the honourable member that the accord has contributed in more ways than one through securing the goodwill of the trade union movement. For instance, the wages share of productivity has dropped. It ill behoves anyone who claims to represent country areas to ignore that fact. Mr Fitzgibbon —The Opposition will not recognise that. Mr SNOW —I agree with that comment, nor have Opposition members recognised the fact that deregulation of the dollar has saved hundreds of millions of dollars into billions of dollars. It is significant to note that before the present Government came into office, Labor called for more macro-economic measures rather than the band-aid treatment that the country experienced under the Liberal-National Party coalition. The Labor Government adopted those macro-economic measures and I believe they have succeeded. I hate to envisage primary industry's plight today if Labor had not taken those measures. As the Deputy Leader of the National Party conceded, there have been many threats to primary industry from overseas-threats which have been not of our own making but have involved the marketing policies of other countries. Those countries are trying to extricate themselves from those policies but politically are unable to do so at very great speed. This Bill is an integral part of the Government's review and reform of rural industry research funds. The Government has already enacted the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, which introduced changes to 11 rural industry research funds. In addition, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 established a reformed research organisation to replace the Australian Meat Research Committee. This Bill, the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986, is the third piece of rural research legislation to be introduced by the Government. The Government has realised the critical need for fully accountable, cost effective research programs to maximise the benefit of rural research and development to rural industry. The Government is aware of its responsibility to ensure that rural research increases efficiency; that it encourages innovation and aids international competitiveness in the rural sector. The wool industry research fund is administered by the Australian Wool Corporation under the Wool Industry Act and the Government has decided that the Corporation should continue to be responsible for wool research. If research programs are to be effective they need to be co-ordinated with promotion, marketing and industry consultation, which are the roles of the Australian Wool Corporation and the International Wool Secretariat. This is what has happened. It is significant that some of the areas which have been researched are of great benefit to the south-eastern region of New South Wales in the electorate of Eden-Monaro and the surrounding electorates of Hume, Farrer and Gilmore. I instance the three technical workshops which are being funded-one dealing with annual rye grass toxicity. Until this year there was evidence almost annually on my property of some rye grass toxicity. While we found a convenient method of treatment which was very effective, it still involves heavy work. For people with large livestock numbers treatment does involve a great amount of work. Therefore, the research conducted by the technical workshops into these issues assists in providing information to workers in that area. Another area where there has been progress has been in the development of improved vaccines for footrot. It it too early to predict any great commercialisation of these vaccines, but there has been improvement. I am hoping to see further work on footscald, which was quite prolific in south-eastern New South Wales following the rains in the summer season. It is significant that a new commercial product has been developed for footbaths. Under one of the Wool Research Trust Fund projects, this commercial product was successfully launched during the year. I believe that this can be effective for treating footscald, which is a surface inflammation of the hooves. If it goes on for some time, it can cause lameness in animals and even death if they are unable to move. I have seen animals infected in all four feet. This poses very real problems for farmers, especially when they have large livestock numbers. It is expensive to round them up to put them through treatment. Other areas of development have included wool harvesting research. For instance the development of automated shearing programs has been satisfactory. At the University of Western Australia a new generation AMS robot has been developed and the old robot has been decommissioned after six years' service. A number of prototype ultrasonic sensors have been developed. A huge mechanical manipulator holds the sheep on its back while probes, wheels and prongs move in on the sheep, finding various pressure points which ensure that the animal stays in position. The whole thing turns the sheep as if it were on a spit, in a sense. I have seen the process in action and I can assure the animal libbers that there is no great harm, nor is there any pain, for the sheep. The part to be sheared is automatically presented to the robotic cutting head. Once the computer has got the cutter in a rough position, the sensors take over. Even as the animal breathes the distance between the sensors and the skin varies. I know that this is a project that may eventually pose a threat to shearers, and, of course, it cannot and ought not be ignored by the shearing unions in the long term, but they certainly are given plenty of time to prepare for the event. Biological defleecing has not been quite as successful. It is notable that there has been a variability of responses to doses of what the Wellcome Foundation has developed and calls the epidermal growth factor. The variability of response to this factor continues to be quite a technical problem, but Wellcome is continuing to research delivery systems with some success. The Wool Corporation has commissioned some new work on mechanical defleecing devices for removing weakened wool. The chemical screen operated by Imperial Chemical Industries is now fully operational at 5,000 tests a year. Some interesting lead compounds with defleecing properties have also been developed. There have also been some developments in measurement and distribution. The expenditure from the research fund on distribution research in 1984-85 was worth approximately $1.7m. Measurement of greasy wool was completed in 1984-85 and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation designed automatic systems. I was pleased to hear the complimentary remarks of the Deputy Leader of the National Party on the automatic systems developed by CSIRO. These systems measure staple length and strength. The commercial measurement of these raw wool characteristics assists in sales and even in additional measurements being made during the year. There have been trials to evaluate the application of additional measurements, and this has improved commercial processing. Mechanical sampling procedures have also been commercially adopted now and research funds have been provided to adapt these procedures for sampling staples from individual grab samples. Expenditure from the fund on textile research was approximately $6.9m, of which approximately $5.9m was allocated to the three CSIRO wool textile divisions. A single end yarn applicator has been developed at the CSIRO Division of Textile Industry for the application of fancy coloration effects and special finishes. The work on blowfly strike has pushed into new fields of increased wool growth per sheep and higher pregnancy rates. Anyone who has seen blowfly infestation of sheep will understand the seriousness of this problem for the animal and, particularly, for the rural economy. One still sees strike infested sheep in the area. It is notable that blowfly strike research was conducted in the area of Eden-Monaro using a method which causes blindness and reduces the breeding of the particular exotic blowfly which, incidentally, has not been all that long in Australia. Work has also been done in the textile area, which follows the primary production stage. I believe that that has been extremely useful in respect of the sales potential of a developed product from Australia-which brings more money into Australia than would be brought in if we sent wool overseas in the raw state. The Deputy Leader of the National Party asked the Government to do more work in the economic area. I remind him that work is already being done, not only at a macro-economic level, but also in looking into other means of improving the wool economy. Some $0.43m was received by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for economic research. The leasing of land as a means of farm-firm growth was investigated, as a means of expanding the farm business, sometimes by established farmers, but also through offering lease advantages to those who have limited capital. Research has also been done on investigating internal parasites in sheep. This has been a particular problem in the south-east region of New South Wales. A recent trend has been to alternate drenching, which, I believe, has assisted in reducing the resistance of some of the parasites to the drenches. Domestic policies are being examined, for instance, the consequences of New Zealand policies on Australian wool producer revenues. I believe that this is also important. The pricing efficiency of the Australian wool market has been investigated. Monies that are currently paid into the Wool Research Trust Fund, administered by the Department of Primary Industry, will now be paid into the new Wool Research and Development Fund under the jurisdiction of the Wool Corporation. Monies raised from the wool industry through wool tax and the Commonwealth matching contributions, up to 0.5 per cent of the value of wool production, will be paid into the new fund. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the CSIRO will no longer be given special consideration for funds allocations, but their projects will be considered on their merits with all other applications. I agree with the Deputy leader of the National Party, who spoke before me, that the CSIRO will be more competitive in getting funds for this. I see the BAE as having similar prospects of gaining funds. There will be a streamlining of wool research and development activities. The reforms are consistent with those being undertaken by the Government in other industries and they have the support of the Wool Corporation and the Wool Council of Australia. This Bill provides a sound footing for wool research and development, ensuring that the greatest possible returns will be achieved in research projects, as well as ensuring that researchers are accountable for the funds which are allocated to them. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that today's balance of payments figures disclose that after eight months of the current financial year the current account deficit is running at an annual rate of over 6 per cent on gross domestic product or $14.2 billion? In the light of these figures, does the Prime Minister support the forecast of the Treasurer, made yesterday, that the current account deficit for this financial year would be in the order of 5 per cent of GDP, which would imply an outcome for this financial year of around $11 1/2 billion? Mr HAWKE —Let me preface my answer to the question by saying that of course I support the Treasurer. That is a well known fact. In the period since we have been in government it has become quite clear that the grasp by the Treasurer of the operation of this economy is incomparably good. He has my complete support. Let me make a couple of comments on the balance of payments question, to which the Leader of the Opposition particularly directed his attention. It is clear that in February-despite, I point out, sharply reduced oil exports and the import of a further Boeing 767 aircraft-the current account deficit was only slightly above that for January this year. This was mainly because of sharp falls in other imports. It is important to note that in seasonally adjusted terms the merchandise trade deficit for February showed a fall for the third month in succession. Overall that was a better result than many people were expecting. We believe that evidence is starting to emerge of the turnaround we have been looking for for some time now. I know that the pathetic collection of people opposite who attempt to pass for an Opposition in this place at all points hope to see statistics that undermine the economy of this country. That is what they want to see. Whenever the employment figures go up, they are disappointed. Whenever, in the flood of decent economic statistics, they see further confirmation of the sound economic management of this country, they are in despair. It is no wonder that the people of this country are passing the judgment on them that they are. I suppose one thing that can be said in favour of Opposition back benchers is that they are twice as popular as their Leader, because 2 per cent of the population think they are good. That is how good their Leader is. The facts are that the economic policy being pursued by this Government has been consistently to the benefit of the people of Australia and will continue to be so. We have every reason to be confident in the outcome of the economic policies for 1986 and beyond, including in regard to the turnaround in the current account situation. Mr JENKINS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's reaction to the killing of black South African school children by South African police, as reported in this morning's media? Mr HAWKE —I congratulate the honourable member for Scullin on his maiden question. Indeed, it is a very important question. It is one which I think will hold the interest and support of all honourable members of this House. At least I hope that is the case. The Government is appalled by the reports of yesterday's tragic killing of black school children by the South African police. This behaviour is only too characteristic of the South African security forces and of the extremities to which the doomed apartheid system must now resort. Mr Cowan —You won't let them into our schools. Why don't you let them into our schools? Mr HAWKE —We had an illustration yesterday of the capacity of at least one member of the Opposition to be totally out of touch with the attitudes of the Australian community on matters international. It sounds, unfortunately, as though again on this issue there are some troglodytes left on the other side of this chamber. While they continue to operate in that way they will be so judged by the people of this country. It is noteworthy that such reports continue to come out of South Africa, notwithstanding the efforts of the South African regime to muzzle the foreign media. The recent lifting of the state of emergency by President Botha does not in any way mark a reduction of tension in South Africa or represent any serious gesture at all to the black population which would allow it to enter into dialogue with its Government. The Australian Government considers that the continuing spiral of violence in South Africa is directly caused by the blind and futile determination of the white South African Government to sustain the abhorrent apartheid regime in that country. In conjunction with other countries, through both the Commonwealth and the United Nations, Australia has acted in recent years to seek to increase the pressure on the South African Government to provide for the peaceful transition of South Africa to a just, free, non-racial society based upon universal adult suffrage. We hope that the work of the Commonwealth group of eminent persons, which was established by Commonwealth leaders last year, will make an important contribution to this process. As honourable members would be aware, this group, of which Malcolm Fraser is co-chairman, is now in South Africa. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, without qualification in this connection, that I welcome the remarks he made yesterday indicating that he also supports the group's efforts. I believe, without any question, that the best interests of Australia would be served by a bipartisan approach in this Parliament to South Africa. Certainly, yesterday's tragic events in that tragic country suggest that such an approach is necessary. Mr PORTER —Is the Minister for Health aware that the number of people waiting in queues for public hospital beds in Victoria is around 28,000, in the Australian Capital Territory around 2,300, in New South Wales at least 30,000, and, in South Australia, the queues have increased by 42 per cent in the last 12 months? Given the Australia-wide increase in these queues following the introduction of Medicare, what action does the Government now propose to take? Dr BLEWETT —The first point I make with reference to the honourable member's question is that it is important to try to understand the reasons behind the waiting lists in the State public hospital systems rather than simply trying to use them for political purposes. The allegation that such waiting lists are primarily due to Medicare, which the honourable member constantly makes, is completely refuted by the evidence of the work that has been done in the various public State hospital systems. The most important point of all is that in the last three years there has been a clear decline in productivity in the public hospitals of this country. In fact, fewer patients have been admitted in our public hospitals in the last three years. That is the chief source of the increased waiting lists and the reason why the public hospital systems of the States have had a reduced number of patients treated is the major problems in relation to staff in those hospitals. The biggest problem of all relates, in fact, to nursing staff. One of the tragedies of the wasted years of the Fraser Government was that nothing was done about a developing shortage of nurses in the country. Over the last decade there has been an increasing problem with recruitment of nurses in the public hospital system. Mr Sinclair —Three years. Dr BLEWETT —That has grown in the last three years but it was developing over the previous 10 years. The previous Government did nothing at all about the nurse problem that was building up in this country. Indeed, in 1981 the Fraser Government cut the funds to the public hospital system and one of the things the States did in response to that was to cut the amount of nurse training. It is these decisions in the past that have produced some of our problems now. A second problem, of course, is that because of the technological changes that have taken place in medicine a whole range of operations have increasingly become available to people. If one looks at some of the areas in which we have major waiting lists, for example, in orthopaedic surgery, there were revolutions in orthopaedic surgery in the 1970s so that a whole range of operations which were difficult to perform before have now become much more readily available. Again, of course, the demand in those areas has grown. Thirdly, any hospital system which plans to use its hospitals efficiently must have a booking list. Much of the nonsense talked about these figures relates to people who have relatively short waiting periods. They are on booking lists to make sure that the hospitals are efficiently used. Our concern should be with those particular parts of the waiting lists where particular individuals have unduly long waiting periods. I believe that the governments of Victoria, South Australia and now New South Wales are addressing in a proper administrative fashion their responsibilities to deal with the real problems of these lists. If we are to improve the health services of this country we need this informed debate in the public arena rather than the simple political posturing we have had from the Opposition. Mr BEDDALL —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware that East-West Airlines has withdrawn from the purchase of Lindeman Island? Does this offer renewed hopes that `people power' can persuade the National Party Government in Queensland to take a more responsible attitude to the environment? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his question. We have heard reports that East-West Airlines has decided to withdraw from the proposal to develop a $350m tourist complex on Lindeman Island. I take this opportunity to congratulate East-West, the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party, the conservation movement, the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party of Australia, the members of the National Party of Australia who revolted, knights of the realm and the Country Women's Association. Mr Hawke —Certain knights of the realm. Mr COHEN —Yes, certain knights of the realm. This was a great example of where the people of Australia clearly indicated to a government that it was offside and I think everybody can take pleasure in the fact that the result will preserve a great national park and not allow such a dreadful proposal to go ahead. I indicated last night that we thought the proposal was one that ought to be resolved by Queensland people, and it has been resolved by them. I did say-- Mr Goodluck —What about Tasmania? Mr COHEN —Do not get excited, Bruce. I did say that if they were unable to resolve it, the Commonwealth would look at all the powers available at its disposal. That has not been necessary. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the number of medical services provided in the final quarter of 1985 was 8 per cent higher than the final quarter of 1984? Will this substantial increase in utilisation lead to a Budget blowout in expenditure on medical services in excess of $160m as indicated by the Department of Finance's monthly statistics? In light of this evidence, does he still stand by his claim that the universal availability of bulk billing has no effect on the usage or costs of medical services? Dr BLEWETT —As usual, most of the figures cited by the honourable member for Barker lean on the exaggerated side. There has been a increase in the utilisation of medical services under Medicare over the course of 1985 and early 1986. We are examining some of the reasons for that. For instance, there was a major increase in July which appears to be probably related to the influenza epidemic at that time, but we have to follow those figures through to find the reasons for that. Mr Porter —The December quarter. Dr BLEWETT —The point raised by the second part of the question is, yes, there has been an increase in the December quarter. Also in that period there has been an increase in bulk billing by doctors, despite what the Australian Medical Association has been saying and, of course, that means that that quarter's figures are higher because the payments to the doctors are made more quickly if they are paid through bulk billing. Mr Cadman —Have you spoken to any of the doctors? Dr BLEWETT —The honourable members who know nothing about these issues groan. Doctors who charge through the bulk billing process are paid in a relatively short time. On average it takes about four times as long for moneys to come through when doctors are paid for individual patients. As there has been an increase in bulk billing in the last few months of the year, that has flowed through more quickly into the system. Until we get the later figures, and see the results of the next six months we cannot be sure whether that is simply produced by that shift to bulk billing, which means that doctors are paid more quickly, or in fact is the result of major increases in utilisation. In relation to the anticipated excess expenditure of medical benefits this year, the figure that the Department of Finance and the Department of Health agree on at this point is not a projection of that order but a projection of some $94m. Mr BILNEY —I preface my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by congratulating him on the excellent efforts he made on his recent visit to South East Asia. Has the Minister noted objections from the amazing Opposition in this place to his announcement of a 50 per cent increase in Australian aid to the Philippines? Will the Minister outline to the House the reasons for this increase? Mr HAYDEN —I was in Manila yesterday afternoon, late Manila time, when I received a telex outlining a question asked in this Parliament by the honourable member for Fisher. I need scarcely say that I was deeply disturbed by the nature of the question that was asked. I am also deeply grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for the way that he firmly rebutted the implications of that question. I suggest that it was nasty, ill-informed and unworthy of any member of this Parliament. It was nothing more than an appeal to narrow-minded, rednecks from the back blocks of some Queensland National Party-held electorates. The honourable member for Fisher raised a question about aid for the Philippines in which he referred to the aid being provided to `benefit the Aquino Government to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer'. That is unworthy of any member of this Parliament. It is also untrue. Mr Shipton —I take a point of order. I point out that the Minister is reflecting on an honourable member. That should be done by way of a substantive motion and not by answer to a question. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HAYDEN —I give three quite substantial grounds on which aid is easily justified for developing countries. I believe they will recommend themselves to all thoughtful and responsible members of this Parliament. They are humanitarian, self-interest on the part of this nation and our justifiable concerns about regional security. For the many years in which I have been in this Parliament I have been under the impression that there was bipartisan support for aid for developing countries, in particular emphasising a response to the needs of the poor people of the world, and that this was across the board. I am disappointed now to find that the honourable member for Fisher has broken that bipartisanship. I presume from the way in which the National Party organised a phone-in to a talk-back radio program in Brisbane yesterday that this is the general thrust of attitudes on the part of the National Party, at least in that State. I trust that members of the Opposition will disown the views put forward by the honourable member for Fisher and the National Party in that State. There does not need to be any further elaboration of the justification for aid on the grounds of humanitarian commitment. The matter of self-interest should recommend itself to members of the National Party. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau estimates that overall approximately 70 per cent of funds for ongoing programs in the aid field are actually spent in Australia on consultancy, services and goods. For example, virtually all of the funds spend on the coal logistics study in the Philippines were disbursed in Australia. The follow-up to that study will be the provision of aid funds for infrastructural development which will benefit the economic development of the Philippines. Coincidentally, it will also benefit the economic development of this country and, I presume, the coal industry in Queensland, the State from which the honourable member comes. This is true generally of the aid programs that we undertake. Australia does benefit and a large level of resources is drawn upon from this country to allow the development of these projects. Secondly, on the matter of self-interest, I should point out that there is a $75m trade surplus in Australia's favour in the two-way trade between the Philippines and Australia. The proposals which are being contemplated by the Philippines Government as a result of the proposition that we should increase aid to that country may include calls on Australia for the provision of coal, petroleum and dairy products. I would have thought that the honourable member for Fisher, whose electorate I know well-much of it was formerly my electorate and it has a struggling dairy industry centred in it-would be concerned to promote this sort of aid. The final matter concerns regional security, which should preoccupy all of us. The facts are that the Aquino Government has saved the Philippines from further erosion and collapse into greater political instability. If one draws the worst scenario that one could see developing if President Marcos had remained and the trends that were well under way, evident to everyone, had continued to undermine that society, one could have seen the Philippines fragmenting into several different directions. One would have seen a substantial further expansion of the New People's Army in its takeover of territory. Equally, it is highly likely that large parts of the country would have broken down into regions controlled by local warlords with their own private armies. This would have meant that an important country in our region, straddling and next to major trade routes which involve the transport of much of the trade from this country and to this country, would have become very unstable, that there would have been instability in a part of the world near this country and important to our commercial success. In these circumstances, if we can make a contribution in whatever form, reasonably and properly, which will assist that country to restore stability, to strengthen democracy and to withstand pressures which would otherwise undermine it and bring it to its knees, that is in the interest of regional security, and, I suggest, very largely in the interests of this country. On those three scores, I cannot understand why there is no appeal in this to the honourable member for Fisher, why he clearly opposes the provision of aid on humanitarian grounds, on grounds of self-interest or on grounds of regional security concerns. Mr REITH —I refer the Minister for Health to the leaking last year of confidential Medicare information regarding doctors' incomes and the Australian Federal Police inquiry. What action was taken as a result to stop such leaks? In light of the allegations this week of the further leaking of confidential information held by the Health Insurance Commission regarding doctors' incomes and overservicing tolerances, why has the Minister implemented only a limited in-house inquiry by HIC officers instead of a full Federal Police inquiry? Can the Minister guarantee that confidential Medicare information held by the Government is secure? Dr BLEWETT —In relation to the issue raised about the leaking of Medicare statistics last year, that matter was handed to the Australian Federal Police, which examined the issue and was not able to identify anyone involved in the leaking of figures. The police reported that evidence to the Government and at the earliest stage I gave the information to the House that the police were not able to identify the source of that leak. The second issue relates to the contemporary case. All we have at the moment is an allegation about a piece of hearsay evidence. I thought that my first duty was to have that matter checked effectively by people in the Health Insurance Commission. An investigator went to Newcastle yesterday to talk to the doctor concerned and to examine the allegations he presented. When I receive that report from that investigator, which will be either tomorrow or Friday, on the basis of that evidence we will decide whether the matter should be referred to the Australian Federal Police. All we have at the moment are allegations based on hearsay evidence. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the circumstances in which some visitors to Australia who have overstayed their visa period are being incarcerated in Adelaide prisons, often locked up in adjoining cells to criminals convicted of murder or drug related crimes? Will the Minister inquire into securing a proper detention centre in Adelaide for persons detained while awaiting a decision on whether they are to be deported? Mr HURFORD —I am aware that, in some parts of Australia, we do not have adequate detention centres for the categories of people mentioned by the honourable member in his question. In Sydney, Melbourne and Perth we do have such detention centres and for some time the Government has had on its public works lists the possibility of building such detention centres not only in Adelaide but also in Brisbane where those detention centres are needed. There is a requirement for them. The honourable member outlined the unsatisfactory nature of having in gaols, or at least remand centres, people who are perhaps only illegal immigrants. It would be much more appropriate if they could be in our own detention centres. I assure the honourable member that both my predecessor as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the Hawke Labor Government and I have had this matter constantly in our sights. We put forward our views of what the priorities ought to be for a very tight public works program. Resources are limited. As soon as we can persuade the Government generally that this is a priority matter, we will ensure that proper detention centres are built in Brisbane and Adelaide in particular. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is it true that the document entitled `1986-87 Budget Strategy', which he acknowledges was leaked to the Sydney Morning Herald last week, foreshadows a tax take this financial year of $59.7 billion-$1.1 billion above the Budget estimate and almost 14 per cent higher than last year? Given this projected revenue outcome, how does the Treasurer propose to meet the Prime Minister's renewed commitment of yesterday to the trilogy as it affects taxation revenues? Mr KEATING —It is not yet clear how receipts will finish the year, as it is not yet clear how the trilogy ceiling will settle down. At this stage we have only one quarter's national accounts in our possession and we are just not in a position to be able to make that commitment. Mr Hodgman —The Prime Minister made it yesterday. Mr KEATING —That is, a commitment on where the trilogy ceiling will settle down. I am not in any position at this stage to be able to say with any precision just precisely where receipts will finish over the course of the year. The fact is that the trilogy is a commitment for the Parliament and the trilogy commitment will be met. I add that the deficit for 1985-86 is on track with the Budget forecast. I just remind the House that the cumulative total overrun of the Howard deficits was $2,800m. Ms MAYER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Press statements by Mr Bob Ansett that he is interested in buying Trans Australia Airlines? If so, has the Minister received an offer and what was his response? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for her question. I have seen a number of statements from time to time from Mr Bob Ansett, suggesting that he is interested in buying Trans Australia Airlines. No doubt that is due to the excellent impression he has formed of the airline, being such a regular passenger of it. No doubt he has recognised that the airline, under the stewardship of this Government, is performing efficiently, is making record profits and has been given greater freedom and responsibility in the performance of its duties. He has obviously recognised all those things and I should say that we very much appreciate his business, as we appreciate all the business we can get. But, no, I have not received any communication from him and I am at a loss to understand why he makes these statements. I should say that the airline is not for sale. Government policy is that it will remain in full public ownership and, as with our other trading enterprises, based upon its operation as an efficient organisation, given proper responsibility- Mr Ian Cameron —What about the ANL, Morris? What will you do with it? Mr PETER MORRIS —We will just make it perform better, as we have already done. I am quite happy to say to the honourable member that the Australian National Line is making record profits. When we came into office, it was bankrupt under the previous Administration. We have resurrected the organisation, put it on a proper basis, given it sound administration and stopped its use as a pork barrel for members of the National Party of Australia. To come back to the question raised by the honourable member for Chisholm, whilst I appreciate the obvious confidence and support that Mr Ansett has in TAA, the organisation is not for sale. It will continue to prosper and to perform better as it proceeds under this Government's administration. I could suggest to him that he may care to approach one of the other airlines. Goodness gracious me, he may even get a national park thrown in. Mr BEALE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to yesterday's Press release by a local foreign aid agency seeking a second Hercules aircraft for famine relief work in Ethiopia to supplement the aircraft handed over personally by the Prime Minister to the International Committee of the Red Cross on 4 February this year. Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether it is proposed that the second aircraft will replace the aircraft which he handed over in February and which is currently at the Sogaronce airfield near Bordeaux, France, because the aircraft has a cracked wing, no insurance, is still awaiting registration on the civil aviation register in the tax haven of Liberia and some of the crew have deserted? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government is doing to facilitate the early commencement of this famine relief work in Ethiopia so as to comply with the contractual commencement date of 1 March 1986 and to allay the concern of the International Red Cross about how this whole issue has been handled? Mr HAWKE —I have not had brought to my attention all of those details to which the honourable member refers in his question but I assure him that I will take steps to have myself fully acquainted of the current situation and I will inform him accordingly. I presume that steps will be able to be taken to ensure that this aircraft is expeditiously put into action to follow the path of work that we had in mind when we made that decision. When that is done, I do not expect it to be necessary to have a second aircraft because, on the information that was available at the time when we handed over the aircraft, it seemed that the supply of relief by road had accelerated significantly beyond what had been anticipated a few months previously and therefore the expectation for two aircraft is not pitched as high as it has been. I repeat that I have not had brought to my attention all of the details contained in the honourable member's question. I appreciate his bringing them to my attention. I will find out the facts and inform him accordingly. Mr GRACE —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is he aware of reports recently of severe unrest and violence taking place at present in Sri Lanka. Is he aware in particular of reports of reprisals against the Tamil population in that country? What is the Government's attitude to this situation? Mr HAYDEN —The Australian Government is concerned about recent reports that the communal situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated over recent weeks. Particularly disturbing are reports of incidents in which civilians have been killed by both Sri Lankan security forces and Tamil militants and of the use of aerial bombing tactics by the Sri Lankan security forces. The Government has expressed this concern on numerous occasions, most recently at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights now meeting in Geneva. The Government is concerned at the current impasse in negotiations between the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives aimed at reaching a political solution to the communal problem. The Government has made clear its support for India's mediatory role in what is clearly a delicate and difficult matter; we will continue to encourage India's efforts. We firmly support the political and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and condemn the indiscriminate violence that has occurred. We are particularly concerned at reports of innocent Tamil civilians being victims of military activity in various regions. On the other hand, we are equally concerned at reports of Tamil extremist behaviour in which civilians have been the unfortunate victims. An early political solution to the inter-communal problem is essential. I should point out that during my visit to Sri Lanka last May I discussed the communal problem with many people including the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Since that visit I have again written to the Foreign Minister, and the Australian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka has called on President Jayawardene on instructions to urge the maintenance of a policy of moderation in the handling of the communal problem. I also refer to the statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 5 March in which the Australian delegation urged all in Sri Lanka to eschew violence and renew their efforts to seek a peaceful political solution. Mr TIM FISCHER —Has the Prime Minister studied the results of the Ausflag competition released yesterday which are of concern to thousands of veterans and many other people across Australia? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the nation that he rejects the design awarded the first prize in that competition, and will he tell the Special Minister of State to bring on for early debate the Flags Amendment Bill so that our Australian National flag can be protected by way of referendum mechanism? Mr HAWKE —As I have stated in this House on a number of occasions, I think most recently on 26 November last year, the Government has no intention of changing the existing Australian flag. That statement having been made quite clearly-I repeat it now-I hope that these matters which so agitate the minds of those in that corner of the House will temporarily be put to rest so that they can perhaps direct their minds to some of the more fundamental matters which should concern them. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr N.A. Brown —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been a convention in this place for some time that Question Time continue until the time indicated to us by the Clerk. That time has not been reached. Mr Howard —It should be 2.46. Mr Hawke —Madam Speaker, I am indebted to the honourable member. I am sorry; I have a note saying 2.41. I do apologise. Mr N.A. Brown —That is reasonable; I have no complaint. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the answer he gave to the honourable member for Mackellar a few moments ago when he said that the trilogy was a commitment for the life of the Parliament. How does he square that statement with that contained on page 382 of statement No. 2 of last year's Budget Papers in which the terms of the trilogy were spelt out? It was stated that the trilogy meant that there would be no increase in tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1985-86 and over the life of the Parliament which clearly implies that the trilogy commitment is not just for the life of the Parliament but relates also to this financial year. Mr KEATING —As I tried to indicate earlier, the trilogy commitment depends on the level of economic activity in any one particular year and over the course of the life of the Parliament. That has yet to be revealed as we have only one quarter's national accounts and very preliminary figures on receipts. Mrs DARLING —I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to an article in the Bulletin of 25 February which suggests that important Catholic institutions and other aid bodies are supporting communist and communist front organisations in the Philippines. Given the excellent record in social work of the organisations cited, I ask: Is there any evidence to support the claims made in that article that non-government organisations are employing tax deductible funds in support of the production of revolutionary propaganda by extreme left wing groups? Does the Government exercise control over the manner in which non-government organisations spend Government supplied funds? Mr HAYDEN —I dare say that some members of the Parliament would see the red hand of communism heavily involved in the aid relief programs the Government has been supporting in Manila. That is confirmed when I point out that the major relief project funded by Australia in the last two years involved a contribution, to a non-government organisation, of $1.2m through Australian Catholic Relief to participate in a supplementary food program for the unemployed of Manila. This project has been administered by Caritas Manila on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Sin-no doubt described by some on the other side as a trouble maker, but a trouble maker in a good cause. The Australian Government, through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, provides financial support to some projects and programs in the Philippines conducted by Australian Catholic Relief and Community Aid Abroad. There is absolutely no evidence to justify the extreme and rather feverish comments which appeared in the article in the Bulletin of 25 February 1986 to which the honourable member refers. Non-government agencies are required to provide financial and progress reports in respect of all projects which receive subsidies from the Government. Mr Tuckey —Bill, I liked it better when you told the jokes. Mr HAYDEN —Do you mind; I am trying to talk to the intelligent people in the House. There is no evidence to suggest that funds raised using tax concessions, tax deductibility or Government support for non-government agencies are used by `extreme left wing groups on revolutionary propaganda'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 (1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, I present the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present the Attorney-General's Department and Office of Parliamentary Counsel annual report for 1984-85. The annual report of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is tabled pursuant to section 16a of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to sub-section 12dd (3) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, I present the report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal on salaries-vice-chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors of universities, principals and deputy principals of colleges of advanced education. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 38 (3) of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, I present the annual report of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SLIPPER —I do indeed. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SLIPPER —During Question Time today the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) misrepresented my position, as did the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), during Question Time yesterday, on foreign aid to the Aquino Government in the Philippines. I made the point quite clearly that, if the Government could find up to $25m in foreign aid for the Philippines, why was it ignoring the plight of Australian home owners and home buyers, including many in the Federal electorate of Fisher, who are in severe financial difficulty as a result- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher is not making a personal explanation. He is debating the point. He will resume his seat. I call the Clerk. Mr Slipper —Madam Speaker, I claim to have been further misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member is simply repeating the words he said. He is not explaining where he has been misrepresented. Mr Slipper —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Slipper —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I seek your assistance. The Ministers have said that I am opposed to foreign aid being given to the Philippines. That is not the position. I am endeavouring to explain to the House how I have been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has now explained that the Ministers have said that he was opposed to foreign aid. He has told us that he is not opposed to foreign aid. Is that where the matter rests? Mr Ian Robinson —Give him a chance. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Page. Madam Speaker, I claim to have been further misrepresented this morning in the Courier-Mail. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SLIPPER —This morning the Courier-Mail misrepresented me in a similar manner to that of the Ministers to whom I have referred. The Courier-Mail suggested that the main thrust of my question was to oppose the decision to give aid to the Philippines. The main thrust of my question was to point out to the people of Australia the plight of so many home buyers and home owners who are languishing under the highest interest rates for 50 years. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has now finished his personal explanation. He will resume his seat. I remind honourable members that personal explanations are made with the indulgence of the Chair. Personal Explanation The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of average weekly earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Cowan and Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:- That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The system of paying sales tax at 20% on the 21st day of each month for goods sold during the preceeding month places undue hardship on the printing industry. Sales tax should be payable when goods have been paid for and not at the time of invoice. If the Government will not reform this aspect of the sales tax, then at the very least, your petitioners pray, that the Government will advance the required date of payment of sales tax by one month. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8 cents per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6 cents per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3 cents per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: S.W.A.P.O. is recognised by the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The situation in Namibia is of particular importance to Australians, given Australia's position as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia,-in effect a member of the UN, the government for Namibia in exile and therefore has a legal international entrusted responsibility to the people of Namibia, responsibilities which it must be prepared to take seriously in order to bring about social justice, freedom and independence for Namibia and genuine peace in that Region. Therefore this humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to urgently initiate the following steps: 1. To fund a S.W.A.P.O. Office in Australia, such funding to continue until a free Namibia is able to establish an Embassy in Canberra. 2. That all commercial, sporting and cultural ties with the Republic of South Africa be severed forthwith. 3. That all diplomatic ties with Pretoria be severed. 4. To give decent support to S.W.A.P.O. agriculture and educational programs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destablising 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 Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House. The petition of the undersigned shows: ``That the Hawke Government: pass on the fuel benefit of lower international oil prices on the 1st March, 1986, not increase or extend fuel taxes, and maintain its tax cut commitment. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Hawke Government honour its commitment to the import parity pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That in its present form the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 does not represent the reasoned opinions of public opinion. 2. The Bill denies more rights than it upholds. 3. That one day's debate in the House of Representatives was insufficient time for our elected representatives to debate legislation which will control our lives indefinitely. Your petitioners therefore pray: (a) That the Bill lay before the House to allow reasoned debate by the electors of Australia. (b) That our elected representatives be allowed to consider the Bill without haste. (c) That any divisions on the Bill be recorded by a conscience vote by Members and not on Party lines. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. 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 strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia, respectfully sheweth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled `Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The virtual collapse of Australia's hospital and medical services arising from the failure of the Hawke Government's Medicare Scheme. 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 PORTER(Barker)(2.57) —Today under the health policy of the Australian Labor Party and under its Medicare policy between 70,000 and 100,000 Australians who are in need of hospital treatment are being denied access to a public hospital bed. These are ordinary Australians, middle and low income earners, pensioners, single income families and others who, because they cannot afford private health insurance as well as the Medicare levy, no longer have guaranteed access to a hospital bed. Medicare-only families can no longer bank on the public hospital system to help them in a time of crisis. The health security of middle Australia is on the line. Patients, doctors, pharmacists and private and public hospital administrators are all screaming for change but the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Government continue to turn a deaf ear. The public hospital system is in crisis. Public hospital services are being rationed because insufficient money has been provided for those hospitals to cope with the increased Medicare demand. The Medicare workload has placed such pressure on public hospitals that at least 10 per cent of nurses have resigned since Medicare was introduced. Under Medicare industrial disputation within the health delivery system from doctors, through the nursing profession, to the cooks and cleaners has been the worst this country has ever seen. Under Medicare the cost of providing medical and pharmaceutical services is escalating at a rate faster than we have ever seen. Bulk billing has provided unparalleled opportunities for fraud and overservicing, so much so that only this week we have found that thugs and criminals are being attracted to join the Medicare rip-off. It is no coincidence that all this has occurred since the introduction of Medicare. The plan hatched by non-medical Dr Blewett and a couple of his academic cronies was to force people to become reliant on the public health system. They did that by introducing the Medicare levy and by forcing those who wanted to maintain access to the private health system to pay twice for their health cover. The result has been an explosion of government payments for medical and hospital services. Before Medicare the Department of Health paid out $1,224m for hospital and medical services. Three years later, under this Minister and as a result of Medicare, it has trebled. The payout is now $3,628m. What is worse, unless corrective action is taken, bulk billing will cause that very large Budget figure to be overrun by $200m to $300m. The Minister has said the trebling of government expenditure is merely a conversion of private health expenditure to public expenditure, but that is quite wrong. The rate of increase in expenditure has been much more rapid than would have occurred in the private sector because of basic flaws in Medicare and inefficiencies in public expenditure. In addition, bulk billing has encouraged overservicing and rip-offs because the Government has thrown controls on medical expenditure out the window. It would not be so bad if we could see some benefit from all this wasted taxpayers' money but the shame of it is that, whilst the Government is spending more, the public is getting less and the sick are suffering longer. There is no doubt that the worst feature of the health system now is the lack of access by ordinary Australians to our public hospitals. The number of people in queues has escalated substantially in the last two years under Medicare. Prior to Medicare, according to the Minister's own facts as stated in this House, there were 8,000 people in the queues for public hospitals in Victoria. Now there are 27,900. The situation is similar in New South Wales where some 30,000 people are waiting for a public hospital bed. In Canberra the queues are so long that the surgeons have stopped adding people to the list because they say they face a `hopeless wait'. In Adelaide the reports indicate that, in the last 12 months, the queues have increased by 42 per cent. Mr Hunt —It was all predictable. Mr PORTER —It was predictable. But the point is, what sort of people make up these queues and how sick are they? From the massive amount of correspondence that I and I am sure all my colleagues have received it is quite clear that many thousands of people in the queues around Australia are not only damn sick but some are dying in the queues. Dr David Johnson in Sydney said recently that three patients had died while waiting for open heart surgery at the Westmead Hospital last year. All three patients were on Medicare only and they could not afford private hospital treatment. Unfortunately I do not have time today to recount other case histories of those who have also died waiting under Dr Blewett's Medicare system. Undoubtedly there have always been some cases where urgently needed medical attention was not immediately available. But the astronomical rise in the number of reported cases and the complaints I and me colleagues are receiving indicate the virtual collapse of the public hospital system under the Hawke Government's Medicare scheme. Some of the delays are horrifying. Let me give just a couple of examples. Mr M in Melbourne has a narrowing of an artery to the brain and he is in danger of having a stroke. He has been told that he could wait up to three years for surgery. Mr M in Sydney, an invalid pensioner-a person one would think this Government would want to assist-who has a wife and three children, is in need of a back operation to relieve constant and severe pain. He has been told that an operation is unlikely in the foreseeable future. These are ordinary Australians, men and women with families, pensioners and others, who believed the Government's Medicare promises. They are the ones who now wait in pain to get into a public hospital as a result of this cruel and uncaring Government's health policy. Many of them gave up their private insurance not only because the Government forced up the cost of private cover but also because they could not afford to pay twice for their health cover; that is, they could not afford to pay the levy and maintain private cover. One of the real problems with rationing and queues is that all the people are not treated equally. Those who are affluent and well informed are notoriously adept at jumping ahead of the disadvantaged and less well informed. I have no doubt that all members of the House would know of such examples. The case of a South Australian school teacher was recently raised with me. Faced with a long delay he scrambled over the pensioners and others ahead of him by putting pressure on the Australian Labor Party hierarchy to ensure that he had his operation before school went back. Labor's health policy has been to price private health insurance out of the reach of ordinary Australians. Of course, there are those who promote Medicare and the public hospital system but when they get sick they use their power, influence or money to avoid the public hospital queues. Mr Donald Cameron —Name one. Mr PORTER —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) often speaks in glowing terms of Medicare. I am sure that all honourable members were therefore very surprised to see that he avoided the Medicare queues last year and went to a private hospital for treatment. What is good enough for the masses is not good enough for our Prime Minister. It is extraordinary how many top ALP officials forsake the public hospital system, the Medicare system, which they want to thrust on the rest of Australia. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), Neville Wran, John MacBean and Cliff Dolan all sought refuge last year in the private hospital system. I do not in any way deny their right to go to the private hospital sector. What I do despise is this Government's double standard in setting up a two-class health system-one for those whose power, influence or money will guarantee access to health services when they need them and one for ordinary Australians who have to go to Medicare and join a long queue for a public hospital bed. The picture of Australian health services under Medicare is indeed bleak. In the midst of this desolation stands the Minister for Health, who is desperately clinging to the last shreds of his Medicare program while our health care delivery system teeters on the brink of chaos. Alone he stands. Even his original supporters are leaving him. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) are calling a halt to this ludicrous explosion in health costs. The Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission can no longer guarantee the security of confidential information with doctors' earnings being leaked and allegations of a Medicare mole giving our overservicing tolerances to those who seek to subvert Medicare for their own personal gain. What does the Minister do? He covers it up. He gets maybe even the same person to investigate the leak. Why does he not call in the independent Australian Federal Police? Never before has the whole medical profession felt so compelled to challenge a Federal government's health policy. The Australian Medical Association is not known for its radical actions. Therefore, the threatened withdrawal from Medicare highlights the total loss of confidence the profession has in this Minister. For the first time the medical community is alienated from its government. To make matters worse, in the face of this universal opposition, the Minister yesterday launched a further attack on the doctors. Where is the Prime Minister's much talked of consensus? Instead of reconciliation, compromise and negotiation, we see only arrogance, aloofness and disdain from this Minister for Health. The Australian Hospital Association representing public hospitals last month issued a plea for help, only to be met with more abuse from the Minister. It will be recalled that he said it is all the fault of the States. Private hospitals are worse off than they ever have been. The Secretary of the Minister's Department said in the Expenditure Committee hearings last year that private hospitals have plenty of beds and nurses; he said that it is just that the patients are not there. We wonder why. The Government has forced people out of private insurance and they cannot afford to go to the empty private hospital beds. Instead, they are forced on to long public hospital queues. Private health funds have lost 20 per cent of their membership. The sad part about all this is that it was foreseeable. Why has the Minister, isolated from every major professional health organisation, steeled his heart against the plight of the Australian people, who now see their health security in serious jeopardy? It is time to end the madness now. The Minister must take immediate action. There must be fundamental changes to Medicare. The balance between the private and public health delivery systems must be restored. The Opposition has the answers. We have provided positive alternatives. We guarantee people the choice denied to them by this Government. We will allow people to opt out of Medicare and the levy if they wish to take out appropriate private insurance. We will restore the balance in demand for private and public hospital beds. We will work with those delivering health care, not against them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.13) —We have just heard a speech by the chief defender throughout the last three years of the vested interests in the health sector. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) is now weeping crocodile tears for the public hospital system, which I doubt he or any of his colleagues have ever used. Let us see what the Opposition has done over the last three years. Let us judge Opposition members by their actions. It was this Federal Opposition which supported the specialists' demands in New South Wales which have imposed enormous costs on the New South Wales hospital system. It is this Opposition which has not been prepared to say to the Australian Medical Association: `We oppose your proposal that ordinary disadvantaged pensioners and other disadvantaged patients should not have the medical rebate as the sole charge'. Opposition members have never been prepared to take a stand against any of the major vested health interests which make it so difficult to get the resources we need into our hospital system. They have supported the private hospitals of course. They have supported the AMA when it has demanded more money out of the system. They have supported the surgeons who demanded much more out of the public hospital system in New South Wales. Now Opposition members today weep crocodile tears about the problems which we all admit we have in the public hospital system. When we talk about crisis, the first thing I would say is that more people received medical services in this country in the last year than ever before in our history, and they received those services at a cheaper cost than ever before. One of the effects of Medicare has been redistributive. Of course the wealthier section of the community pays somewhat more, because it takes out levy as well as private insurance. But when the honourable member for Barker talks about the poor being limited in this way, I would make it clear that the point of Medicare means that it is much cheaper for those on lower incomes to take out private insurance if they wish under the Medicare system than under a system with a flat rate of insurance which charges everybody, no matter what their income, the same amount. If those people had their way the private insurance rate would be between $25 and $30 a week, paid by everyone as a flat rate. What happens under the Medicare system is that people pay according to their income. This means that low and middle income earners pay much less than high income earners and therefore can afford, if they wish, to add a private component to the Medicare levy. Let me take the issue of the public hospital system. Opposition members are extraordinary slow learners. I made an effort in Question Time to explain the problem of waiting lists in our public hospitals. First, it is a day to day management problem, a problem of the States, not of the Federal Government. If the allegation is somehow that this Government has not provided resources for the public hospital systems in the States, let us examine the figures. Mr Porter —There are not enough resources. We do not say you have not paid. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting across the table. The Speaker has drawn members' attention to this practice in the past, and it should stop. Dr BLEWETT —The Commonwealth's financial commitment to States for hospitals in the last year of the Fraser Government was $1,203m. This year the Commonwealth Government will give $2,426m to the States in identified health grants and Medicare compensation payments. That is in a period of three years. We have doubled those moneys going into the public hospital area of the States. Yet Opposition members say that we should cut public expenditure and are always demanding that the resources of the Government going into the hospital system and other systems should be cut. Are they still saying that, or will they support a Budget this year which will give us more moneys to put into the public hospital system? Mr Porter —Fill the empty private beds. Dr BLEWETT —I will come to the private beds in a moment. Let me turn to the factors that influence the problem of waiting lists in the public hospital system. They have practically nothing whatever to do with Medicare. If the honourable member for Barker would only bother to read the report out of Victoria, which is most detailed, or that out of South Australia, he will see there the factors that explain the problem of waiting lists in the public hospital system. It is clearly shown that they have little if anything to do with Medicare. The honourable member for Barker is very happy to throw around massive figures. Most of them are extremely dubious. They are often provided by critics of the system. He never bothers to examine much of their validity. In two States there have been thoroughly responsible and detailed studies of waiting lists in those States, and those studies point out clearly that much of the waiting list is in fact a booking list. If there are thousands of beds in the public hospital system and if they are to be used efficiently, bookings have to be made in advance. Often that suits people's convenience. We admit that within those waiting lists, which are in many ways booking lists, there are particular areas in which there are longer waiting periods than I believe are tolerable. Responsible governments in the States-it is their responsibility for day to day administration-are attending to those particular issues. Let us look at why there have been these waiting lists building up in the system. First and most important-denied by nobody-is the shortage of nurses. That shortage, as I said at Question Time, has been building up over many years. The Fraser Government believed that national nurse problems had nothing to do with it and that the matter should be left to the States. That Government cut hospital funding to the States. The first thing the States did was to cut back some of their nurse training programs. The roots of our problems today with nurses lie very much in past decisions. At least we can say that for this Government at the national level we have begun to accept responsibility in areas such as nurse education, immigration of nurses, and in supporting the States' retraining programs. None of those things was attended to. If they had been attended to five or 10 years ago, the problems would have been nowhere as great today. Again, industrial disputes of course produce waiting lists. Nearly all those industrial disputes have related to working conditions and wage rates in the public hospital systems. They are not Medicare-caused problems. They are the problems of industrial relations in the health system, which have been a problem in not just this country but many other parts of the world. What I am saying is that there is much politicking over this use of waiting lists. Looking at the nature of the waiting lists and the reasons for them, there is very little evidence that Medicare has much to do with it. The one suggestion that is made is the use of private hospitals. There has been only a marginal fall in that use. In fact, I read in Rydge's magazine last week that the private hospital sector has never been so profitable. The picture that people have is that there is a dramatic flight from the private hospitals into the public hospitals, creating these major waiting list problems. There has been only a marginal fall in occupation rates in the private hospitals and, in fact, in the private hospitals carrying out surgical activities there has been, if anything, some increase in the occupation of those hospitals. So the picture presented by the Opposition, of somehow private hospitals losing all their patients and all those patients fleeing across to the public hospital sector and, therefore, imposing intolerable strains on it, is simply not correct. We need to address the reasons for the waiting lists in the public hospital sector. If the honourable member for Barker wants to make any real contribution to solutions to health problems in this country, he will help us to address the problems of the industrial disputes in the hospital area, and the major shortage of nurses, which is at the source of many of the problems; and he should also recognise, as I tried to point out to him during Question Time, that the technological revolution in the 1970s in many fields of medicine, orthopaedic surgery being a particular example, means that a whole range of operations are now possible that were not possible five or 10 years ago. That creates increased demands in the public hospital system. I will welcome with enthusiasm, during the Budget debate, the Opposition's support for more moneys going into our public hospital systems so that we can make those systems the best systems of health delivery in Australia. I finish by looking at what the honourable member for Barker offers as a solution to these serious problems about which I have talked. He did not say a thing about the nursing problem. He did not make any suggestions about what new approaches the States should take in relation to industrial relations in their hospital systems. He recognised not at all the technological problems faced by medicine in this country. What is the position of the Opposition-its members will be tested in the next six or nine months-on issues such as the development of new technology? Are they, like they did in the past, to allow that technology to be spread across the country without concern for need but as simply a profit-making device for medical entrepreneurs? Or are they prepared to support the Government in having effective control and evaluation and the use of new technology? That is one of the challenges that they face. We have heard nothing from them. One of the reasons that we hear nothing from them is that it might offend their vested friends in the health industries. But they will be faced with that in the next few months. Opposition members will at last have to stand up on some of these issues. This simple-minded member for Barker has run around the country with one solution to all of our problems, and that is to somehow get rid of bulk billing. It is practically the only suggestion that he has managed to make. At least I give him the credit for consistency: That this one argument has been perpetually trotted out. If he believes that that is the sort of approach to the problems of health in Australia, the Opposition will make very little contribution on health matters. Opposition members have been in opposition for three years. They are likely to be in opposition for another three years or six years, so they will have plenty of time to think. What is their alternative health policy? We get these vague remarks about giving people choice, developing private hospitals, and answers like those; but what are Opposition members really suggesting as an alternative to the present system? It is true that the previous shadow Minister made a proposal during the last election campaign that we should have three health schemes in three years. He was clearly out to defeat Mr Fraser, who managed to produce five in seven years, so the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) comes up with the proposal to have three schemes in three years. Is that still the Opposition's position? What real answers are Opposition members giving to the problems about which they talk a lot but to which they give us no constructive solutions? I challenge them to give the people of Australia some real detail. Of course, they do not want to do that, because they know that once people start making these comparisons the popularity of their policies will very rapidly disappear. One of the most interesting points is that the policies that we have are extremely popular with ordinary people. They may not be popular with all the vested interests in the health field, but the latest polling by the Health Insurance Commission shows that 91 per cent of Australians are satisfied with the services provided by Medicare, and that over 60 per cent are satisfied with the Medicare scheme-and that is a higher percentage than the Liberals ever managed to get for any of their five schemes. Having spent three years in opposition and now having no alternative health policy, the Opposition should, I suggest, spend the next three years trying to get a health policy. I hope that, for the benefit of health policies in Australia, that will be a constructive contribution to the solutions to the sorts of problems that we face, rather than the kind of destructive, exaggerated and simplistic analysis with which we were presented this afternoon. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.26) —I was a bit concerned at the start of the debate on this matter of public importance because I thought that we had some problems in the health care service. I thought that there were a few people who were waiting rather a long time to get medical services. I thought that there was quite a degree of blow-out in government expenditure in relation to the medical services provided to the people of this country. But I am enormously relieved to find, having listened to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), that there is no real problem at all; or that if there is a problem, it is not his fault; it is not the fault of the system by any means, and that if there is a problem, it all started back in Dr Earle Page's time; it has nothing to do with Medicare. Let us get back to reality. The present Government has been in power for three years. We have had Medicare with us for over two years. What are we faced with? We are faced with chaos in the medical system throughout the nation. The Minister can put it any way that he likes, but let him talk to those 100,000 people waiting for elective surgery. Let him say: `Really, it is all the vested interests; really, it is all the fault of the nurses'. We have never had in this country before a doctors' strike. We have never had a nurses' strike. The Minister has a number of firsts to his credit. He is the first Minister for Health to precipitate a doctors' strike. He is the first Minister for Health to precipitate a nurses' strike. He is the first Minister for Health that has reached a situation in which the Australian Medical Association will no longer take part in negotiations with the Government. The Minister can talk about vested interests until he is blue in the face, but the facts are before us. All honourable members of this House know of individual cases that have been brought to them for their attention where the Medicare system has simply broken down. I just instance a couple of cases. A working class family-I use terms that will be familiar to the Minister-had a young child who had a requirement for an urgent appendectomy. It just so happened that the doctors were on strike and there were no services in the public hospitals, and the father could not get his child into a public hospital. He would have had to wait for the public hospitals to become available for that appendectomy to be carried out, so he did not do that. He was concerned about the health and welfare of his child, quite naturally, and he took the child to a private hospital, where the operation was carried out successfully. He has been trying for some 18 months to be reimbursed for the costs of that operation, which he should not have had to incur because he relied on Medicare. He relied on the promises that the Minister for Health and the Labor Government made to the people of this country that they would make available a fairer, more efficient and cheaper service to all. It is not available. It is not fairer. It is not cheaper. All this is a direct result of the operations of the Government's Medicare system and the performance of the Minister for Health. The Minister cannot duck it, no matter what he does. His performance as the Minister for Health has led to these confrontations with the medical services. His performance in this House and outside it will continue to lead to confrontation. We see it every day. Every time the Minister gets to his feet he denigrates one or other aspects of the medical profession. That will lead to further confrontation. What will that cause? It will cause greater and greater hardship, but not for the medical profession or for the Minister, as a member of the Government. If he gets into trouble he zips out into the private system, just like all his mates. He does not have anything to do with the Medicare system. He zips off to take advantage of the private medical system. It will not hurt him. It will not hurt the doctors and the health professionals. It will hurt the people in Australia who expect something better from the medical system which is provided to them. Let me give honourable members another instance. A doctor in my electorate required a major abdominal operation for cancer of the bowel. He approached one of the major teaching hospitals in this country and was told that there was insufficient nursing staff to provide the special attention that was necessary following his major operation. He was asked to pay for his own specialist nursing care at one of the major teaching hospitals in this country because there were insufficient nurses there to provide this sort of assistance to people who really need it. Let us look at the case of the young boy in the Australian Capital Territory who needed a hip operation. It was deferred. He was told that it was not available yet, as though it was not terribly important. It was pretty important to the patient, although not important to the bureaucrats or to the Minister at the table. But it was very important to that child. These are the sorts of things which come out time and again. We are not talking abstract figures. We are talking people. We are talking aged people, pensioners who cannot afford to go into the private hospital system and, if they do, they beggar themselves as a result of the Government's policies. The Minister cannot duck that responsibility. He can talk about vested interests until he is blue in the face, but he cannot duck his personal responsibility and his Government cannot duck its responsibility. This situation has never occurred in Australia previously. The Minister sits there quite happily, saying: `It is not my fault. It has all happened before. We have doubled the money in the last three years'. The Government may have doubled the money in the last three years, but what about the services it is providing? How good are they for the people who are sick? The Government says that most people favour Medicare. But most people do not get sick. The only time they really have an opinion about Medicare is when they get sick. Most people do not have to have hip replacement operations. The Government should try telling an aged pensioner, who has to crawl out of bed across the floor and has to wait for three years before he can get some elective surgery done, that most people favour Medicare. It simply does not wash with them. The Minister can talk about figures, the doubling of expenditure and that sort of thing, until he is blue in the face. We are talking about people and the services provided for them. We are talking about a proper health care system in this country which is not going to beggar the nation. The present system is swiftly heading down that track. The Government is spending more and more money and making available fewer and fewer services to the people. The Government talks about a better, fairer, more efficient and cheaper health care system. But what it is producing is the very thing it claims to hate-a two-tiered medical system. It is getting the one system for the rich and another for the poor. The poor are getting worse and worse service all the time simply because of the operation of the Government's scheme. The rich, as do the rich right throughout Australia and the world, are getting adequate services because they can afford to pay for them. The Minister cannot duck this problem. He cannot keep saying that it is all the nurses' fault, the doctors' fault, the problem of the States, or industrial relations. Why does the Government have doctors in revolt? Why does it have nurses going on strike? Why does it have industrial disputes in health services right throughout the country? It has them because the system is wrong and it is responsible for that system. Why does the Government have 100,000 people waiting for services? Why does it have pensioners, particularly aged pensioners, waiting for services and suffering, physically and mentally, while the Minister twiddles his fingers in here and says, `It is not my fault. It is not the Government's fault; we are doing the best we can. Please do not blame us for it'? The fact remains that the Government has produced an absurd system. It has produced an expensive system. It has produced a divisive system. It has produced a chaotic system. It has produced a system which benefits the rich and absolutely crucifies the poor. It has tens of thousands of people throughout this nation waiting to be treated, waiting to avail themselves of the much vaunted service of the Government, waiting, in so many cases, in vain and waiting, in unfortunately large numbers of cases, until they die because the services are not available to them. The Minister cannot duck that responsibility. He brought in the present system. The people out there are suffering. It is the Minister's responsibility. He is the Minister at the table. He must do something about it, and he should do something about it immediately. Ms FATIN(Brand)(3.35) —What we have been seeing in Australia in the last few days and again here today is simply a re-run of an old scene. We are seeing doctors urging standover tactics to sabotage Medicare and an Opposition jumping on the bandwagon. Once again, the Australian people are the meat in the health care sandwich, being stood over by the vested interests of the medical establishment on the one side and the free marketeers of the conservative right wing on the other. This Government was elected to office three year ago with an absolutely unequivocal mandate to establish Medicare. We had announced our policy one year before that so that people knew, when they voted Labor, that they were voting for a universal health insurance scheme. Let us remind ourselves what things were like before the introduction of Medicare. Fact number one, which the Opposition and the Australian Medical Association would do well to note, is that the Fraser Government was originally elected on Fraser's 1975 promise to maintain Medibank. No Liberal health plan was ever acceptable to the electorate, and when we look at how the Liberals mismanaged health care once they were in government, it is not hard to see why there is this absolute distrust of their health policies. In the seven years that the Liberals were in government, they presided over five different health schemes, five different Medibanks, five different attempts to patch up the system they had already wrecked because of their lack of commitment to a straightforward universal health insurance scheme. There were two immediate results of this debacle. One was that there was absolute confusion in the community about the health insurance system. People just did not know any more what they were supposed to be covered for or where they could seek treatment. By 1983, the health insurance system in this country was in a complete shambles. The Liberals looked after the private health insurers, while the welfare of the people of Australia went by the board. The second and even more serious result of all the confusion was that more than two million people had no insurance whatsoever. This was an absolutely scandalous situation. Over two million Australians were without private health cover and without protection from any Commonwealth scheme. It is hardly surprising that the Labor Government received overwhelming endorsement for its Medicare plan. Medicare was and is a major social reform. Medicare is simple, with people contributing according to their capacity to pay. It is a fair and affordable system. Let me remind the House that by 1983 most Australian families were having to pay more than $13 a week for basic health insurance. Medicare is an essential part of our commitment to raise the social wage and has already made a substantial contribution to improving the standard of living for most Australians. Some sections of the medical community have never made any secret of their dislike of Medicare. Last year we saw a group of specialist doctors use standover tactics and intimidation techniques with such blatant disregard for common standards of decency that they are now less than affectionately referred to as the `painters and doctors union'. Another group of doctors is gearing up-as happened last year-puffing themselves up with righteous indignation and weaving a tale loaded with inaccuracies, exaggerations and self-justification. The threat by the AMA to boycott the annual review of doctors' fees and to stop bulk billing is, I believe, highly significant, but not quite for the reasons the militant doctors would have us believe. What these doctors are indicating is that they do not want to take an active role in planning the health services of this country. They do not want to be part of the system that the people of Australia have chosen. What other conclusion are we supposed to draw? It is not Medicare that is collapsing; it is the facade that a small minority of the medical profession have erected around themselves, their greed and their ideology. Why else do they make this absolutely outrageous threat to increase the amount that pensioners and other people on low incomes have to pay for their medical treatment? It is this aspect of the whole situation that is most unsavoury because there can be no justification whatsoever for taking this sort of action. It is pure political opportunism and a cynical exploitation of some of the most disadvantaged in this country. The AMA talks about what it calls the blow-out in utilisation of doctors' services that it thinks is going on amongst the people they are bulk billing. Leaving aside the fact that this is a ludicrously inaccurate claim, what on earth does it think will happen if it goes ahead with the threat to increase the cost of health care to low income earners? It will put a very significant number of these people in the most grave difficulties. Sick and aged people will not seek medical care when they need it. They will be forced to become out-patients at public hospitals because that will be the only service where they know they will not be exploited financially. In other words, these people's health will suffer and the peace of mind that they have had since Medicare was introduced will be shattered, all because a small proportion of doctors are pursuing their own selfish financial ends. I turn for a moment to the substance of these claims about doctors not being able to afford to give pensioners treatment at the Medicare rebate rate. Doctors' incomes have in fact increased significantly more than the cost of living in recent years. Recent information shows that full time doctors are earning an average of about $90,000 a year from Medicare payments alone. I stress that this figure of $90,000 a year is before other income from workers compensation cases and hospital work is added. What about the doctors themselves? About 53 per cent of them are bulk billing for general practitioner consultations and this figure has risen steadily ever since Medicare was introduced. The Australian Pensioners Federation may have hit the nail right on the head with its suggestion that these threats are being made on behalf of the minority of doctors who are finding that their ideological objection to bulk billing is losing them patients. As the APF is asking, how much of the dissatisfaction by some doctors about their income results from an oversupply of doctors and increased competitiveness between private medical practitioners. The ultimate irony and the thing that really betrays the AMA's posturing as cynical political opportunism is that if it really believes that the current arrangement is disadvantaging doctors, it has a forum to voice its argument. Yet it is precisely this forum that it is choosing to boycott. If the AMA believes that the rebates that doctors are getting are too low, let it appear before the inquiry and argue its position in the arena which has been set up for just that purpose. Of course, there is not as much drama attached to presenting a submission to an inquiry, and drama seems to be what it wants. The thing which is perhaps the saddest of all about this whole situation is that a small minority of militant doctors are obviously prepared to see the integrity of the entire medical profession called into question for the sake of furthering their own very dubious ideologies. The vast majority of doctors in this country work appallingly long hours under a degree of stress and often in conditions that would be unacceptable in almost any other profession. They do so from a sense of commitment to their profession and in order to provide the highest possible standard of health care to the community. The disregard and outright hostility which will be directed to doctors by the very community most of them aim to serve will do untold damage to the medical profession and to the morale of those who have worked so hard to maintain one of the most advanced systems in the Western world. Undoubtedly there are issues to be discussed between doctors and the Government and this Government will continue to make itself available to the medical profession and listen to its advice on a wide range of health issues. However, we will not be stood over or heavied into accepting the extremist views of a militant minority. The Australian people would be right to criticise us strongly if we did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The debate is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(3.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1986, which seeks to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920, is twofold. Firstly, it will enable Australia to ratify the protocol signed in Montreal on 10 May 1984 amending the Convention on International Civil Aviation. This Convention is known as the Chicago Convention. Secondly, it will give effect in Australian law to the provisions of that protocol. The origins of this Bill can be traced to the tragic event that took place on the first day of September 1983, when Soviet military aircraft intercepted and shot down a Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 aircraft with the loss of all 269 persons on board. The International Civil Aviation Organisation-ICAO-convened an extraordinary assembly in May 1984 in Montreal to discuss measures that could be taken to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. Australia played an active role at this meeting, where unanimous agreement was reached by the 107 countries participating to amend the Chicago Convention through the inclusion of a new article, known as Article 3 bis. Article 3 bis represents a significant step by the international community to ensure greater safety in international aviation by requiring States to refrain from using weapons against civil aircraft flying in their air space. In return, States are required to ensure that civil aircraft under their jurisdiction operate flights over foreign countries for legitimate aviation purposes only, as envisaged in the Chicago Convention. To implement the first part of this obligation, the Government is taking the necessary administrative action to ensure that weapons are not used against foreign civil aircraft operating in Australian air space. The second part of Australia's obligation, which is to prevent aircraft under Australian jurisdiction from operating overseas in any manner that is not in accordance with legitimate civil aviation requirements, must be implemented by legislation. The Bill incorporates this requirement. The Bill also contains provisions to enable Australia to ratify Article 3 bis and to have it included as a Schedule to the Act. This is consistent with the practice that has been adopted in the past regarding ratification of amendments to the Convention. The proposed amendment to the Air Navigation Act which will give effect to Australia's above-mentioned obligation will apply to Australian registered aircraft, or foreign registered aircraft operated by an operator whose principle place of business or permanent residence is in Australian territory, which fly over the territory of another country. If an aircraft is flying without the authority of that country or is being used for a purpose inconsistent with the aims of the Convention, then it must comply with an order to land or with any other instruction that is given. The Bill also reflects the requirement of Article 3 bis for Australia to take appropriate measures to prohibit the deliberate use of its aircraft in these circumstances. The pilot in command of an aircraft who breaches the above requirements may be prosecuted under this legislation and, if found guilty, would be subject to the penalties prescribed. These penalties are maximum penalties, and are consistent with those applying to breaches of the Air Navigation Act generally. However, the pilot may decline to obey a direction if he believes that compliance with that direction would endanger the safety of the aircraft and persons on board. There may be other parties involved in the offences, such as the operator, and action against these ancillary offenders could be taken under the provisions of the Crimes Act. It is important to recognise that there is nothing in the proposed legislation which derogates from obligations which any other law, including the law of a foreign country, might impose. An Australian aircraft, for example, which is flying over the territory of a foreign country, is required to obey a direction legally given by the aeronautical authorities of the country concerned, just as a foreign aircraft flying over our territory is required to obey a lawful direction given by us. Australia has undertaken to prosecute offenders in the specific circumstances laid down by Article 3 bis. If a pilot refuses to obey a direction to land given by an overseas country it could be difficult for that country to prosecute the pilot, once the pilot is outside its jurisdiction. However, the Bill does stipulate that a person convicted of an offence by a foreign country cannot be convicted in Australia for the same offence under this legislation. Because of the importance the Government attaches to this issue, the Bill provides for the legislation to become effective by proclamation prior to the entry into force of Article 3 bis. The Government wishes this legislation, which will enhance the safety of civil aviation, to come into effect as soon as possible. The protocol itself will come into force when one hundred and two countries have ratified it, which is approximately two-thirds of the ICAO's membership. Before the legislation is proclaimed, the Government will ensure that the aviation publications issued for the use of pilots clearly explain these new requirements in the case of interception of Australian controlled aircraft operating overseas. The proposed amendments will have no financial impact on government expenditure. The Government, the Opposition, pilots' associations and indeed the Australian people generally, have denounced the use of force against civilian aircraft. It is fitting, therefore, that every endeavour be made to promote the safety of international civil aviation. The passage of this Bill and the ratification of Article 3 bis will be a tangible demonstration to the international community of our strong and continuing commitment to this objective. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(3.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill is to address legal and administrative needs which have become evident in the operation of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. The Act, which came into force in May 1984 consolidated, into a single piece of legislation, the previous conservation controls on the import and export of plants and animals. The Act enables Australia to meet international obligations for the protection and conservation of the world's wildlife listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It also controls export of native Australian plants and animals and their products, and the import of live animals other than some aquarium fish and domestic stock. The Act is a major element of the Government's nature conservation program. It received the support of all parties when introduced into Parliament in 1982. The amendments proposed by this Bill can be grouped into four categories: To make controls on export and import of certain wildlife more appropriate to their status and the circumstances under which they enter trade; to simplify and improve administrative procedures which have proved, in practice, to be unnecessarily complex; to clarify and tighten certain enforcement provisions; and to increase protection for those who provide information leading to the institution of proceedings under the Act. Although a main purpose of the Act is to implement the objectives of CITES, at present it does not provide for the import of specimens acquired before CITES came into force, or acquired before the species in question came within the scope of CITES. Experience with the present Act has shown that a more flexible approach can be taken where the applicant for a permit to import a pre-CITES specimen is a private individual. The Act will be amended, therefore, to allow permits to be granted to individuals under certain circumstances to import pre-CITES specimens that are personal or household effects, gifts or inheritances. The Act contributes to the conservation of Australian native wildlife through both prohibitions and regulated trade in certain species, consistent with their conservation status. For example, existing provisions allow trade in live fish which are captive bred or taken in accordance with an approved management program. Amendments will bring the export of invertebrates into line with the provisions regulating live fish exports. These amendments will in no way weaken the protection afforded to invertebrate species, and will enable, for example, the export of cultured giant clams to other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to assist in the re- establishment of seriously depleted wild populations. Before the Act came into force in May 1984, persons departing Australia to live in another country and wishing to take certain categories of legitimately acquired pets with them were required to have resided in Australia for at least three years and to have owned the pet for at least two years to be eligible for an export permit. The Act increased the period of residence to four years and the period of ownership to three years. Amendments will provide for export applications to be considered on the basis of the previous criteria for owners who purchased pets before the Act came into force in the expectation that the previous criteria would continue to apply. It should be noted that this concession will only be available until 30 April 1987. The primary purpose of the Act is to regulate legitimate trade in wildlife and to combat illicit trafficking in wildlife, particularly endangered wildlife. It is essential that the maximum resources and effort be directed to that purpose. Therefore, considerable attention has been paid in this Bill to making administrative procedures streamlined and more efficient. Current provisions which require extensive consultations between the designated authority and overseas authorities, but which add little to wildlife protection, will be removed. Regular importers and exporters of prescribed specimens, for example scientific institutions importing specimens for research to develop biological control agents, will not be required to make individual applications for each shipment, and will receive a single authority subject to regular reporting of shipments. Release of biological control agents will still be subject to control under the Act. Duplication, in the existing procedures, for gazettal of information on permits and authorities by the Minister will be eliminated. Provision will also be made for inter-change of material between approved zoological organisations and scientific organisations. The responsibilities and options available to the Government and individuals who bring wildlife products into Australia will be clarified with respect to surrendered and seized specimens. Amendments will be made to distinguish between commercial exports and the export by private individuals of legitimately acquired non-Australian pets, of species listed in CITES. Provision will be made for the designated authority to delegate routine administrative tasks. There is strong evidence that the rich rewards available to wildlife traffickers have led to the involvement of internationally organised criminals. The amendments will allow Australia to participate more effectively in the existing international network of experts and agencies involved in the detection and prosecution of wildlife trafficking offences. Existing provisions for the certificate of an analyst to be taken as prima facie evidence in a court of law will be strengthened by extension to allow admission in court proceedings of certificates of identification made by a suitably qualified person appointed by the Minister. Provisions will also be made to enable the exchange of specimens between the Australian scientific and management authority and overseas counterparts, for the purposes of comparative identification, education and training of inspectors and to facilitate investigation by Australian and overseas authorities of wildlife offences. The Act provides severe penalties which are appropriate to the high potential rewards involved in wildlife trafficking. Nevertheless, experience has shown that certain provisions need to be tightened. Particular amendments are required to: Prevent traffickers from escaping prosecution by surrendering specimens after they have been detected, or in circumstances where a quarantine officer is obliged to destroy seized specimens; clarify the powers of inspectors to search baggage and goods, to seize personal property which they believe has been involved in an offence, and to seize documents and invoices as evidence of an offence; and clarify the powers of inspectors to seize articles containing prohibited specimens. Other amendments will protect the confidentiality of the source of information leading to a prosecution. The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 is an important piece of legislation which plays a central role in the protection of Australia's wildlife and contributes significantly to protection of the wildlife of the world. The amendments proposed in this Bill will make it even more effective. It is with pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Macphee) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(4.01) —I rise to make a few brief comments on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986. It is true that the wool industry has no general disagreement with this legislation and neither has the Opposition. But, on the other hand, the industry was not aware of any vital need for changes to the existing arrangements. New legislation costs a lot of money which should not be squandered unless there is a real need. To bring rural research legislation into line with some predetermined socialist notion of how the industry should work is doing little for anyone. We have now seen revamped research arrangements for 12 other rural industries, the Rural Industries Research Act and the establishment of a research and development corporation for the meat and livestock industry. The latter one, the newly created Australian Meat and Live-Stock Research and Development Corporation, has caused some waves throughout the rural producers' organisations. If one picks up the Australian Meat Research Committee's 1985 annual report and reads part of the Chairman's address, Mr Wright, after detailing the arguments against the Government's proposal, states: These and other reservations were advised to the Minister, but to the Committee's regret have not been reflected in the final legislation or logistical arrangements. Finally, it was the Committee's belief that the restructuring of the AMRC along the lines proposed was not at the express wish of the industry, which as far as could be ascertained from constant liaison by AMRC members with members of industry bodies, was generally satisfied that it was receiving good value for the research dollars expended. He then went on to graciously acknowledge defeat, stating: Notwithstanding the areas of concern outlined in this report, I can, on behalf of all the members of the now defunct AMRC, confidently pledge the full co-operation and support of us all to the AMLRDC in the future in its future efforts in the interests and on behalf of the Australian livestock and meat industry. I am very relieved that negotiations have been carried out with the wool industry, although there is still some widespread apprehension as to the actual effect that the new organisation will have on the wool industry down the track. The point is that the Wool Corporation had a well run policy on wool research and development which had ensured good returns to Australia for many years. The Wool Corporation was already strengthening its machinery for the formulation of policy on wool research and development before the arrival of this legislation. The wool growers have levied themselves since 1936. In 1945 the Commonwealth Government agreed to match dollar for dollar the funding for research. We are entitled to ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for assurances that the changes will not reflect in higher administrative costs, divert more research hours to administrative tasks or lessen the say that the growers will have in matters of research. The actual composition of the Wool Research and Development Council will probably tell us the Government's intention in this area. I hope, and I am sure it will be the case, that the current arrangements will basically formalise what has already been occurring on the research side. The Government must understand that our great wool industry, while not in as much trouble as some of our other primary industries such as grain and sugar, is having its profitability eroded. I believe it is a charade to have the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) junketing off to the United States of America to discuss with President Reagan the effect of the United States farm Bills on Australian agriculture. What did Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Trade, achieve? He assured us that he achieved plenty. If so, why is it necessary for the Prime Minister to retrace his Minister's steps? The Prime Minister does not have to impress President Reagan, who is well and truly opposed to the United States farm Bill and export enhancement program and signed the farm Bills under duress once it became clear that any veto he might impose would be overridden by Congress. That veto would have been imposed because a great deal of agriculture in the United States is in desperate straits. Maybe the Prime Minister can persuade the United States Government to leave our traditional markets alone, if the Minister for Trade was not able to do that, which I believe he said he had been able to do when he returned. But I doubt that he can turn the tide of a concerned government in the United States caring for its destitute farmers by any means it sees fit-in this instance by the farm Bills. The fact is that since coming to office the Hawke Labor Government has mercilessly sucked the life blood from the rural sector and intends to go on doing it with high interest rates, a new capital gains tax, quarantining of farm income, indexation of wages and the 3 per cent Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions superannuation deal. It is against this background that I would like to mention some other items. Firstly, I hope the Government considers the consequences of exporting merino rams, ewes and other breeding material from Australia. More than likely, increased wool production in importing countries such as China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could easily substitute for increased exports from Australia. We do not need to promote unduly our competitors. This significantly refers to the range of skills such as marketing, husbandry and management techniques which have been developed in Australia. These areas may benefit from such research. It must also be remembered that Australia is by far the largest exporter of wool in the world. However, wool still only comprises about 5 per cent of the world fibre market. This underlines the high level of competition wool faces in the market. As a result, the research and development aspect of wool is essential to maintain and increase our market position. The pre-testing of combing wool offerings is now a commercial reality. It allows the top makers to meet accurately the requirements of their spinner clients. As was mentioned by the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, Mr David Asimus, at the National Agricultural Outlook Conference: This Research by the Corporation suggests that the improved predictability of the relationship between greasy wool and top characteristics could increase returns to mills by about 5 cents/kg greasy-more than twice the present test charge. The increased specifications for wool will allow us to compete more effectively with the other fibres. This could become all the more significant with the falling world oil price which over the medium term may reduce the cost of synthetic fibres on the world markets. In fact it is a great shame that the Government did not have its priorities right and hand on to the consumers and the farmers the full fall in the price of petrol. This is an example where the world market will adapt to a fall in the price of oil, while our exporters will be granted only half the fall in petrol prices-yet the Government will still expect the farmers and all other exporters to compete on the open market. What it will mean will be a further reduction in farmers' incomes from the 1984-85 levels. I do not believe the Labor Government has the slightest comprehension of what effect the cost of petrol has on the farm budget. If it did it could not be totally callous in continuing with its current policy. Underlining the so-called buoyant times for the wool industry is the sad reality of farm income. In 1984-85, 50 per cent of sheep farmers in Australia earned an income of less than 413,360. According to Bureau of Agricultural Economic estimates, in the 1985-86 year that figure will fall to $7,400. The figures for sheep farmers are slightly above the average for farms across all the primary producing industries. It is estimated that 50 per cent of farmers earned a farm income of less than $11,550 in 1984-85, compared with an income of less than $6,000 in 1985-86. So in reality the good times we are experiencing from wool prices are more than offset by the unavoidable rises in the costs of farming. Receipts for farms which rely on sheep are projected to increase by only one per cent in 1985-86, reflecting a modest increase of 5 per cent in the price of wool which is offset to a considerable extent by poorer returns from mutton and lamb. Farm costs will rise by 10 per cent, cutting the average operating surplus by 25 per cent. The Labor Government's policies have strongly exacerbated the problem of increasing farm costs. When we are discussing wool it cannot run for cover and blame the corrupted international markets. There is nothing wrong with producer returns, it is just that the Government is demanding an ever-increasing portion of the take. It is now a truism to say that the Labor Government is just the political arm of the union movement. It is no wonder that it is the union movement which governs Australia today, and which poses one of the threats to viable independent producers. Until farmers, and all business for that matter, can sign enterprise-based employment contracts with their staff we will see a waning of Australia's economic fortunes. Remuneration has to be based on incentive and a sharing of the fortunes of that particular enterprise. The way the Australian Labor Party has geared the system it will simply not support itself over the long term. The sheep farmer would appreciate from the Government, more than any amount of fine tuning of research and development administration, a sensible monetary policy. It would prove difficult for this Government, which is committed to so many wasteful programs, but it should start balancing the budget-especially when the whole aim of monetary policy is to curb consumption. Secondly, wage indexation, with its inbuilt inflationary expectation, is incompatible with a floating exchange rate. While the Labor Government will not touch its sacred cows, all Australians who borrow pay the price through high interest rates. Cumulative farm debt is now running at around $7 billion-and much of that is serviced at an interest rate of 21.5 per cent. A third point, and I am sure that there is total support for this, is that measures have to be taken to reverse our current account deficit. One interesting point is that 20 per cent of the Australian woolclip is processed in one way or another prior to export. If it is scoured that probably adds on $1.30 to the price per kilogram. This adds a greater value to a basic export commodity, and it is a trend which must be encouraged throughout all our export commodities. Again it is no use diverting the valuable research dollar away from primary produce to the sunrise industries. We cannot ignore the fact that the rural sector has been a world leader in the export of technology and expertise. Our strengths should remain the basis for our future. In fact the maximisation of our export earnings would make a good Priority Two campaign. I am sure if it involved a bit of personal publicity the Prime Minister could become interested. Finally, the Opposition supports this amendment to the Wool Industry Act, but I would like to return to the question of the financial costs imposed by the Bill. The administration of the Wool Research Trust Fund, which will now become the Wool Research and Development Fund, is to be vested in the Australian Wool Corporation. There are additional administrative procedures in dealing with research and development, and there are changes in the remuneration of staff and council members. The Minister states that there are no additional costs to the Commonwealth; I just hope that that is not fine print, meaning that there are additional costs, but the Commonwealth does not pay for them. The Government's responsibility is to acknowledge the cost of our legislation, whether it is put onto the Commonwealth or back on the producer, in one way or another. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(4.15) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986. This is the third major piece of rural research legislation introduced by this Government and, in concert with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 and the Rural Industries Research Act 1985, it gives a greater emphasis to research in the wool industry and places it on a much firmer footing. The Bill contains several important administrative arrangements designed to enhance the operations of the Australian Wool Corporation, as well as repealing certain sections of the Wool Industry Act 1972 that are no longer relevant. The most significant proposal contained in the Bill is the establishment of the Wool Research and Development Council under the Australian Wool Corporation. The objectives of the Council are clearly defined in the Bill and are geared towards a much more efficient and effective research program for the wool industry. It is widely recognised, particularly by this Government and certainly by all sectors of the agricultural industry, that research holds the key to the future profitability of the industry. This is of fundamental importance today when our whole agricultural industry is facing a changing market system. Wool production is one of the nation's largest industries and accounts for almost 10 per cent of the nation's exports. The wool industry over the years has suffered its ups and downs, but at present, due to several factors, including the efficient operation of the Australian Wool Corporation, the industry is enjoying a relatively buoyant period. I noted from the Australian Wool Corporation annual report 1984-85 that the recovery in world market textile activity that became evident in 1984-85 strengthened to make the Australian wool market, especially for finer wool, the best for many years. It is to be hoped that this trend continues. Of particular interest to me was the section in the report on research and development, which revealed that 181 research projects on wool production were supported during the year at a cost of $3.8m. In addition the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation spent a direct grant of $5m on wool production research. I should mention here that the research effort by CSIRO over the years has had a major impact on the wool industry. Approximately $2.1m from the Wool Research Trust Fund was allocated to wool harvesting research, including automated mechanical shearing and biological defleecing. Research has been carried out in the areas of wool preparation and specification. Equipment for improving the measurement of greasy wool was designed and completed by CSIRO in 1984-85. The annual report canvassed numerous research projects that are being undertaken, or have been implemented, all leading to a more efficient and viable wool industry. Perhaps the most important research is that being carried out in textiles. Research in this field is seen as crucial if the wool industry is to maintain its competitiveness over synthetics. We are all familiar with the pure wool symbol. Careful delineation of priorities for research and development work on wool is seen as crucial for the future viability of the Australian wool industry. Heavy research and development spending by synthetic fibre producers has also led to a narrowing of the gap between the attributes of wool and its synthetic opposition. It is important that extra value be gained out of every dollar spent on wool research. During 1984-85 expenditure from the Wool Research Trust Fund on textile research was approximately $6.9m, of which approximately $5.9m was allocated to the three CSIRO wool textile divisions. A global strategic plan for wool textile research and development was completed in 1983-84 and the International Wool Secretariat Research and Development Committee established procedures for reviewing strategies and priorities. During the year the CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian Wool Corporation, produced an Australian wool textile research plan which formed an integral part of the global plan. It addressed the specific interests of the Australian wool industry. Research into this field has been wide and varied and will produce performance data to demonstrate the natural attributes of wool and to assist in the design of new wool products. During 1984-85 the Commonwealth contributed $11.7m to the wool research trust fund and the wool growers contributed $12.3m. On 15 February 1985, just 12 months ago, the Australian carried a report headed `Research Aims to Lift Wool Production Levels'. The article stated that dramatic developments in practical research to boost wool production are being revealed by the nation's leading rural research organisations. It stated that the research organisations are on the threshold-this has yet to be proved and tested-of solutions to such expensive problems as blowfly strike and mechanical shearing and are pushing into new fields of greater wool growth for sheep and higher pregnancy rates. Flystrike and fleece rot are the wool industry's most expensive problems. Graziers at Merriwa in my electorate told me that the prolonged wet spell last year led to an increased incidence of flystrike and fleece rot. However, the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries are making considerable progress in their research efforts in this field. Dr Andrew Stoeckel, Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, recently presented a paper to the 1986 National Agricultural Outlook Conference. I should mention that the BAE has also made considerable contributions to the wool industry. Dr Stoeckel said that to increase productivity and save costs it is often argued that rural research and development should be increased. He also said that there are plenty of examples of ways technological developments could save costs. he referred to the costs of internal and external parasites. These have been estimated to cost the sheep industry $7,000 per farm a year. Dr Stoeckel pointed out that the existence of savings do not automatically justify more research expenditure and that lead times are such that increased expenditure would not help the current problem. He said that the current problem is symptomatic of the longer term problem and there is a prima facie case that we are underinvesting in rural research. Dr Stoeckel also said that the Commonwealth Government spends substantial amounts, some in conjunction with funds from the rural sector, on rural research and development and that there is evidence that the effectiveness of the Government's efforts could be improved by changes to the organisations responsible for spending the funds in question. He said that the Commonwealth has recognised that there is scope for improvements to the way in which these bodies are organised and to the incentives they face when selecting research which has the highest pay-off. He acknowledged that reforms along these lines have been made within the Primary Industry portfolio by creating the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation and reorganising the rural industry's research funds. Having said that, he added that there still appears to be considerable scope to extend these improvements to other Commonwealth portfolios and also to State governments. For example, in a recent review of pasture crops and animal systems, Reeves, Mears and Ockwell concluded that greater integration, co-ordination and co-operation were needed both within and between research organisations. Proposals in the Bill before us go some way towards rectifying the shortcomings. In particular, wool research by the CSIRO and the BAE will now be co-ordinated with other wool research and controlled by the proposed Wool Research and Development Council. Also, to facilitate an information exchange the chairperson of the wool research and development fund will, along with chairpersons of other rural industry research funds and the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation, attend an annual co-ordination meeting to discuss matters of common interest. I was particularly interested in the comments about wool measurement research of Mr David Asimus, Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, who, in a paper entitled `Wool Marketing-An Australian Perspective', said: I now want to address briefly the question of additional measurement of staple length and strength as a further development of the wool marketing system. (Quorum formed) I remind honourable members that we are debating the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986. The whole purpose of this Bill is to improve wool research and put money into the pockets of wool growers. Of course all the previous Opposition speaker, the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond), was interested in doing was in rubbishing this fine move by the Government. I am glad that honourable members who are here can hear about the positive steps that this Government is taking to aid men engaged in the wool industry. The proposals in the Bill before us go some way towards rectifying some of the shortcomings to which I have referred. In particular, wool research by the CSIRO and the BAE will now be co-ordinated. I was talking about Mr David Asimus, who stated: The very substantial investment in wool research measurement is reflected now in the emergence of additional measurement as a commercial reality. At this early stage about 5 per cent of combing wool offerings are being pre-sale tested for length, strength and position of break. Mr Asimus said that with these measurements it is now possible to meet more accurately the requirements of spinner clients. These measurements, together with the original core test data, reduce uncertainty about the processing performance of wool bought at auction. As I mentioned earlier, the CSIRO designed the automatic systems for measuring staple length and strength which were installed in an Australian Wool Testing Authority laboratory. Mr Asimus described the challenges facing the wool industry as stimulating demand, developing markets, adjusting to the competitive environment and containing costs. He said that those challenges effectively summarise the Australian Wool Corporation's role and functions. These functions involve starting at fundamental research, proceeding through marketing, distribution and manufacture and extending to choices made by consumers of textile products around the world. The key words are `Fundamental Research' for without this fundamental research there will be no viable future for our wool industry. It is imperative that we develop better wool growing methods, better animal health and disease prevention, and better pasture improvement right through the whole spectrum to new wool products. Honourable members on the other side of the House will be interested in what Mr Asimus had to say about the Australian Wool Testing Authority, and, for their benefit, I will repeat his words. He said: Privatisation has become a trendy topic in recent times. The wool industry has already had one relevant experience of it, the Razor gang excercise of five years ago when the Australian Wool Testing Authority was-to use the jargon-`Transferred to the private sector'. I confine myself to describing that as a pointless and costly exercise in ideology. I trust that the industry will have no reason in the future to go through a similar experience. The National Farmers Federation Australian Agricultural Year Book 1985 stated that the organisation of rural research has become a focus of attention within the overall subject of the performance levels of the rural industry statutory authorities. In discussing the Australian Wool Corporation it acknowledged that the Wool Research Trust Fund has been refined over several years and shown to be efficient. It stated that advances in science of relevance to the sheep and wool industries, especially in genetic engineering and immuno chemistry, demand appropriate expertise for the rigorous overview of research programs, and it foreshadowed the legislation before us now. With the establishment of the Wool Research and Development Council, a rigorous overview of research programs will be one of its main functions. Research and development have to be an integral part of our philosophy if we are to achieve success and viability not only in our wool industry, but also in our agricultural industry as a whole. I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting a comment from a sign on the sheep shed at the Sydney Royal Easter Show some years ago. The sign stated: Did you realise . . . that when all the coal, bauxite, iron ore, gold, lead, zinc and other minerals are dug out of the ground, and all the oil is pumped out of the seabed fields, the merino sheep will still be there eating grass and growing the world's greatest fibre. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for bringing forward this legislation and I commend it to the House. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(4.34) —I rise to support the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. I would also like to support the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) and my colleague the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond). I would particularly like to draw honourable members' attention to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Forrest when he mentioned the cost problems facing agriculture today and, in particular, the cost problems facing wool growers. I also think that he had some very sensible ideas which he proposed to the Government about a priority two program where we might increase the processing of our raw exports. I am sure that this would have a considerable effect on the advantage of our present balance of trade problems. I would also like to agree with most things that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) said but I just draw his attention to the fact that when he talks about the importance of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation maybe he ought also to talk to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) about this matter because it is this Government which has been cutting back on the funding to CSIRO and it has also been cutting back on the emphasis that CSIRO is putting into rural research. I think those comments about the importance of the CSIRO were obviously reinforced by the comments that the honourable member for Hunter made when he was quoting Dr Stoeckel, the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In debating this Wool Industry Amendment Bill I think it is worth remembering the size of the wool industry because it is still one of the great export industries. It may have some competitors nowadays as far as size is concerned but over the time of European settlement in Australia, the wool industry stands out alone as the industry that has made this country a great country. Even today the gross value of exports of wool in the current financial year are estimated to be somewhere around $2.8 billion. I might remind the House that that is an increase of 10 per cent over the previous financial year. It is worth looking at how the funding of the wool research is done and at the source of funding. I remind honourable members that wool growers themselves contribute 0.5 per cent of their gross proceeds to the fund for wool research. In 1984-85 this raised $12.3m. It is true that the Australian Government added nearly as much as this on its dollar for dollar matching contribution and so this made quite a considerable sum of money available for research into the wool industry. In fact in 1984-85 expenditure on wool research amounted to some $22m. I think also it is worth reminding honourable members that the Australian Wool Corporation has a very fine record in its achievements in its market support program. It is also well worth remembering that that market support fund is financed solely by a levy on the wool growers. So while the Wool Corporation operates a floor price scheme, that floor price scheme is funded completely through the levy on the gross proceeds of wool growers and there is no government funding to support the floor price of wool. Mr Andrew —It stands on its own two feet. Mr HAWKER —Exactly. As the honourable member for Wakefield has just said, it stands on its own two feet. In fact I would say that it stands on its own four feet because we are talking about merinos. Mr Campbell —It doesn't now. Mr HAWKER —It always has. I also remind honourable members that the Wool Corporation and the wool industry have an excellent record in research, despite the fact that the honourable member for Hunter seems to think we can spend more and I certainly agree with him on that. At present the Wool Corporation supports some 300 projects which, in itself, is quite a large thing. Coming back to the question of the CSIRO I think it is a good move by the Government to remove the special treatment that the CSIRO and the BAE have been receiving under previous research arrangements. Honourable members may be aware that, under the previous arrangements, both the CSIRO and the BAE were automatically entitled to funds from the Wool Research Trust Fund, as it was, without competing with other research projects. Of course, what this led to was that both these organisations, particularly the CSIRO, were in a position to be able to use these funds for some of their maybe less important, less glamorous projects and then compete with other research institutions with their best projects, thereby making it very difficult for other research institutions all around the country to compete with these funds. I just reinforce the comments about the general funding for the CSIRO in the review of the Chairman of the Wool Corporation, Mr Asimus, in the Corporation's 1984-85 report. He said: The Corporation has publicly expressed its concern about the consequences for rural industry in general, and wool in particular, if funds continue to be diverted, particularly in the CSIRO, from rural-oriented research in Australia to so-called `growth' areas or research and to manufacturing. The Corporation questions this approach, given the high levels of assistance already received by manufacturing, the strong international competition among `sunrise' industries and the high returns that have flowed from wool research. They are important words, and I hope the Minister for Primary Industry and the Government will take note of them when framing budgets for the CSIRO in the coming year. More importantly, I hope that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will take this on board and reconsider his change of emphasis in the direction of CSIRO research. The CSIRO research is a rather sensitive issue in my electorate in the Wannon area because, although CSIRO has a large stake in rural research in general and wool research in particular, it has no campus or office in the entire area of the south east of South Australia, the western districts of Victoria, or in the Wimmera or the Mallee. Mr Andrew —That is the prime wool producing area. Mr HAWKER —It is one of the prime wool producing areas in Australia. As honourable members well know, in the middle we have Hamilton, the wool capital of the world. In fact, we have virtually no CSIRO presence in rural Victoria or in the south east of South Australia. This is so despite the fact that farmers in this area produce over 20 per cent of all Australian agricultural produce and contribute about a fifth of the funds raised by the wool levy. It is a rather sensitive matter that CSIRO has no direct input in this area. It is also of some concern that relatively little of the research being carried out by CSIRO at present is directed at the needs of this important area. In fact, of the research that is done in the rest of Victoria by CSIRO, very little is directed towards the farmers. I hope that under the new funding arrangements where all organisations will be able to compete for research funds on an equal basis, the relative merits of projects will be properly evaluated and more research funds will be directed into this very important area. I would welcome any move by the Minister to take away the special preference on the part of CSIRO in the past towards funding. As I have said, Hamilton is the wool capital of the world and, not surprisingly, it also has a research institute about 10 miles south. The Pastoral Research Institute has been a valuable organisation for the past 25 years or so, but is dependent on grants from the Wool Corporation. It currently employs 13 scientists, five of whom undertook their post-graduate specialist training at the Institute. People in western Victoria, and indeed people in the rest of Victoria, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) no doubt would endorse, are very concerned about the way the Victorian Government is cutting back funding for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. It has been cutting back its staff by over 100 per year for the last two years, and in research areas there has been a cut in staff of about 10 per cent per annum. While industry funds are increasing, particularly in the wool industry, the base funding for research institutes in Victoria is being cut back. It will be harder and harder for these research institutes to carry out research properly if they do not have the staff and the necessary back-up which they should be getting through the Victorian Department. It is also worth noting that during the last decade Wool Corporation grants to the Pastoral Research Institute have been used to fund a wide range of worthwhile projects, including the evaluation of numerous pasture legumes, the development of better diagnostic procedures for fertiliser requirements for pasture, investigations into sheep production systems and sheep nutrition, and work which has accelerated the promotion of new cultivars of pasture plants which have proved productive and well adapted to the local environment. All this research has been done, but it has been very much handicapped by the lack of introduction of plant variety rights. I know that the Minister for Primary Industry is conscious of this, and all members will be pressing the Minister when he gets the report on PVR in the next month to take action and to begin to introduce legislation. I think that it would contribute greatly to the improvement of pastures, which will be very much to the benefit of the wool industry. Perhaps I may be allowed to digress for a brief moment. The Pastoral Research Institute has just had a world first. It was announced in the papers last week that Dr Cummins of the Pastoral Research Institute has had a world breakthrough on the development of vaccines for the twinning of calves in cattle. That shows the level of importance of the research and the high standards which are being maintained at the Institute, despite the fact that the Victorian Department seems so keen to starve research in Victoria of basic funding. A great deal of research is continuing to be carried out in the Institute, and obviously with the changes in this amendment Bill it is to be hoped that there will be more opportunities for research institutes, such as that at Hamilton, to compete for more funds and also to be successful in getting more funds for the benefit of the wool industry in Australia as a whole. The other matter I wish to touch on is the importance of increasing research into the live sheep export trade. The Senate has already had a report on the subject outlining some important measures that could be taken to reduce the mortality of sheep on live-sheep ships. Already many steps have been taken to reduce the mortality rate. It is less than half the figure when the trade started. I think that it is a reasonable aim to try to reduce the figure by half again. I think that with the right direction of research this work will be carried out successfully. I want to deal briefly with a couple of specifics in the Bill. I turn first to clause 56 which relates to research and development plans. The research council is being told to produce a five-year corporate plan. I think this is a sensible move which is probably very much to the credit of the Minister and something he has been carrying out in other areas of agricultural research. I notice that the plan is to be submitted to the Minister for his approval. Obviously in government funding there must be a certain amount of accountability. Further on in the Bill, in clause 61, the Minister also wishes to be consulted on annual operational plans. I imagine that that provision again has some merit in terms of accountability, but I voice a word of caution. While there has to be accountability when government money is being spent on research-the government is matching the industry levy on a one for one basis-the provision states that the annual operational plan must be submitted to the Minister for his agreement. Again, I wonder whether this involves a little too much interference by the Government. It is one thing for the Minister to be notified of the plan; it is another actually to require his agreement. I wonder whether that provision is going a little too far. I hope the Minister will take up this point and answer it when he sums up. Another matter to which I draw attention relates to clause 63 (12), which contains this wonderful little statement: The Chairperson may be referred to as the Chairman or the Chairwoman, as the case requires. I wonder to what extreme we have got to take this fem-talk because it is getting a little beyond a joke. As honourable members have already said in this debate, this Bill merits a lot of support. It is a sensible move and everyone who has any interest in this industry would agree with it. It can only strengthen research in the wool industry. Primary industry has many problems. Whilst it is important that the Government tries to improve research, there is no point in improving research if farmers are in no position to take up any new ideas that research brings forward. So, whilst it is important for us to debate this Bill, I hope that the Minister is also looking very closely at the immediate problems that are facing farmers, because obviously any results from research will not be available for some time and in the meantime farmers are in a lot of trouble in some areas. Some of them are actually having to walk off their places. It is also pertinent to note that there have been a few suicides, so desperate have some people become because of the plight being faced by some primary producers in parts of Australia right now. I hope that the Government will take that on board and realise that it is very important that we actually have farmers around in the years to come to take advantage of the research results that no doubt will come from the funds that are being spent now. Whilst the Opposition certainly supports the Bill, I remind the Government that there are some far more pressing problems right now that need addressing if farmers are to be able to take advantage of the research. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.52) —I rise to support the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. I believe that this is one of the most thoroughly thought out pieces of legislation we have had in this Parliament. It is a tribute to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who I hold in very high regard, despite the blatantly political posturing of many of the farm organisations. I am on record as saying on many occasions that the Australian Wool Corporation is by far the most effective rural marketing organisation, one with a very good record. For someone such as myself who went through the traumatic years of 1967 to 1972 with rapidly declining wool prices, ending in the horrendous sale of my wool in the voluntary support scheme in Fremantle that failed, it is interesting to note that in those days the formation of the Australian Wool Commission and the acquisition of wool was fought bitterly by many on the opposite side of the House. Very few Opposition members would admit that today, but a review of Hansard would show it. In respect of wool, of course, Australia has the advantage of being a very large producer and can therefore influence the market. It is not a luxury which we enjoy in many other areas. The Bill addresses itself very much to the need for research. I would like to emphasise this. I think research is absolutely essential for the industry and it is an area which I believe has been neglected in the past. I do not think that the increase in the average cut of sheep in Australia pays much tribute to the work that has been done in the area of research in respect of the productivity of the sheep itself. Far bigger gains have been made in other countries although, of course, they were starting from a smaller base and, over time, this may change. Genetic research is one area which I think we must look very closely at in terms of increasing wool production and making sheep more resistant to various parasites. This is an area where I think there are tremendous gains to be made. Anyone who has read today's Australian Financial Review will have seen an article which outlines how abysmally poorly Australia is doing in the Hong Kong market in respect of the marketing of meat. Like the live sheep trade, the sale of mutton is also very germane to the wool industry. The article outlines how our share of the market in Hong Kong had fallen in the face of a far better organised and far better motivated sales campaign, principally in respect of New Zealand-although in respect of beef, of course, at the lower end Brazil was one of the main suppliers. In other areas of research we need to look at better manufacturing methods, the production and enhancement of the well-known characteristics of wool. For instance, I do not think that enough has yet been made of the fire-resistant characteristics of wool. I should like to see much more being done to enhance that and to have it introduced into children's clothing and other areas. Many years ago I came across a bolt of cloth, which I think originated in the United Kingdom, which was a mixture of fine Australian wool and Indian silk. It was magnificent material. There is a lot of future to be gained for Australia by looking at some sort of joint venture, perhaps in India. There are many parts of India which would lend themselves admirably to the processing of wool. We may do very well to look at that area. Another area that must be addressed is research into public relations. The profusion of ill-informed groups in the urban areas that proliferate into such things as `Save the Kangaroo' committees and animal welfare leagues is imposing an increasing cost and worry on the industry. My office has been inundated with mail from some of these absolutely ignorant urban people who do not begin to understand the problems. I have seen such things as the demand for the cessation of mulesing. I can remember when that was introduced and I have seen sheep squirming from the effects of maggots. I imagine that dying from the effects of maggots is not a very pleasant way to die. Whilst being crutched is initially painful, it is easy to see that sheep get over it relatively quickly and it endows them with a resistance which would not otherwise be obtained. Similarly with the `Save the Kangaroo' people. The kangaroo poses a serious threat to pasture regeneration in some areas. There is little point in the pastoralist destocking his land, taking sheep off it, if it is to be inundated with kangaroos. Of course, if he takes off the sheep, the land gets enhanced growth and it immediately becomes attractive to kangaroos. Along with my brother, I was involved with the last great pastoral development that Australia will ever see-the opening of the Nullarbor. When we went to the Nullarbor in 1960, there were no kangaroos there. There were no kangaroos simply because there was no surface water. In good seasons one would get a few reds, but basically it was an area denuded of kangaroos. Incidentally, for the same historic reason, there were never any Aboriginals there, because there was no surface water. However, with the provision of surface water today, kangaroos abound on the Nullarbor. They are there in profusion. It is a clear indication of how man, by improving the environment, has made it more inhabitable by the kangaroo. I think that it would be true to say that there are more kangaroos in Australia today than there have ever been at any time in history. It is just sheer nonsense and hypocrisy for many of these people to engage in the propaganda that they do. It is a very well organised campaign. One of my own staff members who was in Germany recently visited an ideal homes exhibition in Bremen. He said that the most elaborate stall there was a stall manned by `Save the Kangaroo' people who were handing out some outrageous propaganda which was well prepared and written, of course, in German. (Quorum formed) After having recovered from the rather unnecessary interruption of a quorum being called, I pay tribute to the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). He alone of all National Party members has shown enough interest to come into the chamber while we are debating this very important Bill affecting the wool industry. Before the interruption of the debate, I was addressing the area of productivity. Productivity is an all-encompassing facet of the industry. I believe that some of the funds we are talking about should be directed towards areas which, on the surface, seem to have only a peripheral value. I give an example of that. I refer to the property my brother and I have on the Nullarbor. My brother has recently introduced a method of pumping water. Because he is faced with having to pump water considerable distances, in excess of 400 feet, he has done away with the old method of pumping and has replaced the old pump jacks and windmills with electric alternators and three-phase turbine pumps. The capital cost is about equivalent, but he has cut his running costs enormously. He has reduced his diesel costs by about 75 per cent because he can now get out large quantities of water very quickly. The maintenance of this sort of equipment is far less costly than maintenance of the traditional equipment, merely because the wear and tear is so much less. There are other areas we must look at. I believe that we must very seriously consider changing the legislation in some parts of Australia today which precludes the running of goats in certain areas of the country. The irrefutable evidence is that one can increase the productivity of one's land, particularly pastoral land, by the admixture of goats with one's flock. If the goats are properly managed they are no harder to handle than sheep and, from my experience, much easier to fence than certain English breeds. Goats tend to be top feeders and tend, not to put additional pressure on the country, but to increase its productivity, therefore making the whole enterprise more viable. I have urged the State authorities in Western Australia to look very closely at this proposal. I believe that the situation is the same in South Australia. China is going to be enormously important to the Australian wool industry. I was very depressed to find, at certain meetings of grower organisations recently, that motions were put forward-and in some cases passed-to ban the sale of Australian merinos. There is nothing unique about the Australian merino. If we do not sell to China the genetic capability that we have, China will acquire it in any case. They could duplicate it, using the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or South Africa. In any case, there is no ban on crossbred sheep. In these days of embryo transplants, it will be worth China's while to procure by that method the entry of the merino genes they desire. I do not believe that China poses any threat to Australia in this area. Australia has a unique climate which has enhanced, to a very large degree, our capacity to produce wool and to be the world leader in wool production. China has a rapidly rising standard of living. This, incidentally, is causing some problems for the Chinese Government, as China is seeking to buy imports. The problem could be seen as being in some ways analagous to that of Australia. One of the things the Chinese will buy with their enhanced affluence is woollen products. There is no way that China can supply that market. It will continue to import vast quantities of woollen products from Australia. I suggest that, rather than banning the sale of merinos, it would be much better to allow their sale, but to tax them. The tax revenue could be applied directly to research and development in the wool industry. The benefits would flow not only to the stud breeders of the country but also to the industry generally. It is only fair that the industry generally should receive a benefit. I certainly advocate that we consider the possibility of allowing the open sale of all merinos to China but applying a tax to their sale. I believe that the market in China would stand the enhanced price because of the reputation of our sheep and could add significantly to the funds available for research and development. Another area we need to look at when considering the whole of primary industry is the cost of power. With the advent of amorphous silicone cell technology, we will very rapidly see the ability to supply a lot of the required farm power by the means of solar energy. The time is coming when we will see a movement, particularly in the remote areas of this country, towards the use of electrical vehicles. It is a field in which I believe Australia could be the world leader. It is an area we should be looking at now because we have the demand. If we established the field now we could be world leaders in it. The idea that we are not competitive in the world is in many ways no longer true. I might add that at a conference recently I said to a pastoralist: `If, for instance, we were to abolish totally the import duty on all motor bikes, how many extra motor bikes do you think you would buy?' He said to me: `I cannot say, but I would certainly look at replacing all the ones I have'. I was able to reply, `I am very happy for you; you can go into it immediately because there is no import duty on motor bikes'. However, that does not mean that motor bikes are cheap. Mr Ian Cameron —What about sales tax? Mr CAMPBELL —Sales tax is a different thing. It does not mean that motor bikes are cheap. Farmers do not pay sales tax on motor bikes unless they come from Queensland, perhaps. The market system, the free enterprise system, works to maximise price and to charge what the market will bear. Whilst there is no import duty on Japanese motor bikes, the Japanese have simply priced up their bikes to what the market will bear. This has to be borne in mind when the advocates of a total abolition of tariffs take the field. Unless some countervailing force is in place, the price of a product will simply be priced up. The other fact that has to be taken into account when people consider this area is that if, in abolishing tariffs, one increases unemployment, that cost will be borne by the productive sector. I am aware of the problems that now face the rural sector. I am particularly aware of them in Western Australia, where I believe the situation is currently the worst. I believe that those problems will move east during the coming year and will have to be addressed. I believe that the problems can be addressed if there is good will on all sides and if some of the farmer organisations forgo their political bias and look at things in a more rational way. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.09) —It is my pleasure this evening to speak on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1986. We will support the Bill because it is a revamping of the old wool research development committees that were established under the old wool Bills. They are being rearranged, in a different manner I guess, but with practically the same result. I support some of the comments made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I believe that his comments on kangaroos were very appropriate. We have had enormous plagues of kangaroos in the pastoral and wool growing areas of Queensland, around Charleville, Roma and Longreach. Eventually we were successful in coming to an agreement with the Federal National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service in setting up a committee of scientific people to look at monitoring the kangaroo and coming to some agreement, hopefully, as to how they might arrive at a rough population figure so that a quota system can continue to apply. Unfortunately, we do have to go out and destroy kangaroos somehow or other. It has been done over the years by poisoning them or by indiscriminately shooting them. We in the industry prefer to see a professional destroy them. The professionals do it well and they help to control the kangaroo numbers that way. As the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said, as the years have gone by kangaroos have been allowed to breed in enormous numbers. This has mainly been brought about because the dingo has been kept under control in a lot of these areas, scrubs across Australia have been cleared to make way for grasses and graziers have tapped the Great Australian Artesian Basin, which has laid on water for the kangaroos which they did not have in years gone by. They have much greener pastures to graze, much easier going and they are able to breed that much easier. The result is that after a run of good seasons we have a plague on our hands. I support comments of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and also thank the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the work he and his officers have done and their involvement with the kangaroo problem. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has been, I believe, very helpful in the arrangements that he has eventually been able to come to after much negotiation with the Queensland Government to see if some sensible conclusion could be reached on the kangaroo problem. I only hope that the mad greenie extremist element sees some sense in what the Government is trying to do and does not disrupt the export and primary industries. All graziers are conservationists of a kind because we work and live with animals. We do not want to see kangaroos wiped out entirely. We are breeders of animals. The kangaroos breed and become oversupplied like any paddock full of sheep. Obviously if one puts 100 sheep in a paddock one cannot wait until there are 5,000, so each year one has to turn off a proportion of them. That is what happens and the same thing happens with the kangaroo. I always say to conservationists that, if there were so few kangaroos around, we would not be able to have a quota and kill some each year because there just would not be the base stock left. In Queensland we have been able to take a million or more kangaroos from the base stock each year and we continue to be able to do that. Most shooters and graziers know that there are more kangaroos around than there ever were. That just establishes my point that they continue to survive and breed very well. The sheep industry is also continuing to increase in numbers. In the 1950s and 1960s there were 180 million sheep in Australia but that was gradually whittled down. There are now roughly 130 million sheep and they are increasing up to 140 million. I listened to some of the points made on trade with China. My wife and I recently had a most interesting visit to China. I have made many good friends with the Chinese people here at the embassy. We are keen to do trade with China. I am reluctant to export merino sheep to China. I think it is a unique product that we have been able to build up here in Australia over the years and one wonders whether we should give away our secrets, so to speak, as the best merinos in the world are Australian merinos. A tremendous amount of work and effort has been put into bringing them to the stage where they are. One wonders whether we should just put them in a container and ship them to somebody as he would have it easy and would not have to go to the enormous trouble that the merino breeders here in Australia have gone through, not only over a few years but over generations. Most of the families breeding merinos have been at it for generations and they have built up a tremendous industry. Australia still rides of the sheep's back, so to speak, although not quite as strongly as it used to. It still relies very much on exports. One only has to see what has happened in the last few months with the balance of trade situation. The balance of trade has never been as bad as it is right now with the Hawke Labor socialist Government in office. We have a gross deterioration of the balance of trade. We have imports pouring in. I believe that it is high time that Treasurer Keating looked at restricting imports. That is the only way we are going to get out of our problem. If the Government thinks it can hold the dollar up artificially to the 70 cents it is trying to hold it at and not allow the dollar to drop down to its real value of about 60 cents, it will have to restrict the importation of goods to come anywhere near a balance in the trade budget. We have an enormous task ahead of us here in Australia producing goods that we can compete in with the rest of the world with an ever spiralling wage structure and ever increasing costs imposed by the Government, ever increasing taxation and ever increasing fuel prices that the people in rural Australia and the people producing wool have to put up with. It is very, very difficult and it is increasingly more difficult under our terms of production for us to trade with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, our standard of living is falling. We are now about eighteenth or twentieth in the free world. Once upon a time we were first. In the 1880s Australia had the golden wool era and in those boom days Australia had the highest standard of living in the world. Today it is placed about eighteenth or twentieth and it continues to rapidly decline. It is a very sad situation we are getting ourselves into. Producers of raw products like wool are being continually penalised by the Government and those sitting around doing nothing much are getting all the handouts. The productive sector of this country is fed up and sick to death of supporting the unproductive sector. We have had enough. I believe that the rallies that the farmers and woolgrowers have organised outside this place have been proof of that. They have had enough. They are only asking for a fair go. We are sick to death of propping up an ever increasing bureaucratic public service and propping up government expenditure handouts. I congratulate the honourable member for Kalgoorlie as he had a win on land rights. We do not go around knocking Aborigines but I must say that I have never supported the land rights movement. It was kicked off in the Northern Territory and amongst the pastoralists there it has been an absolute disaster. Aborigines have walked off pastoral properties throughout Australia and now sit on their backsides on reserves around Australia totally dependent on handouts. That is a very sad situation and I do not support it. I do not believe we are any better off now than we ever were because these people just sit around and just wait from one week to the next to get a cheque from the Federal or State Government to keep themselves going. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I hope the honourable member will try to relate this to the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —There is a lot of wool produced in a lot of these areas, particularly in Western Australia where this issue has been very much to the fore. Land rights were to be applied across Australia to other States. We have always been totally opposed to it in Queensland. The pastoral industry in particular is totally opposed to any land rights legislation. Getting back to the Bill, there are to be changes in the wool industry. In respect of the Wool Research and Development Council, there is to be a Chairman appointed by the Minister from a list of at least two Australian Wool Corporation nominees, four persons selected by the AWC Council and four persons selected by the Industry Selection Committee. The Corporation will be empowered to enter into joint ventures. This situation applies to most of the other primary industries that have been revamped by the Minister in a corporate-type structure. In the Bill the Wool Research Trust Fund, at present administered by the Department of Primary Industry, will be replaced with a Wool Research and Development Fund vested in and maintained by the Australian Wool Council. The Wool Research and Development Fund will be funded by industry contributions. The Bill does not provide for a continuation of the special agreements. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will be considered along with other applicants for the moneys that will be available. The wool industry was one of the first industries to levy itself to help with research. Sir William Gunn was the innovator in this area. He no longer resides in Maranoa but his family still lives in the Goondiwindi area. There are many Gunns in the area in which I live. I know Sir William personally. He has done a tremendous job for the wool industry. Without the levies that those in the industry were prepared to impose upon themselves and the millions of dollars they collected to use in promotions against synthetics, we would have seen the wool industry practically die out in Australia. But it successfully recovered. Natural products are always the best products to use. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you are wearing a wool suit, woollen socks and underpants, and even a wool shirt. It is not often that we get the opportunity to promote our products but it is important that we try to wear Australian wool suits whenever possible. Wool makes the best cloth in the world. We have seen record prices paid lately by Italian wool spinners and the Japanese who are very keen to compete against one another to buy the very best wool that is produced in Tasmania, in Stanthorpe in my electorate and in New South Wales. It is important for us to continue to produce a quality product. This Bill is concerned with establishing committees of wool growers and others involved in the wool industry to see that proper research and promotion is carried out. A high level of research is very important for the future profitability of the industry. The Wool Research Trust Fund is the largest in Australia. Its 1985-86 budget was $25m with $44m in reserve. The AWC and the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council support the Government's proposals. The stockpile presently held by the AWC has declined from 1.6 million to 1 million bales. It is still quite a significant stockpile-approximately 30 per cent of wool produced. Australia produces roughly three million bales of wool a year. The reserve price scheme which continues to operate is supported by growers. It seems to be reasonably successful. Wool growers have been experiencing declining trade in real terms over the past 20 or 30 years. Current prices are just above those during the 1970-71 crisis and are broadly equivalent to those at the turn of the century. In real terms the price of wool has not gone up much at all. Wool growers continue to face enormous costs in producing their product. Unfortunately, farm costs have been important inputs. They continue to climb. I notice that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is at the table. The Industries Assistance Commission received a submission on textiles, clothing and footwear. It said that the effect of removing all forms of manufacturing assistance would be to increase wool production by 5 per cent and employment in pastoral, wheat, sheep and high rainfall regions by more than 10 per cent. The rates of return in the pastoral zone would increase by 38 per cent, in the wheat and sheep zone by 48 per cent and in the high rainfall zone by 92 per cent. Growers are contributing 2.5 per cent of gross proceeds to wool promotion, with another one per cent being used through the Wool Industry Act. The volume of wool shorn last year was 727 million kilograms-8 per cent higher than in 1983-84. I mention the fact that the Chinese market is very important to us in the wool industry. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie mentioned motor bikes. It is true that the Japanese also buy a lot of wool from us. It is important that we buy something from them. All trade is a two-way show. It is very seldom that any country gets too far out of balance in trading with another. If we expect the Chinese, the Japanese or whoever to buy our product we have to take some of their product. It is as simple as that. They will not buy too much from us unless we reciprocate. The research area also includes production research. Total wool consumption in Australia was 35 million kilograms. For carpets it was 22 million kilograms, for apparel 10 million kilograms and in other areas 3 million kilograms. Production research in 1984-85 cost $3.8m. Harvesting of wool research cost $2.1m and other research cost $1.7m. Textile research cost $6.9m-a very high figure. Economic research cost half a million dollars. In 1985 the Australian Wool Corporation had 186 wool stores, equivalent to about one million square metres of space. Wool stores are used to store wool. With the reserve price plan over one million bales have to be kept in store continuously. They are put in and out of auction to try to get a better price. I would like to mention that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) visited us last weekend at the Jondaryan woolshed. Local people are interested in establishing a wool history centre there. It is a tremendous old woolshed of 40 stands with auxiliary working equipment and steam engines. Wheels and carts are made there. There are bullock teams and sheep are shorn each day for visitors. I certainly support that concept for our bicentenary year. I hope that the Government sees fit to help them establish a wool history centre, apart from restoring the building. Not much history is kept in inland Australia. It is important for us in the 200th year of our history which is coming up to make a tremendous endeavour to keep and restore all the history associated with the great wool industry in Australia. It founded this nation. We have gone from strength to strength as the wool industry has prospered. I would like to congratulate all the people on the committee of the Jondaryan woolshed and those involved in looking into the future and endeavouring to establish some wool history. I hope that they are very successful. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill before the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.38) —I am proud to conclude the Opposition's participation in this debate on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. I am pleased to follow the Deputy Leader of the National Party and Opposition spokesman on primary industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), and to state as he has that there is no industry in Australia as characteristically Australian as is the Australian wool industry. This industry stands alone. It stands without protection and as a major exporter it carries much of the tariff burden that the rest of Australia lumps on to our export industries. I was a little bemused in the chamber earlier to hear the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) accuse the Opposition of having too little interest in this Bill because of the number of members of the Opposition who were then in the chamber. One must boomerang that statement back to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the Government. If the honourable member for Kalgoorlie chooses to use that sort of tactic in the chamber we might well ask now: `Where is the Government when this Bill which the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said is so very important is being debated?'. In fact, the Government benches are empty but for the presence of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). One must be proud of what the Australian wool industry has achieved in almost 200 years of participation in the nation. As I said, this industry carries the tariff burden lumped on it by protected industries. This is an industry that directly carries the tariff burden that is currently levelled at assisting its major competitors in the textile and clothing areas. If Australia rides on the sheep's back, we could well be asking ourselves today how it is that the sheep manage to stand at all. Indeed, if the animal liberationists want to look at an area of cruelty, they might look at the burden currently being carried by the sheep of Australia as they participate, as it were, in the wool industry. The wool industry in Australia has a proud production record. I was interested to note that, in 1797, the first Spanish merinos arrived in Australia and that, in 1980, 14 per cent of the world's woolled sheep were in this nation. But with only 14 per cent of the world's woolled sheep, Australia produces 27 per cent of the greasy wool of the world and 37 per cent of the apparel wool. Almost half of the total wool in the world international market came from the 14 per cent of the world's woolled sheep in Australia. That speaks volumes for the research and development that has been a part of the Australian wool industry, and that is in fact what this Bill is about. Our nation has prided itself on growing quality woollen products. This nation to which we belong was one of the three founding members of the International Wool Secretariat when it was set up in 1937. The role of that Secretariat has been the generic promotion of wool and support for the wool mark and the wool blend mark. The Bill before the House and currently attracting debate enhances the research and development program in which the Australian wool industry and Australian wool growers can participate. It is worth remembering that the wool growers of Australia have historically contributed to a Wool Research Trust Fund by contributing 0.5 per cent of the value of their wool clip. As the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) said, in 1985-86 the Australian Wool Research Trust Fund had, as a result of the generosity of the wool growers of Australia and the Government, a budget of $25m and reserves in hand of $44m. The research and development of the Australian wool industry has largely been as a result of the impetus of Australian wool growers. Australian wool growers have developed the Australian wool industry not only by their contribution to research and development through the Australian Wool Research Trust Fund but also by the observations that they have made in the paddock and by the breeding programs that they have individually implemented. They have supported it by the sorts of initiatives that have allowed the development of micron measurement so that we can now calculate more accurately what is a fine fleece instead of relying purely on eyesight assessment. We can look at what wool growers are doing in the area of research and development. I was interested in, and I thought it timely, a report in the Advertiser, the South Australian newspaper, of this day that a new centre is to be established in the mid-north of South Australia to provide a further boost for the merino sheep industry. Of course, not surprisingly, this centre is being established at Burra which is almost at the heart of the electorate of Wakefield. Announced today is the fact that the owner of the Collinsville stud, Mr Neil Garnett, has established at Stud Park, near Mount Bryan, north of Burra, a centre which will allow him to focus even more closely on the initiative that he would like Collinsville to take in leading merino sheep breeding in Australia. Mr Garnett is reported as saying: By selecting semen from our very best sires and monitoring their performance-- that is, through the centre that he has established-- we are making a major contribution to ensuring wool producers stay in business and weather the current economic crisis. That is an example to hand of the sorts of initiatives that the industry is taking of its own volition in order to remain at the head of wool production in the world. The Bill before the House completes a trilogy of research Bills that this Government has introduced and that the Opposition has been pleased to support. The first of the Bills was the Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985 and the second the Rural Industries Research Act of 1985 which allowed a number of associated rural industries to be involved in research and to have the Government assist in the funding of that research. Today we are debating the Wool Industry Amendment Bill which allows the wool industry to be brought into line with the other major and minor rural industries to ensure that all rural research is funded in a similar fashion. The Bill has two principal purposes. It sets up the Wool Research and Development Council and empowers the Australian Wool Corporation to enter into joint ventures and arrange patents wherever particular initiatives are successful in the area of research and development in the wool industry. As has been said by previous speakers, the Wool Council of Australia will draw up a five-year strategic plan to recommend projects to the Wool Corporation and then to monitor research and development. The importance historically of research in the wool industry has been outlined. As recently as the National Agricultural Outlook Conference in February of this year, a former Chairman of the then Australian Wool Board, Sir William Gunn, said that for every dollar that one puts into promotion one gets back two dollars. He was effectively recommending implementation of the action that we are taking in the House this evening. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), at the same conference Mr David Asimus, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, said that one of the major problems that he was facing was that the depreciation of the Australian dollar had had a devastating impact on funds for wool promotion and funds to the International Wool Secretariat. We can all understand the implication of a devaluation on the funds available to the Secretariat. In fact, Mr Asimus said that, for 1985-86, depreciation of the Australian dollar would mean a deficit of $14m. For 1986-87, estimates were that the deficit would be $30m to $35m. I make this point because I think it clearly illustrates that, while the Government has been anxious to applaud the floating of the dollar as one of the initiatives that have been of major assistance to wool growers, what is often forgotten is that complications have also been caused by the floating of the dollar; complications in the funding of the International Wool Secretariat ably illustrate that fact. The Bill has been widely discussed by preceding speakers and I do not want to repeat any of the informed comments that have been made by the honourable members for Gwydir, Forrest (Mr Drummond), Wannon and Maranoa. But I do feel that, in my concluding remarks, I ought to pick up the points made by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) when they referred to the need for research in the Australian wool industry and pointed individually to the importance of taking steps to combat fleece rot, foot rot and fly strike. I have to say to the honourable members for Hunter, Kalgoorlie and Eden-Monaro that it is all very well to come into the chamber and suggest that there is need for research in the area of fly strike. What is most needed is that those honourable members take heed of the very devastating comments being made by their comrades in the animal liberation movement. I point out that the major way to combat fly strike in Australia is still the mulesing operation which is at risk because of the sorts of noises being made by members of the animal liberation movement and not checked by the honourable members for Hunter and Eden-Monaro. I must confess that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie was very constructive in his remarks. There is no one in this House who would pretend that the operation of mulesing is a comfortable operation. I must stress that there is not a grazier in any of the electorates represented here who enjoys the operation. I make no bones about the fact that I would be very reluctant to bare my buttocks to be mulesed even by the attractive Ms Townsend from the animal liberation movement-reluctant, that is, unless it were that the only alternative would be fly strike. There are too few people who appreciate that fly strike is the eating of live flesh by maggots. They are not aware that it kills sheep, and mulesing remains the most effective method of controlling that most uncomfortable way of dying. As was said in the chamber earlier this afternoon, much of what happens in research and development in the wool industry is the result of the wool growers of Australia being prepared to contribute in the past 0.5 per cent of the value of their wool clip towards wool research and development. This research has kept the Australian wool industry in front in the world wool scene in spite of falling farm numbers. The Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council rural policy of September 1977 reports: About 336,000 people were directly employed in agriculture in 1975-76, compared with 468,000 in 1953-54. In 23 years the rural workforce has fallen by 30 per cent and 132,000 people have been displaced. This is equivalent to a loss of 110 people per week for 23 years. In spite of this astonishing loss of people available to work in the rural industry, the Wool Council of Australia and the wool growers of Australia have continued to see that Australia leads the wool scene by being active in research and development. This job loss does not exist simply because there is not work to be done on the farm, but because the wage fixing structure we currently use ensures that people cannot afford to have employees on the farm. There are wool growers across my electorate and across the electorates of Wannon and Maranoa with work to be done but they cannot afford to employ people to do it. While that is the case, the wool growers have been able to survive only by being increasingly productive as a result of the work undertaken in the research and development areas of the wool industry. The aims of the Bill before the House, as stated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his second reading speech, are, firstly, to identify more precisely areas of wool research and development relevant to the needs of the wool industry; secondly, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of wool research and development; thirdly, to encourage the more effective use of resources and skills of the community in general and the scientific community in particular in wool research and development; and fourthly, to improve the accountability for expenditure on wool research and development activities. These aims are very noble; these words all sound good. But such words and this Bill will achieve little for the wool growers of Australia unless we see some sort of change in Government attitude which ensures that the wool growers can both employ labour in a more flexible labour market and be able to produce wool without the present excessive tariff burden that they are carrying as exporters on behalf of much of the productive industry of Australia. In a submission to the Industries Assistance Commission the Wool Council said that the research it had undertaken indicated that decreasing the tariff burden currently being carried by wool growers could increase wool industry exports by 2 per cent, worth over $50m per annum, and wool output by 10 million kilograms a year. Were there a reduction in the tariff burden currently being carried by wool growers in Australia it would be fair to expect an increased rate of return of eight per cent in the pastoral zone, 10 per cent in the wheat-sheep zone and up to 20 per cent in the high rainfall zones of agricultural Australia. These Bills have much to commend them but a change in Government attitude will be necessary if the wool growers of Australia are to enjoy the sort of return on investment they deserve. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.56) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 8, page 4, lines 33 to 37, omit proposed sub-section 14 (4). (2) Clause 10, page 5, lines 22 to 25, omit proposed sub-section (4C). (3) Clause 16, page 23, lines 15 to 18, omit proposed sub-section 70 (5). The Wool Industry Amendment Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 12 February 1986. Proposed sub-sections 14 (4), 21 (4C) and 70 (5) were inserted to achieve the result that full time public servants serving with statutory authorities set up under the Wool Industry Act 1972 would be paid their non-annual allowances, such as travelling allowances, out of the funds of the Australian Wool Corporation and not out of Consolidated Revenue. The proposed sub-sections were inserted on the understanding that, unless they were inserted, sub-section 7 (11) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 would operate to prevent the payment of such allowances out of the Corporation's funds. It has been discovered that this understanding of the operation of sub-section 7 (11) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 is not correct and as a result the proposed sub-sections should be omitted. The amendments have no financial implications. The first amendment provides for the omission of sub-section 14 (4) of the Bill, which relates to the Government member of the Australian Wool Corporation or his deputy; the second amendment provides for the omission of sub-section 21 (4C), which relates to the Government member of committees established by the Australian Wool Corporation; and the third amendment provides for the omission of sub-section 70 (5), which relates to the Government member of the proposed Wool Research and Development Council. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.49) —The Opposition does not oppose the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill. It is a Bill of brief and largely technical import. It improves certain administrative arrangements and deals with matters which are of an uncontentious nature. Amongst other things, it provides that where a police dog is under the control of a police dog handler, that dog may lawfully be in a place where it is lawful for the handler to be. Very few people would deny that that is a sensible state of affairs; after all, it would be pretty silly if the person who handles the dog and is using the dog for police purposes were unable to take the dog with him. Whether one would be brave enough to try to keep out a police dog under the control of a police handler is another matter. We do not believe that a great deal needs to be said about the Bill itself. However, we do think that a great deal needs to be said about the war against organised crime which is being fought in this country, or which we believe should be fought in this country, and the war against ordinary crime, traditional crime, which affects the entire spectrum of Australian society because society as a whole is under threat. We all know that crime pays well. The drug trade is the most notorious, the most profitable and the most destructive area of organised crime. It does special grievous and irremediable damage especially to the young. Drug users are condemned to misery, dependence, squalor and frequently death. We all know of other manifestations of organised crime in this country and video piracy is one example. Little attention is paid to it but sources in the video industry estimate that the criminal sector gets up to 20 per cent of the Australian industry share which is estimated to bring up to $30m in revenue a year. If one wants to look at old fashioned crime, good straightforward breaking and entering, one should look at the latest report of the Australian Federal Police. Some 2,965 offences were reported of which 375 were cleared up; $1,790,000 was estimated to be the value of stolen property and $135,000 was recovered, or, in round terms, just over 10 per cent of the offences were cleared up and less than 10 per cent of the value of stolen property was recovered. Therefore, crime is a low risk, high return, gold-plated investment in this country. However, we in the Opposition are glad to see that the Government is awake to this problem. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in a speech made on 1 October 1985 to the National Conference of the Australian Federal Police Association had this to say: In 1979, when the Act establishing the AFP was drawn up, we did not have before us the reports of the various inquiries which changed the perception of crime in this country. The reports of the Stewart, McCabe-Lafranchi, Moffitt, Williams, Woodward and Costigan inquiries, delivered in the 1970's and 1980's, showed that crime in Australia was not a small pocket of criminal activity removed from the mainstream. It was a complex web of crime spread inside and outside Australia, cutting across social classes and professions on a scale previously unthought of. The criminal growth industries identified by the reports included drug trafficking on a vast scale, and significant fraud on government revenue through tax evasion. The reports also showed that crimes and criminals were becoming increasingly sophisticated. The Special Minister of State also said: The revelations on the extent and gravity of crime in Australia created a new set of priorities for Federal law enforcement. I emphasise the words `a new set of priorities for Federal law enforcement'. He returned to this theme in a Press release of 14 November last year when he said that a long term plan was necessary to deal with drug trafficking. Nobody could quarrel with that proposition but why was it three years or so before the Government came to this conclusion and where is that long term plan? The Special Minister of State also said that he had asked the Australian Federal Police Commissioner: . . . to advise me meanwhile-- that is while the long term plan is being worked out, if I understand him correctly- if in the short term there is scope for reallocation of resources so that more skilled personnel can be directed to drug investigations. I do not know what the answer was to that request. Mr Young —I will tell you. Mr SPENDER —The Special Minister of State says that he will tell us. We know that the Government has made some additional resources available but the resources which have been made available are meagre compared with the need this country faces. Where is the long term plan? Perhaps the Minister can tell us today what is that long term plan. The Special Minister of State has identified two priorities and I again refer to his speech of 21 May in which he said that at the top of the list is the fight against drug trafficking and I would agree with him. He also said that the first priority is to attack the demand for drugs and the second priority is the fight against organised crime. I am not here to quarrel with how one should put those priorities. They are both of great importance. Of course it is essential to try to attack the demand for drugs, something which this Government sought to do so it would have the Australian public believe, by having the drug summit. All of us here know that despite what has been said about the allocation of resources, we have an immense distance to go in that area. What of the second priority-the fight against organised crime? It is not a fight we are concerned about; it is a war for the survival of a decent society, for the protection of the young, for the security of our families and homes, for freedom from fear in the streets and for the integrity of the very institutions on which the criminal justice system is based. If criminals continue to win the war as they have been, as they now are and as they would appear to be likely to do in the foreseeable future, the very institutions on which the administration of justice and the detection of crime depend will be in jeopardy. We all know that that is so. We all know that there comes a time when the level of crime becomes so prevalent, when detection is so random and so small that everything starts to break down. By that I simply mean the legal system, the criminal system, the police system and morale within the system. If one asks any householder, particularly someone who lives in a less well-off area, whether we are concerned he will tell of his own experiences. What is the prospect, whether one is in Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne, of recovering what has been stolen or of detecting the offenders? On the basis of the Australian Capital Territory statistics it would be about one in 10 and that figure would be pretty much the national average. Some States would have better figures but that is not a bad average. Actually it is an appalling average but it is not a bad indicator of the malaise which afflicts our society. We are not simply concerned about organised crime. Organised crime is the vogue term for what is no more than crime which is carried on according to the opportunities of the day. All that has happened is that criminals have moved into new areas. Just as they moved when there was prohibition in the United States, so they have moved into drugs in a way which was unthought of 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Indeed it was probably unthought of by most people until the revelations to which the Minister referred of the various inquiries which we have had into organised crime, particularly drug trafficking. The Government response has been to allocate some resources. There is no denying that but the resources are meagre compared with the needs. The Government has been in power for three years. It had before it a great volume of material from investigations in this country when it came to power and it had before it a great volume of material from overseas so it was not a question of being greeted with a surprise. What is the position? Let me quote from the 1984-85 annual report of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. He talked of scarce AFP resources, and stated that the shortage of manpower and funds remained his major concern. He spoke of a diversion of resources to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Crime Authority which has resulted in the national fight against crime being fragmented. He says that crime is costing the nation dearly already and unless the needs of policing in Australia are recognised and effective police counter measures initiated the loss to our nation will be incalculable. He says that a band-aid approach to the problem must not continue or the Australian Federal Police will not be able to develop a preventive as well as a reactive capability. Let me repeat those two phrases. He said that `the loss to our nation will be incalculable' and `a band-aid approach to the problem must not continue'. This is from the Commissioner, who is expressing himself, no doubt, in restrained language-language which one would think would conceal the real depth of his apprehension and his feelings as he is saying what he is saying in a public report. But what he is saying about this Government is that its approach to the problem has been a band-aid one and that that is the case after three years. No doubt the Government will defend its record. But what does the Government say about the Commissioner's report? It certainly would not say that he is wrong when he says that the loss to our nation will be incalculable unless the needs of policing in Australia are recognised and effective police counter measures initiated. Nobody could quarrel with that proposition. We all know the problem that organised and traditional crime presents to this country. Thus far we have seen a government devoid of imagination, direction, a sense of urgency or overall purpose. We have seen little evidence of any plan to deal with the vast problems of organised crime. We have a National Crime Authority which has been established and which, in many respects, is similar to the one which was moved in the era of the Fraser Government but which has, amongst its other disabilities, the inhibition imposed on it that it cannot exercise its inquisitorial powers without the consent of the relevant ministerial committee. We know that that Authority is there. We all hope that it does great work. It can never substitute for the traditional branch of the law enforcement authorities for the very good reason that it is not set up for that purpose. It is not staffed for that purpose and, if it were to try to take over their roles, it would amount to the imposition of a giant and separate police force on this country. But that is not its purpose; so we are not concerned with that. We come back to what this Government can do in the area of traditional law enforcement and in the area of legislative initiatives. Let me put a few initiatives to the Minister for his consideration, and I hope that he will give them thoughtful examination. I do not necessarily expect an answer to each one of them now but I believe that the people of Australia are justified in asking governments throughout this country and, in particular, the Federal Government: `Just what are you doing? Just what is the answer? Are we incapable? Have we reached a stage where the criminals will remain beyond the reach of the law?' I am talking not about murders-if one is going to be murdered the odds are that one will be murdered by somebody one knows and detection is somewhat easier-but about the kinds of figures I referred to earlier-property matters, breaking and entering, theft and, of course, that huge subterranean area of organised crime. We simply do not know the extent of it but we do know that it is vast and of immense danger to this country. Let me put forward a few initiatives for the Minister's consideration. First, let me take up what he said in a speech on 21 May 1985 in a ministerial statement entitled `The Government's Response to the Costigan Royal Commission', which had been given to the Senate in February of that year. I quote from paragraph 43 where he stated: One of the most effective ways of striking at top line criminals is to take away their profits. The Government firmly endorses a multi-pronged approach to wrest illegal gains from criminals and make organised crime unprofitable. We entirely agree with that. He stated later on: The aim is to achieve uniform legislation throughout Australia so that the profits of organised crime will not be safe from confiscation in any jurisdiction and all jurisdictions will have an effective weapon to discourage participation in this kind of . . . activity. When will we see uniform legislation? If we cannot see uniform legislation when will we see legislation in this House? There is an Act of parliament in New South Wales which deals with the confiscation of profits of the proceeds of serious crimes. If we look to the United States of America we see that there is a comprehensive crime control and enforcement Act. The Minister has said that he has been to the United States recently. Has he looked at that? Has he examined what the Americans are doing? What will the Government do about this? What about the forfeiture of collateral profits? What about cheque book journalism? Is it not obvious that people, such as Ronald Biggs, can be paid for their accounts of their crimes? Again let us look to the United States model; it is covered there. We must all ask ourselves: Where crime is really a crime against society, as in the case of major drug trafficking, must we not consider, and consider quickly, whether or not the assets of a convicted person should be entirely confiscated? Mr Young —Should we wait until they are convicted? Mr SPENDER —The Minister interjects and asks whether we should wait until they are convicted. I will put that down to the Minister's Irish sense of humour. Of course we wait until people are convicted. Of course we ensure that they have a fair trial. That is our system. It always has been our system. But we have to ask ourselves: What should be the position? I take again the example of major drug trafficking which is a crime which is really directed against society as a whole. We all know that the purpose of forfeiture is to punish the pockets of those who are engaged in criminal activities, particularly highly organised ones. The Minister will be aware that, on this subject, the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, in his annual report back in 1983-84-it was presented on 7 September 1984 so one can hardly say that the Government has been lacking notice-said: Whilst Australian legislation, both Federal and State, makes provision for `forfeiture of assets' in very limited circumstances there is a clear need for broader legislation which will enable the forfeiture of monies or goods which have been derived from or purchased from the proceeds of defined criminal activities. Is it not about time that this matter was brought before the Parliament by the Minister? It is not about time that the Government stated a policy on matters of this kind? Next, what about the establishment of a crimes victims compensation fund so that there can be restitution for those who are damaged, sometimes appallingly damaged, as a consequence of crime? Once again, a model is to be found in the United States of America. Next, what of the establishment of a drug users rehabilitation fund? Would it not be just that the proceeds that can be traced to trafficking in drugs should be used for the rehabilitation of users, people who have become dependent on drugs? Lastly for the Minister's consideration-again, this is a matter which has been around for a long time and is also covered by United States legislation-what about closing down the business of money laundering? That is of central importance. There is nothing novel in the use of financial institutions to move the proceeds of crime or to transfer those proceeds from suspiciously large sums of cash to disguised and apparently respectable forms of commercial credits. This has been happening on a large scale for decades. For those engaged in organised crime, to launder the proceeds of organised crime is crucial. By this means incriminating evidence is disposed of and the fruits of crime become more readily usable. The problem faced by the criminal laundering money is threefold. He needs access to financial institutions, he needs the use of those institutions to launder money, and that necessarily means that one or more of the officials in the financial institutions selected for a particular transaction would know the details at an initial and crucial stage. The criminal faces the problem that records dealing with transaction will come into existence. What about this problem? When are we to have a response from the Government on this? When are we to have a policy on it? It is not good enough to say that these and other matters are under active consideration. For how many years are they to stay under active consideration-two, three of four years until the Minister, sitting on this side of the table, brings in a private member's Bill in the bicentenary year for the purpose of trying to repair some of the omissions of this Government's term of office? Mr Young —That would be under the third Hawke Labor Government. Mr SPENDER —A third Hawke Labor Government has Buckley's prospects of getting through. Next, and lastly, let us look to sentencing. We can look to sentencing guidelines as a useful reform and to increasing penalties for those who coldly, without pity or remorse, set about destroying the lives of the young. Speaking personally, I do not think that those who engage in drug trafficking, the organisers, are entitled to any pity. I would say that life imprisonment would be a very good answer to the grievous wrongs that they inflict upon the young, and for my part I believe life should mean life. Lastly, I refer to one more speech by the Special Minister of State, who has been alive to these problems for a long time even though the Government's response has been quite pitiful, given the dimensions of the problem. I refer to a speech he made on Thursday 11 April 1985, entitled `Fighting crime in Australia following a moving target'-a nice title. It was given to the Business Labor Lunch at the Townhouse, Adelaide, and contains some great passages. Mr Young —It was a good crowd, too. Mr SPENDER —The Minister tells me that there was a big crowd there. The Minister finished that speech on this both homely and high note: I, like many of you who travel frequently, have often nurtured the concept of how nice it is to return to Adelaide, such a nice quiet city to live in. Let me remind you that organised crime has no respect for State boundaries, or indeed national boundaries. That speech was delivered about a year ago, and the Minister concluded by saying: It is hoped that we can bring this menace under control in the years that lie ahead. History, I believe, would teach us that it would be too much to expect us to be able to conquer the evil. But there is absolutely no excuse now, with the knowledge that we have, for not launching an all out attack on the level of crime in Australia today. Words, nothing but words. There has been no all out attack on the level of crime in this country. It has been paltry, band-aid, hit and miss. This Government has applied rhetoric to a problem which devastates our community. Perhaps the Minister can now reflect upon those words and say at some stage in this debate where the all out attack has come from, or when we can expect to see it. Thus far, it is non-existent. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(6.16) —I am sure that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) would appreciate the reading of part of his speech into the Hansard record. Although the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) made some relevant points that we as a community and as a Parliament have to address, I think that Labor members would like to take issue with the main theme of his address. I refer to his statement that the Government lacks direction and has a band-aid approach to dealing with the police and the problems of criminal activity in this country. After all, this Government has directed great attention and resources towards the Australian Federal Police. First, there was a review of AFP resources in 1985 and there is now under way a five-year resource deployment program. This Government has put more money into the police and has increased police numbers. The figures speak for themselves. The Government's record in this sphere is very good. Over a period of three years there has been an additional intake of 294 staff. In 1984 there was a commitment to spend $17m on recruitment and the upgrading of computer capacity. The AFP's resources have increased by 15 per cent since this Government was elected and in 1987-88 will increase by a further 9 per cent. Annual staffing figures speak for themselves, and I outline them for the interests of the Opposition and the honourable member for North Sydney. In 1979-80 the staffing figure was 1984, in 1984-85 it went up to 2,402, and the projections are that by 1987-88 the number of police will rise to 2,722. That is not a solution to the problem. There is no point in just increasing resources and staffing numbers in the police. One has to look at a whole range of issues. One has to look at the capacity of the police in terms of information and computer systems. The Government has put a great deal of money into those areas. One has also to look at police training and morale in the service. I have a lot to do with the police here in Canberra; I am a great supporter of the AFP. Mr McGauran —They all vote Liberal. Mrs KELLY —Not in my electorate. I do not get 63 per cent of the vote and have the police working against me. I have found they have been great supporters of myself and of the Labor Party in this area. I think that morale is very good in the police here, but this is still a community problem. One cannot blame the Government for all the problems we have in this country in terms of drugs and criminal activity. The Government has to show leadership, but it is a community problem. One has to have leadership and direction and I believe that the Government is providing them, but there must also be police training and promotional opportunities. The problems faced by the police today are very different from what was faced in earlier years. I became aware of that fact when I was a member of the Committee that investigated medical fraud and overservicing. We saw a whole new area for the police to investigate-doctors' frauds, for example, and social security fraud, let alone all the problems in the drug area. Those problems are enormous. We have to look at the training of our police to ensure that they have the facilities available to them to investigate such problems. The sorts of people that are needed in the police force now are so different from those who were needed years ago. The Government is trying to address these problems. But we shall not do that overnight, and I do not think that we could ask any government to address them overnight. We would be the first to admit that there are still problems, but I think that we must at least say that the present Government is at least attempting to address the problems. The Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill deals with some of the issues that are important in relation to police powers and responsibilities. I shall address a few of the amendments to which the Opposition has not really referred. The first is the amendment in the Bill which extends the functions of the police to include the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests, giving members of the Australian Federal Police power to discharge the protective function. At present it has been difficult for the police because it has been unclear whether powers conferred on members of the AFP under section 9 of the principal Act adequately cover the protective function if it is performed outside the Australian Capital Territory and beyond the limits of Commonwealth places in States and the Northern Territory. I welcome that clarification; I hope that Opposition members do so, too. I appreciate some of the comments that have been made to the effect that this amendment could be seen to be increasing the powers of the AFP, but this amendment acts only to formalise existing arrangements. Again, this raises another problem that we, as a community, must address: How much power do we, as a community, want our police to have? That is an issue of civil liberties and the rights of individuals, and the need for us, as a community, to receive protection. Section 8 of the AFP Act sets out the functions of the AFP and describes these as including `the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests'-that is at paragraph 8 (1) (b) (iii). Under this head-no other is available-the AFP provides protective services in relation to persons from time to time considered under threat, including Ministers, very important persons and witnesses. The powers of the AFP are set out in section 9 of the Act. Under section 9 there is no power directly relevant to paragraph 8 (12) (b) (iii), and, as a result, the powers of a member of the AFP operating outside a Commonwealth place have been open to question. An assault or threatened assault upon a protected person outside Commonwealth property would be an offence against State law, but under section 9 AFP members already have the powers of State police but in relation only to the functions described in paragraphs 8(1) (b) (i) and (ii)-the provision of police services in relation to the laws and property of the Commonwealth. The proposed amendment to section 9 would simply extend to the function referred to in paragraph 8 (1) (b) (iii) the power already possessed by the AFP in relation to the functions referred to in the earlier paragraphs, 8 (1) (b), (i) and (ii). I am pleased that the Minister has determined that the police will not have to continue to undertake much of the routine guard work which they have performed in the past. I think that it is most inappropriate for the police to be doing that when they have such great demands on them now for proper policing responsibility. This means now, of course, that these staff will be able to be redirected to areas more appropriate for policing functions such as drug investigation-referred to by the honourable member for North Sydney-and intelligence. I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity to speak here today, because I have had a direct threat made against me over the last week, and I wanted to place on record my thanks to the police for their assistance to me. Last week a threat was made to me in my home. The threat was that certain individuals would act to destroy my house, and there was follow-up action which led me to believe that the threat was serious. I phoned the police immediately, and for the next few days-about five days of last week-my home was patrolled regularly by the police. I place on record my formal thanks to the police for their assistance to me and my family because they helped to bring a little peace of mind to what was an intolerable situation for my family. A further amendment in this legislation deals with the detection of illegal drugs. I am very pleased that the honourable member for North Sydney referred to the problem of illegal drugs. Everyone in our community is concerned. The legislation before us is simple, dealing with the use of police dogs. I will not go into that, but I place on record some of the achievements that the Government has in the drug area. I think that we have all read recently of the success that the Federal Police have had in that area, and I think that we would congratulate the police on their efforts. But so much of this must be done in consultation with State and Territory governments, and we are already spending in excess of $100m over the initial three-year period in a range of issues to deal with the drug problem. It is not just law enforcement measures; it is also research, rehabilitation, drug education and treatment. It is all that package of things that must be addressed if we are to try to deal with the drug problem. Significant resources have also been directed to the National Crime Authority for its fight against organised crime. All this goes together. That Authority has to deal with drug trafficking, and four of the five current NCA references are drug related. Drug trafficking is the AFP's top priority. I appreciate that. I am sure that, as a community, it would be one of our top priorities. The AFP has some 20 liaison officers stationed overseas to tap international intelligence sources and counter the problem before it reaches our borders. One can say that that is not enough. I do not know what number would be enough; probably the number is infinite. But we must look at what resources we have. There is also the question of increasing Customs' capacity to intercept drugs entering Australia. That has been strengthened-$2.76m in 1985-86 and $2.8m in 1986-87. The Government has also drafted model legislation concerning the manufacture, distribution and medical uses of drugs of dependence, diversion for treatment and penal provision, and that has been distributed to State governments for comment. I shall be interested to see what progress is being made on that. That legislation provides for increased penalties for drug trafficking, including a maximum of life imprisonment. Some States have already moved to implement the new legislation. We, as a Federal government, can provide some leadership; but again, this must be done in conjunction with State and Territory governments. Australian officials are also active in the negotiation for a third international drug convention which will focus on agreed measures to combat drug trafficking. So, we must do it at this level, in the Federal government and State level, but also on the international circuit so that we can get some sort of united approach to dealing with drug trafficking. I welcome the other amendments to the Act, including that in regard to the Merit Protection and Review Agency now having responsibility for dealing with appeals. Most of all, I have appreciated this opportunity to make a few positive comments about the role of the police. I think that they are a group of individuals who, individually and collectively, are often criticised. The Government is trying to tackle many of the problems that this community faces, and I think that the police are giving full co-operation. Everyone in this House would want to increase the strength of the police overnight by X amount, but we cannot just do that. We cannot pick good, trained officers out of the air; so it must be a planned approach, such as the five-year approach that the AFP is adopting. Again, I thank the Federal Police for their assistance to me over the last few days. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(6.28) —As the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) says, we cannot just pluck good, trained police officers out of the air. It takes a long time to train them, and it takes a long time to recruit them, and to do that money is needed, and more money is needed than is being directed to the Australian Federal Police and to pretty well all State and Territory police forces. It is a privilege to be speaking on the Opposition side of the House in support of the comprehensive speech made by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who has provided a blueprint to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for the action that he should be taking to effectively administer that sector of his portfolio relating to law enforcement. However, I support the major thrust of these amendments, which I understand will mean that an Australian Federal Police dog handler can take his dog with him anywhere that duty leads. Apparently, at present, law breakers such as drug smugglers can insulate themselves from the attentions of sniffer dogs on a Commonwealth meal ticket by the simple expedient of secreting drugs in an area of an airport or a building where dogs are prohibited from entry. The other provisions of this Bill also seem worthy of support, as they attempt to clear up current anomalies in the powers of Federal policemen and policewomen working interstate and also to correct a number of administrative anomalies which have come to light. As the Federal Government has finally seen fit to unleash the dogs of law against the criminal element, I suggest to this House that the Federal Government also unleash a potentially far more effective deterrent to big time criminal activity; that is, the National Crime Authority. That is not to detract from anything the honourable member for North Sydney has said in relation to the scarcity of police resources. At the time that the establishment of the National Crime Authority was under discussion, as Minister for Police in the Northern Territory I was dead against the establishment of the Authority for a number of reasons. One reason was the possible diversion of financial and other resources from existing police forces to yet another law enforcement body. At that time, and things have not changed appreciably, Australia's State and Territory police forces were crying out for men, money, training and better legislation-we see evidence of that in the report of the Australian Federal Police Commission as recently as last year-to allow them to control the sophisticated and highly organised criminals who in the last ten years or so have rewritten the old adage that crime does not pay. The other reason I opposed the establishment of the NCA was that I believed that it did not have any real teeth. It is with regret that I report to the House that the National Crime Authority was finally set up by this Federal Government with less bite than the police dogs which the passage of this legislation will allow finally to accompany their handlers in the pursuit of villains. Until a decade or so ago, the Australian community regarded organised crime as good entertainment value-something one read about in detective novels imported from America or watched on television as Elliott Ness and his Untouchables battled it out with the Capone mobsters in Chicago. Because this country, its community and its politicians, failed to realise the danger, we now read those high flying crime stories in our daily newspapers instead of in detective novels, and by watching television news bulletins instead of tuning in to late night entertainment programs. The National Crime Authority grew out of the rash of royal commissions and other inquiries into organised crime which became so fashionable in New South Wales and Victoria over the past decade. The final straw was the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union which was set up to investigate the activities of what were thought to be a couple of hamfisted thugs on the waterfront. However, the diligence of Commissioner Costigan led to the exposure of vast criminal networks strangling the social and economic life of this country. It is a known fact that every time politicians are confronted with a seemingly insurmountable problem the answer is a commission of inquiry. When the Costigan inquiry topped off the startling revelations of the Lusher inquiry, the Perrignon inquiry, the Lucas inquiry, the Beach inquiry and the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Federal government of the day decided to set up a standing inquiry to end all inquiries and called it the National Crime Authority. Mr Justice Stewart was appointed to head the NCA. The Fraser Government drafted legislation for the establishment of the National Crime Authority, but lost office before legislation was passed and implemented. It then fell to the Hawke Labor Government to pass its own law and set up its own NCA. That, unfortunately, is just what it has done; it has framed the Act governing the NCA in such a way that it is virtually at the beck and call of political parties at the State and Federal levels. I hasten to add that, whenever political fortunes change, it does not matter which political party is in power. For at least the last 50 years or so royal commissioners in this country have had the power to compel witnesses to answer questions, even though their answers may tend to incriminate them. This device was used at the discretion of the royal commissioner to get at the truth, to help him to see the big picture, as it were, and not for the admissions so gained to be handed over holus bolus to a prosecuting attorney for use against individual witnesses in subsequent legal actions. The highly successful Costigan Commission, the father of the National Crime Authority, used that technique effectively to highlight the existence in Australia of criminal empires which recognised no Federal or State boundary. Yet the investigative agency spawned by the Costigan Commission has no such power. The power to override the privilege against self-incrimination was retained when the Act was passed, but retained in the hands of politicians who happen to be members of the inter-governmental committee which gives the NCA its briefs and judges its reports. In short, it holds the leash on the National Crime Authority. This inter-governmental committee is made up of a Minister of the Commonwealth and a Minister of each State and Territory. The NCA's brief is to investigate only organised crime activity referred to it by a Federal or State government and, although the Commonwealth can instigate investigations as it thinks necessary, State governments can do so only if there is majority approval by the inter-governmental committee. Getting back to the Federal police dog and his freedom of movement, I hope that he fares better under this Government than has the National Crime Authority. If the same rules apply to him, he will go on drug sniffing patrol, missing two legs and with pepper up his nose. That is exactly what has happened to the National Crime Authority. An organisation whose royal commissioner forebears chased crime bosses right back to their boardrooms and sniffed out police corruption, tax evasion and a massive drug trade, has been sent out on the street crippled in both legs and with its nose cut off. The very effective eyes, ears and nose of the NCA have been replaced by a committee of politicians. Commissioner Costigan's effectiveness was his ability and authority to follow the criminal trail wherever it led. Under this Government's legislation, a new line of inquiry, stumbled upon in the course of another investigation, cannot be pursued by the NCA unless the political committee chooses so to authorise. At a time when the criminal element has reached unparalleled heights of sophistication, wealth and power, we have set up a National Crime Authority to combat these people with less powers than an everyday royal commission, hampered by secrecy provisions which can confine the outcome of its investigations to the government Minister who authorised the investigation and answerable to a committee of politicians who may well be playing a party political numbers game to look after their mates in any State administered by people of similar political persuasion. It is not impossible, with the ebb and flow of political fortunes, that Australia's National Crime Authority could wake up one morning to find that it is being ordered around by and answer- able to the very kind of person whom it is supposed to be investigating and who happens to wear a political hat, or at least owns somebody who does. I would like to put on the record a couple of quotations from a book called A Quarter to Midnight by Mr Justice Moffitt who was a Supreme Court judge for 22 years in New South Wales and who conducted one of the first royal commissions into organised crime in Australia in the early 1970s. His book is appropriately subtitled The Australian Crisis: Organised Crime and the Decline of the Institutions of State. Discussing the legislation which governs our National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Moffitt concludes that the Act does not set up a national co-operative authority directed at a common enemy. He says: It provides the framework for a continuation of party political warfare in the field of organised crime. Its structure shows that the dominant party does not trust its opponent parties not to use organised crime infiltrations or allegations of them to attack and damage it. The Authority is not a charter for mutual and consultative action against the common enemy-it is a charter for division and weaknesses, political disputation and allegations of leakings, as in the past, while the enemy continues to live and thrive. As I said at the outset, I agree with the amendments made by this legislation which will allow Federal Police dogs to go where they will in the course of investigations into criminal activity. But I say to the House and to this Government: Give Mr Justice Stewart and Australia's National Crime Authority the same authority you are prepared to give to the dogs and, in so doing, get politicians off the back of those with proven ability to combat the drug traffickers, the corrupters or, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) used to put it, before he learnt better manners, the sleaze-bags within our society. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.40) —The purpose of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill is to further improve the operation and administration of the Australian Federal Police. On 13 April 1978 a report prepared by Sir Robert Mark on the organisation of police resources in the Commonwealth area was tabled in the Federal Parliament. The principal recommendation of the report was the creation of the Australian Federal Police incorporating the then existing Federal police forces-the Australian Capital Territory Police and the Commonwealth Police. In framing his report, Sir Robert Mark highlighted the need to cope with the increasing complexity and volume of terrorist-like acts of violence and crimes against the Commonwealth. Dealing with this problem, Sir Robert Mark said: There is, therefore, no choice but to create a new force that incorporates the two forces as soon as reasonably possible. In making its decision to proceed with this recommendation, the Government of the day took into account the considerable increase in the number of crimes against the Commonwealth and the number of crimes of violence of a political nature. On 19 October 1979 the Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth police forces merged to become the Australian Federal Police. On 9 November 1979 the then Government disbanded the former Narcotics Bureau and placed the primary responsibility for the investigation of narcotic trafficking with the Australian Federal Police. The new Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police was then faced with the urgent need not only to develop administrative systems suitable to the new organisation but also to develop long term strategies to deal with the investigation of narcotic-related offences and organised crime, infringements of Commonwealth laws and a host of other responsibilities which included escorting VIPs and protecting persons from time to time considered under threat, including Ministers of the Crown, judges and witnesses. The 1984-85 annual report of the Australian Federal Police noted that: Under international conventions the Australian Government, as a host country, has certain obligations where visiting dignitaries and foreign post mission and consular personnel are concerned. Special operations are mounted to protect visiting foreign dignitaries who may be under threat. The witness protection program is designed to implement appropriate protection arrangements for witnesses in a position to provide vital evidence for the Crown in major prosecutions, where the witness is under real threat from former associates or people against whom the witness is providing information or evidence. . . . The VIP Protection Branch provides personal protection to the Prime Minister and a Police Liaison Officer attends the Governor-General. Personal protection also is provided to foreign Heads of State and Heads of Government when visiting Australia. When a positive threat assessment exists, other visiting Government Ministers and officials also are provided with personal protection. Levels of threat also determine the extent of personal protection to be provided to officials of foreign Embassies and/or Consular posts, in accordance with international conventions. Section 9 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 prescribes the powers and duties of members of the Australian Federal Police. These powers are relied upon in carrying out the functions of the Australian Federal Police described in section 8 of the Act which the Australian Federal Police have relied upon to perform protective duties outside the Australian Capital Territory and beyond the limits of Commonwealth territory. However, section 9 of the Act does not provide clear authority to members of the Australian Federal Police in relation to that responsibility if the protective function is performed outside the Australian Capital Territory and beyond the limits of Commonwealth places in the States and the Northern Territory where, for example, an assault or threatened assault on a protected person would be an offence against the State or Territory law not Commonwealth law. Clause 3 of this Bill is therefore designed to amend section 9 of the principal Act to give members of the Australian Federal Police clear power to discharge these protective functions. The search powers of the Australian Federal Police have a special importance for the enforcement of drug laws. Police dogs under the control of a police dog handler are of major assistance to the Australian Federal Police in the fight against the illicit drug trade. However, no provision is made in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 or in any other Commonwealth legislation to govern the use of police dogs. There are occasions when the use of police dogs in otherwise restricted places would be highly desirable. For example, police dogs under the control of police handlers may be required to go into places such as national parks and reserves, hospitals, aircraft or ships for a number of purposes to carry out searches for missing persons in national parks, bomb searches of aircraft and drug detection. Clause 4 of this Bill inserts a new section 12A into the Act. This provides that a police dog under the control of a police dog handler may lawfully be in any place where it is lawful for the handler to be in his capacity as a member of the Australian Federal Police. Clause 6 of this Bill introduces important administrative amendments to the principal Act. This clause will ensure that where, for example, a member of the Australian Federal Police is seconded to a State police force, that member shall retain his or her powers and duties as a member of the Australian Federal Police and shall remain subject to the disciplinary provisions normally applicable to members of the Australian Federal Police. Clause 7 of this Bill provides, inter alia, that the disciplinary provisions of the principal Act will apply to members on leave of absence, but that members granted leave to serve as members of the Australian Federal Police Association will not be subject to normal Australian Federal Police disciplinary procedures in relation to actions taken by that member that are reasonably required for the proper performance of the functions of an officer of that Association. The measures I have just outlined are essential for the orderly development of the Australian Federal Police force. In the history of its development the Australian Federal Police has faced a number of complex problems and challenges. Firstly, there was the difficulty of bringing together different groups of people from former organisations and merging them into a cohesive unit. The Australian Federal Police placed heavy emphasis on training to ensure that there were sufficient police officers capable of meeting the demands likely to be placed upon them in carrying out the operational strategies of the force for both community and national roles. Secondly, the administrative procedures in the force were fragmented. Greater cohesion of administrative procedures was required for the force to meet the demands placed upon it by legislation. When the Australian Federal Police was established it consisted of a protective service component and a general policing component. Experience led to the opinion that certain protective functions were not functions that should be carried out under the umbrella of a police organisation. This problem had to be solved during the critical period of establishing the force. Thus the evolutionary process of the Australian Federal Police began not only with these problems but also with the demands of the role of community policing and a national investigatory role made more difficult by the youth of the organisation and, above all, by the complex and malignant web of crime which knows no boundaries and which cuts across social classes and professions on a scale previously unthought of. Simultaneous effort also had to be made to develop mechanisms of cooperation through the creation of the Australian Police Ministers Council to maintain the commitment to common police services. The issue of public confidence is of paramount importance to the Australian Federal Police. The Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act was passed in 1981 and this Act provided for an independent tribunal to determine complaints of alleged misconduct by Australian Federal Police. I believe that the procedure established in that Act was the first of its kind in Australia to deal with complaints against police. Demands for experienced investigators by royal commissions of inquiry, by the Office of the Special Prosecutor and now by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Crime Authority have placed great strain on the resources of the Australian Federal Police, particularly at a time when it is urgently developing its strategy to meet the objectives of the Government. The strategies implemented by Australian Federal Police in the national law enforcement area have proved highly successful. They are perhaps best confirmed by recent reports in the national media concerning the success of an operation named Lavender. This operation revealed the enormous scope of organised criminal activity in the importation of a massive quantity of narcotics from an international point to the Timor Sea, then to the Northern Territory and distribution to other parts of Australia. The increasing success of the Australian Federal Police in its use of sophisticated techniques has proved not only that the management strategies of the force are correct but also that the force now enjoys public confidence from such successes. It is a credit to all concerned that the skills of the Australian Federal Police have developed in such a manner. The Hawke Government has actively supported the Australian Federal Police in its development. Increased resources have been made available within the overall context of Budget constraints. A joint management review of the Australian Federal Police was initiated. Australian Federal Police managerial systems have been streamlined. More flexible promotion and appeal systems have been introduced. Residential training programs for qualifications for higher rank are now firmly in place. Particular emphasis has been placed on training programs designed to identify skills in order that detective training can commence at an early date. The Australian Federal Police has excellent ministerial leadership from the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). The original charter outlining the priorities of the Australian Federal Police had as its top priority a combination of general policing in the Australian Capital Territory and investigating organised crime. On Tuesday, 10 September 1985 the Special Minister of State tabled in this House a new charter of objectives for the Australian Federal Police. These reflect the need to consolidate the Australian Federal Police as a Federal investigative body with emphasis on specialist functions rather than general policing functions. The priority objective is to combat the menace of drug trafficking. The directives stressed the importance of an improved intelligence organisation, improved surveillance, technical and forensic support groups and witness protection. The Hawke Government has placed a high priority on increasing the effectiveness and scope of investigations into organised crime, maintaining an appropriate capability to investigate large scale fraud against Commonwealth revenue and responding quickly to specific references from the Government. Whilst the accomplishment of these objectives is an urgent task, I am concerned that the Australian Federal Police should enhance its coastal surveillance and response capability, particularly in northern Australia. Federal police establishments in north Queensland must be expanded. Additional personnel are required. The vast distances in northern Australia demand that the activities of the Australian Federal Police be decentralised as much as possible. The Townsville station of the Australian Federal Police has long accepted the challenge of efficiently discharging its statutory duties. Its members, though few in number, are dedicated and loyal officers. Their combined efforts make substantial inroads into crime prevention and detection. They have earned the respect and gratitude of the people of north Queensland. To sum up, the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, recognises the long term role of the Australian Federal Police as an effective Federal investigative body functioning as the Commonwealth's primary law enforcement agency. It must have the capacity to co-ordinate the efforts of all police forces against interstate crime and terrorism. I believe that the Australian Federal Police must achieve the status and recognition of its ultimate role as the Australian equivalent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.53) —Any historian looking through Hansard over the last four or five years will be struck by the frequency with which debates on the Australian Federal Police and law enforcement generally have arisen in this House. The circumstances which have inspired the role of the Federal Police to an item of public and parliamentary prominence are depressing in the extreme. The use of sophisticated crime attacking Federal law has created a requirement for a totally different approach to the attack on modern crime and its sophisticated methods. The modernised Federal police force is at the heart of the public response. A decade or so ago, the Commonwealth Police had only a comparatively minor task. Law and order in the Australian Capital Territory was the task of the Australian Capital Territory Police, and the Commonwealth Police had functions relating to the protection of persons and property. The Australian Federal Police was formed in 1979 out of a joining of those separate formations, to which was added the enforcement functions of the disbanded Narcotics Bureau of the Customs Department. There followed a period of difficulty in settling down the new system, setting up liaison arrangements with State police forces, and defining in fresh ways the tasks of the Federal authority. Another feature of the change was to assign to a Minister other than the Attorney-General the responsibility for the police. One of the most controversial of personalities, Senator Lionel Murphy, used the police powers to surround the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's headquarters and incarcerate the Director-General of Security in his office. This was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the nation. There was no provocation for this action, and it is quite amazing how the Whitlam Government got away with it. All of this has passed and was left behind when the Australian Federal Police was formed, under its first Commissioner, the very distinguished Englishman, Mr Colin Woods. The design of the Federal Police organisation was the work of the former London Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark. His efforts have been mentioned earlier in this debate. The Federal Police was established comparatively recently under most distinguished leadership, which has now been assumed by a former army officer, General Gray. I mention these matters of history because the new police force with its challenging task to enforce law against the most sophisticated criminal minds in our history has started with a clean sheet. It is well administered and well led, and I agree with Bob Bottom that the force shows great promise in coping with difficult tasks. I mention the Federal Police with a note of confidence, because the nature of modern crime is such that it operates most effectively in a situation where it has effectively corrupted the law enforcement agency. Major crime first attacks the law enforcement agency, aiming to corrupt it first, as a basis of its operations. The fact that a special crime authority had to be established to penetrate the web of corruption that had become a feature of law enforcement in some of the States, particularly, I regret, in my own State of New South Wales, is no reflection on the Federal Police. On the contrary, the very effectiveness of the Crime Authority rests in a fundamental way on the Federal Police, and the quality of liaison which it established with State authorities. The main reason for a crime authority is established from the body of documentation that has come from a series of high quality royal commissions, both Federal and State, into criminal activity, particularly in the drug trade. So many examples of this problem have been exposed now in the courts that one is almost inhibited from making reference to them by reason of the fact that most are court cases in process dealing with some major aspect of crime. Possibly nothing is more obvious for a public reading of concern than the most terrible murder of a public-spirited citizen in the Riverina town of Griffith. The activity of marihuana growing is clearly linked with the fortunes of Robert Trimbole. Trimbole defied efforts by Australian officials to have him brought back to Australia to face trial here. He is still at large. The Chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, in the course of his Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, conducted a special inquiry into the abuse of Australian passports. His report on this matter offers a remarkable insight into the techniques of the Mr Asia drug syndicate under a criminal named Clark. The syndicate set out to create a drug courier system, but it wanted to rely on a few trusted couriers. This gave rise to the need to create a number of aliases, each supported by a separate passport. The syndicate adopted as one technique the device used in the Day of the Jackal, using a genuine birth certificate of a deceased person under an application with photographs of the living. Trimbole went about it another way. He stole blank certificates and filled them in himself. It is obvious that the criminal has to attack the legal system in a sophisticated way, and only a very watchful law enforcement system can cope. The security and integrity of that system is of fundamental importance. The Federal Police have a most strategically significant role to play. I agree that a body other than the police had to be given very special powers to get at modern criminal activity. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union exposed the fact that the best way to bring the criminals to heel was to get at their financial operations. It was no easy decision to extend to the Costigan Commission the powers to investigate taxation records and bank accounts. It was no easy decision to extend to a permanent agency those powers. They are powers which need to be employed in a very conservative framework. They are not the investigative powers a police force should have. I believe that the general mechanism of a police structure working in concert with the special powers of the Authority are an unavoidable development. There were cries of impatience about the effectiveness of the Federal Police and the Authority. I have confidence that a very genuine and concerted effort is being made, and I believe nothing has occurred which should be a source of real misgiving. On the contrary, some big blows have been struck against crime. The main source of impatience has been the public sense, for which the Government is wholly responsible, that the Government is compromised by the sense of reluctance with which it approached the follow-up to the Costigan Royal Commission. I remind the House that the Fraser Government established the Australian Federal Police as an efficient organisation with a modern outlook. It left legislation on the books establishing a crimes commission to work with the police and to take over from Costigan. The first act of this Labor Government was to cancel the crimes commission. It is clear that the pressure to do this came from the Wran Government-a pressure which, I might say, was not unexpected. The Labor Party then found that it had to put itself back into the action as the Costigan inquiry recommendations had to be implemented. The public disquiet was, understandably, considerable. It fell to the Opposition to raise the sense of public urgency to bring pressure on the Government to create an effective authority. I realise that there is still a need for public reassurance that the Authority is in a position to be effective. But, such as I can discover, the powers are adequate at this stage for its role. That will need to be monitored very carefully in the future and I believe that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) will undertake that role. The Federal Police has other concerns of law enforcement. Its quiet but important role to protect the major political figures in Australia and important visitors to this country is one of those concerns and one that is covered in this Bill and which has been mentioned by previous speakers. There is no doubt that the counter-terrorist task is of great importance. We have shared in the great sense of tragedy that has engulfed Sweden in the last week when its Prime Minister was gunned down. Effective protective security measures are a major preoccupation, as we never know where and when the hand of terrorism will strike. It is a most sad and unhappy reflection of modern society that this requirement is such a major one. Among the major responsibilities of the Federal Police is the investigation of fraud and the criminal activities of those who milk the public purse, particularly in the area of social security fraud. I was very interested to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), a member of the Government, suggest that his Government-I think he used the words `an authentic Australian government'; I do not know of any non-authentic Australian government that has been in existence yet but it was a nice ringing phrase which I suppose will look good to the Labor Party branches in north Queensland-has fully supported the Federal Police. I am not sure that the facts would back up that assertion. I remind him and the House that the Australian Federal Police Staff Association has expressed publicly its concern about the lack of support from the Government in the major task of investigating social security fraud, medifraud and other frauds against the public purse. I have referred to these concerns before and I find it interesting that the Special Minister of State, who is at the table, has not made any effort yet even to explain away the charges that are made against him by the Federal Police Staff Association. I remind the Minister at the table that last July he quite sensibly called for a review of the Federal Police resources. After four months of careful work, the police called for increased staff because of the need to tackle the problem of social security and other fraud. Only yesterday the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) announced an inquiry into allegations of medical fraud involving allegations of threatened violence. The Minister said that the problem reflected on the ethics of the profession. It is always a very strange retreat that the Minister for Health marks out for himself. He cannot really think of anything else to say. He attacks the whole profession for the problems that have been enlarged by the bad administrative system that the Government has installed in the Medicare system. In this particular case, it is alleged that the only fears the defrauding doctors held for their enterprise was that there might be a change of government which could put them out of business. The Minister would do better to attribute more concern to the implication of the observations of these crooks for his administration than to try by loose remarks to impugn the ethics of a profession which has taken great pains to warn him of the problems of his preferred system of bulk billing. I now come back to the problem of social security fraud. I mentioned it before. It was brought up by the report that the Minister at the table commissioned from his own police force- Mr Young —And made public. Mr MacKELLAR —It was made public but he has not acted upon it. It is a very disturbing fact-I will remind him of this-that some 23,000 social security frauds had not been investigated in Victoria and New South Wales by July of last year when a police assessment of the problems was made. What has happened since July? As I have already pointed out in the House once this session, some 31,000 social security frauds remain uninvestigated. The number is growing at the rate of about 1,000 a month. The honourable member for Herbert, who was the previous speaker in the debate, spoke about the great support that this Government is giving to the police force. Here is a police force crying out for more resources to combat fraud against the taxpayer which is growing at the rate of 1,000 uninvestigated cases a month. There is a total in New South Wales and Victoria of some 31,000 cases at present, involving hundreds of millions of dollars lost to the taxpayer. Under those circumstances, I find it very difficult to see the wisdom in the Government's refusal to act. We heard the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) bleating in Brisbane about the need for the Government to invest more public money in his portfolio, yet it is within his hands to put pressure on his fellow Minister and on his Government to increase the investigative capacity of the police force. This is something that the police force has sought. If this were done we could save hundreds of millions of dollars. Nothing has been done. The report made public by the Minister has not been acted on. The resources that the police force has been crying out for have not been made available. They should be made available. If they were made available some 31,000 uninvestigated cases may come up for investigation and the Australian taxpayer, so sorely pressed by this Government, may receive a little relief in that area at least. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(7.07) —in reply-One does not quite know where to start. There has been a fair bit of misinformation, a fair bit of ignorance and a fair bit of false premise about some of the contributions made by members of the Opposition during this debate. One thing we can say is that no one in the Opposition attempted to deal with the Bill. We have had a wide ranging discussion about crime in Australia-what has and has not been done about it, when it started and when some government in Australia is going to bring it to an end. In view of the situation that existed in 1983 when we first came to power, I would have thought that at least someone on the other side would have had the decency to acknowledge the advances that have been made by our law enforcement agencies. Even if members of the Opposition did not want to say anything good about the Government, at least they might have said that there have been some rather substantial victories over the past three years for the law enforcement agencies of this country. The fact that they have not acknowledged it will not restrict my view that we have seen some very major advances- Mr MacKellar —Do not mislead the House; I did acknowledge it. Mr YOUNG —I am sorry; the honourable member for Warringah says that he did acknowledge it. Let me say that the climax of the speeches made by those on the other side was not a recognition of what has been done either by the National Crime Authority or by the Australian Federal Police. Honourable members opposite should clearly understand that the Australian Federal Police make up 10 per cent of the total police force in this country. They do not make up the substantial numbers which, from the contribution of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), one was given to understand they did. The honourable member seemed to hold the Australian Federal Police responsible for every breaking and entering in every suburb, every country town and every province of this country. They make up 10 per cent of the nation's police force and are responsible not only for Canberra but also for crime between the States, people entering this country illegally, people who try to trade in illicit drugs to or from this country and matters that affect the Commonwealth. To that extent, let me clear up one matter once and for all because no one on the other side seems to understand it. The National Crime Authority is able to investigate any matter it desires to investigate. There is no restriction from this Parliament or any other parliament, from this Minister or any other Minister in Australia, on the right of the National Crime Authority to investigate any matter that it wishes to investigate. However, if the Authority wishes to use its coercive powers, the legislation requires it to seek from the intergovernmental committee a reference from the State and/or the Commonwealth, or the States that are affected by the investigation. The intergovernmental committee is made up of all the governments of Australia. The original charge made by the Opposition way back in 1983-84 was that the seeking of a reference from the intergovernmental committee could easily be vetoed, and there is the power to veto. But the intergovernmental committee, at its very first meeting when I raised the fact that charges had been laid that these matters might be vetoed, made it clear that should any government, whether it be the Commonwealth Government or a State government, at any time veto a reference being sought by the National Crime Authority, the committee would make that veto public and the government that had vetoed the reference would have to defend its stand publicly. There has not been a sign by any government in all the references that have been sought by the National Crime Authority that it would do anything to stand in the Authority's way. I will say this, and I have said it previously: I do not know when the Liberal and National parties will get back into government-it looks like being a fair while-but I can tell them that they will not change the operations and workings of the intergovernmental committee because it will be impossible in this country in a federal system to have an authority like the National Crime Authority working properly and efficiently and carrying out its task without the total co-operation of all the State governments. There is no party bickering at the intergovernmental committee. There will always be a mixture of political views-as there is now with a number of Labor governments, a National Party Government in Queensland and a Liberal Party Government in Tasmania-but I can assure the Parliament that the system is working well. There has been no complaint from any government and, more importantly, there has been no complaint from the National Crime Authority. It has undertaken some extremely important and major investigations into organised crime-up to now, mainly drug-related crime-in this country. The operations of the National Crime Authority are far more difficult than the operations of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The Costigan Commission was an important step in uncovering what was happening in this country but it was a gathering of a lot of information. That information had to be turned into evidence by the National Crime Authority in order to bring about the prosecution of a lot of people. To a large extent, as honourable members know, with the assistance of the Australian Federal Police we have probably been more successful in the last couple of years than we have been previously. People talk about what resources were available and about the state the Australian Federal Police as in when we inherited the situation in March 1983. There is no doubt that the move to the Australian Federal Police in 1979 was a correct one but it is not true to say that in 1983, when we took over government, morale was high or that the operations of the Australian Federal Police were all that good. First of all, it was a multi-force; it was the Australian Federal Police together with the protective services. We had to separate the two in order to have just a disciplined police force to carry out the duties of policing in this country. That we did. The other thing was that, because the Australian Federal Police does not attract much attention in this nation, its members were housed in some of the worst accommodation we could envisage for anybody serving a Commonwealth government. It was not just a question of staffing; it was a question of the conditions under which those people worked. In Melbourne at the moment, although we are working hard to overcome the problem, the Australian Federal Police works from a number of addresses because it does not have the facilities available to work properly. That was the case in Sydney, as it was here in Canberra. Hopefully within the next 18 months all the major centres of the Australian Federal Police will have up to date, good and proper accommodation which will give it the opportunity to work efficiently. Someone said that all we have to do- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House to now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Some people seem to think that we can perhaps overcome all of these problems by pouring more and more money into recruiting more and more police. The fact is that in the 1984 election the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that we would put aside, over and above the normal allocation of funds for the Australian Federal Police, $10m for additional manpower-292 police in the period 1984 to 1987. That will be done. But when recruiting over and above normal recruiting levels there have to be additional people to do the training, there has to be additional accommodation so that they can go to work and there have to be additional people supervising because those coming into the force for the first time are young people and are not senior people used to working without supervision. They are not people who can go into a major investigation straight off the street. All these things have to be taken into consideration in building the Australian Federal Police. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said that he would like to know what happened to the report tabled by the Minister which says that more resources are required in the drug area. It is true that I asked for a review of resources by the Australian Federal Police last year. Indeed, within a few days of receiving the report I made it public; everybody in Australia could look at it. It seemed to me the best way of getting this debate into the open. It showed me that in the eastern region alone the drug squad was 50 short of the number required to carry out its duties. One reason shown up in the review of resources that it was short of staff was that in the year leading up to that there had been some rather devastating attacks on Family Court judges and no fewer than 72 members of the Australian Federal Police were dragged from their normal duties to carry out protection of Family Court judges. Since that review of resources has been published we have overcome the problem with the Attorney-General's Department. As of two weeks ago, those police have been shifted back into policing duties and the vast majority of them have gone back into the drugs area, which is what I asked the Commissioner to do late last year to overcome that problem. At the same time I tabled in the Parliament the new set of priorities for the Australian Federal Police which listed drugs as the No. 1 priority. In that way we helped overcome the problem. The honourable member for North Sydney seems to think that everything can be done quickly and that once one makes up one's mind to do something in this country all one has to do, irrespective of the fact that one has to deal with State governments, is to do it. I remind the honourable member for North Sydney-hopefully he will read Hansard later-that in 1979, four years before the Fraser Government lost office, there was a recommendation that powers to intercept telephone calls be extended to State governments. The Fraser Government sat on that for four years. I do not know whether there is any record of it having discussed the matter with the States or of what the reaction of the States would have been, but at the drug summit the Attorney-General extended it to the States. One can see from the reaction of the States that they take a long time on some of these questions to make up their minds whether they actually want the powers. There is also some reluctance in the community about how far we should extend these powers. So it is not as simple as the honourable member for North Sydney would make out. He also said, in respect of the forfeiture legislation now being developed by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), that we should have uniform legislation throughout the country. It takes a long time to get every government to agree to uniform legislation. I interjected on the honourable member for North Sydney and asked whether we had to wait for a conviction to seize the assets of the person. He said that in his view as a Queen's Counsel we should wait for conviction. Let me tell him this: If we gave notice to everyone-and we will sort this out in the legislation that will be introduced-who is picked up for a drug-related offence that they have until they are convicted to dispose of their assets, we will not finish up with very much at the end of the day. That is a point of view not held by many legal people, but certainly held by people fighting crime. In some instances in Australia we are able to seize goods under the Customs Act. In the latest operation in Australia, called Lavender, boats, cars, bank accounts and properties were seized as a result of the provisions of the Customs Act. So there are some ways in which we can seize goods. At the moment a very major debate is going on in the United Kingdom-I think it is between a House of Commons committee and the legal fraternity-about the same matter, and there is debate in this country as well. Basically the legal fraternity says: `You cannot move until there has been a criminal conviction'. In some instances that is an arguable point. I refer to the resources not only of the AFP which have risen substantially under this Government, but also of the National Crime Authority. When we came to power in March 1983 the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union had 63 people working for it. As of November last year, the National Crime Authority had 225 employees. Almost 400 per cent more people, when compared with the operations of the Costigan Commission, are now working for the National Crime Authority throughout this country-I include the seconding of police from the various forces-as a result of the work and the responsibility it has accepted. We can even throw in the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Commission. More than twice the number of people are now working at various levels of the National Crime Authority than there were working for both those royal commissions when they operated in 1982. So there is no shortage of resources. However, in some instances if we open the floodgates and say that bodies can have unlimited resources all we do is waste a good deal of them. We have tried to look closely at what the National Crime Authority required. As the Prime Minister said when it was established, we will look closely at every request we get not only in terms of changing the Act so that the Authority can operate better but also in terms of its resources, and that is exactly what we have done. At the moment the Authority can say that the Government has met every request that it has made of it in terms of resources. There has been no shortage of resources for the NCA. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) also raised the matter about the review of the resources, and the Staff Association of the AFP has put out a number of Press releases about this. I am not the Minister responsible for the Staff Association; I am the Minister responsible for the AFP, and I am responsible to this Parliament. There is always a tendency for people in associations and unions to try to look at ways and means by which they can build their membership. Sometimes members of the AFP Association-not all of them but a few of them-see this as a means of building a little empire. They say: `We have a lot of social security fraud much of which is not being investigated'. Let me say this: If any honourable members get a briefing from officers of the Australian Federal Police they will see that all major social security fraud is investigated. They will see that a lot of social security that has not been investigated to some extent will date back 10 years; it will date back even to the time of the Fraser Government. I understand that there has been an examination by the Director of Public Prosecutions-Ian Temby-of our system of welfare and the way in which we operate compared with that of the United Kingdom and the United States. He thinks that our system stands up very well in terms of fraud against the Commonwealth compared with fraud in the United Kingdom or the United States of America. There is no absolute way of overcoming this problem. Honourable members will recall that a couple of years ago we paid social security payments into bank accounts instead of sending cheques. That overcame the problem and reduced fraud to a certain extent. Every year we send 65 million social security cheques and obviously we will have problems. But even taking all of that into account, fraud on the Commonwealth through overpayments is only a fraction of the fraud on the Commonwealth through lost revenue. That should not be forgotten, and that is where a lot of the major investigations by the AFP and NCA take place. I think that, to some extent, it would be to the benefit not only of this Parliament but also of this country for the Opposition to recognise the steps forward that have been made in the last two or three years by the AFP and by the National Crime Authority with the co-operation of all the law enforcement agencies, because we have made gains in the fight against crime in this country. There are limitations as to how far one can go in a democracy. There may be things that some people want to do and perhaps they can be done in some other countries but those are not the sorts of countries on which we have based our model and they are not the sorts of countries in which we are likely to want to live. We are living in a federal system where we are trying to get the co-operation of and are trying to work with all the State instrumentalities and law enforcement agencies. To some extent, we are still in our infancy in fighting crime because of the exposure given to it in the last decade. I think it will be a long fight. As I said, and the honourable member for North Sydney quoted me, we are not likely to be in a position in the foreseeable future to be able to say that we have overcome all these problems. I can tell honourable members, from the information which comes across my desk, that criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. As we are able to increase the sophistication of the operations of our law enforcement agency, that is countered by a very skilful group of people trying to manipulate their criminal activities in this country. As I say, they are not just involved within this country; many of them operate within this country, having started in some other country. To counteract that fact, of course, with my full support the Police Commissioner has placed police liaison officers to work as intelligence agents in a lot of these countries around the world. We are reaping the benefit of the intelligence that flows back into this country. The buildup of that intelligence, the increase of resources given to the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the much greater co-operation between all our law enforcement agencies are giving Australia a much better picture than it had a few years ago. I do not want to stand here and say that it is because the Labor Party is in power that we have achieved that, but I am also not going to stand here and touch the forelock and say that the Fraser Government did better than we have done, because, quite frankly, it did not do better than we have done in the last three years. It might have given some exposure to what was happening in Australia but, in terms of measures to counteract what was occurring, it did not do better. The facts of the case will stand up to any examination which anybody wants to give them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry I took so long in reply, but it seemed to me that a lot of the matters that were raised required some reponse from the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(7.28) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 9, omit ``sub-section (2)'', insert ``sub-sections (20, (3) and (4)''. (2) Clause 2, page 2, line 1, omit ``Sections 5, 9,'', insert ``Section 5, sub-section 9 (1) and sections''. (3) Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: ``(4) Sub-section 9 (2) shall be deemed to have come into operation immediately after the commencement of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Act 1985.''. (4) Clause 3, page 2, line 5, omit paragraph (a). (5) Clause 9, page 5, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: ``(2) Section 38F of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (2) (b) `38D (2)' and substituting `38D (1)'.''. Amendments Nos (1), (2) and (3) are technical changes to the commencement provisions of the Bill consequent upon amendment No. (5). Amendments Nos (1) and (2) are self-explanatory. Amendment No. (3) has the effect of bringing amendment No. (5) into operation retrospectively immediately after the commencement of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Act 1985. The reason for this provision is to ensure that no member of the AFP should be disadvantaged by the error which amendment No. (5) would correct. Amendment No. (4) corrects a minor drafting error in the original Bill by omitting paragraph 3 (a). That paragraph itself would have deleted a conjunction from section 9 of the principal Act which ought not to have been deleted. Amendment No. (5) corrects a minor drafting error in the principal Act-a wrong cross-reference in section 38F. That section came into effect at the commencement of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Act 1985 and sets out the manner in which appeals by members of the AFP in relation to redeployment and retirement decisions are to be dealt with by the Australian Federal Police Promotion Appeals Board. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(7.30) —It is in no way strange that the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been under siege this week, so much so that he has been disowned by his own Party faction on the issue of the Holmes a Court attack on the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. It is hardly surprising that the New South Wales numbers man for the Australian Labor Party, Senator Richardson, has been asking fundamental questions in Caucus. The clear reason is simply that the Hawke-Keating axis has enforced a decision on Caucus which, if implemented, will virtually hand BHP to Holmes a Court. The gravity of the Government's decision just does not rest on the fact that it has abandoned the interests of 180,000 small shareholders to favour one man and a handful of financial institutions. The great risk is that the Hawke Government has placed the livelihood of over 600,000 Australians, and the future of the cities they live in, in the hands of a ruthless corporate raider. The people of Newcastle and Port Kembla and, in my own State, the people of the city of Whyalla will have no security of any sort for their future if BHP falls. The Government has simply walked away from an enormous area of national interest and abandoned the people whose very livelihood is at stake. The Government needs to wake up to the simple fact that the Holmes a Court deal will substitute debt for equity and, in so doing, raise the price of BHP products. What then of the economic issues? How much will the price of steel rise to Australian manufacturers, and to my own constituents in South Australia? Will the Whyalla steelworks be closed? There are no safeguards on this issue worth a tinker's damn. Remember Mr Holmes a Court's broken promises regarding the Weeks petroleum company when he promised to recommit funds gained from royalties to exploration. What he did was sell the exploration interests and use those funds, through Bell Resources, for takeovers. Consider the Associated Communications Company, which has been stripped of most of its major assets despite his promise not to sell off assets that were not considered for sale at the time of the takeover. Those promises have not been worth the price of the paper they were written on. BHP could be dismembered and sold by a share trader without the slightest regard for the national interest. Would its steel division be sold, for instance, to an overseas buyer and closed down so that the buyer could fill this demand by exporting to Australia? Who knows? At what stage in a future domino-type series of takeovers would the threshold of national interest be reached? In approximate terms, Holmes a Court controls 20 per cent of the company, a number of financial institutions own 40 per cent of BHP and the other 40 per cent is owned by individual investors. Surely the national interest, combined with the interests of 180,000 shareholders, demands that BHP get a fair fight? How can the Government ignore the vast role of BHP in national development? How can it actively move in the Senate to help a corporate raider whose record in national development is that of being the greatest shuffler of share certificates in Australian history? If the Government continues with its amendment in the Senate, it will be as surely partisan, and acting on behalf of Holmes a Court, as if it were an institution selling him a majority interest. The Government, in fact, will be wielding the axe in a deliberate execution of Australia's biggest and most responsible company, on behalf of a man whose main income comes from trading shares on the market. It would be the greatest blood letting in Australian corporate history, and Mr Hawke would have that blood all over him. What hold does Mr Holmes a Court have over the Labor Party? Why does the Prime Minister want to take action to hand BHP to him? What does Mr Holmes a Court have over the Labor Party? Why does Mr Hawke want to take action to hand BHP to him? Is Mr Holmes a Court a financial contributor to the Labor Party? Should that not be a salient point in this argument? If the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is all for disclosure, perhaps we could do with disclosure from the Prime Minister on that point. There must be reasons for the Prime Minister's backing of Mr Holmes a Court, other than his bleating about the market. His position is not tenable when the history and intentions of the protagonists are measured against Australia's needs. There is nothing unique in Australia-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(7.35) —I was most disturbed this morning to read in the Australian under the banner headline `CEP Funds wasted on ``deviant radicals'' ' a story that indicated that one honourable member's view of the community employment program has been somewhat shattered. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) claimed that sexual deviants, political radicals, feminists and every anti-Australian group imaginable had benefited from the millions of dollars under the CEP grant. I wish to set the record straight as far as my own electorate of Macarthur is concerned. In doing so I will refute those statements and claims that were made by the honourable member for Parkes. In fact, in my electorate since the inception of the CEP in August 1983, 23 local government projects alone have been undertaken. In addition, community groups have initiated 27 projects, State government departments have initiated 38 projects, and jobs on local roads have accounted for a further 18 projects. In total nearly $9m has been spent in my electorate on the CEP. This has created 865 jobs, each lasting an average of 26 weeks. If one takes the opportunity to look at some of those projects that have received funding, one sees quite clearly that none of the categories of people to whom the honourable member for Parkes referred is included here. In fact, people have been trained as community workers in neighbourhood centres, and I am sure that those members who know something about the Illawarra region would know how important that is. Other jobs have included teaching guide dogs for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, preparing tourist brochures for the Macarthur Country Tourist Association, day care for the handicapped, renovating public buildings, constructing and maintaining drainage, restoring historic homes and landscaping, working as hospital administration kitchen assistants, constructing bus shelters, archiving historic notes of the Illawarra region, paving and concreting school grounds, tree planting for soil stabilisation and so on. There have also been a couple of major projects which are particularly important for Australia's history. I refer in particular to the Camden Park development which is, as the name suggests, at Camden and is the development and maintenance of the historic John Macarthur property. That property contains the descendants of the original merino flock that was brought to this country and is in fact the cradle of this nation's agriculture. On top of that there have been major projects such as the development of a golf course at Russellvale, a cycle way through the northern suburbs of Wollongong, and research facilities at Camden Park Estate. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which indicates the number of projects that have gone to each of the community groups, to the jobs on local roads scheme, to the local government and to the State Government. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CEP PROJECTS APPROVED AND COMPLETED IN THE FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF MACARTHUR FROM 1 AUGUST 1983 TO 13 FEBRUARY 1986 Project sponsor No. of projects Project cost CEP funds % of project cost Labour cost of Target groups As % of project budget As % of CEP Funds Total Jobs Average duration of jobs (weeks) No. of jobs filled by target groups Average duration project (weeks $ $ Community groups ... 27 1,081,262 979,511 91 64 70 79 31 72 36 Jobs on local roads (JOLOR) ... 18 1,361,546 1,130,848 83 51 61 111 22 109 25 Local Government ... 24 2,698,609 2,402,415 89 55 61 169 26 162 30 N.S.W. Government ... 38 6,259,308 4,379,585 70 57 82 506 26 486 34 Total ... 107 11,400,725 8,892,359 78 56 72 865 26 829 32 Mr MARTIN —This document demonstrates the proportion of funds allocated to each of those particular groups, the number of jobs created and a range of other matters. I wish to illustrate very quickly in my remaining moments just how important CEP is. Quite clearly the objective of providing appropriate work experience for the most disadvantaged unemployed persons has been recognised in order to break the unemployment trap-that is, the tendency for unemployed persons to encounter increasing difficulty in finding employment as the duration of their unemployment extends. Clearly, CEP has target groups-for example, Aborigines, disabled persons, migrants with language difficulties, to name just a few. People who are long term unemployed have also benefited. Also, surveys conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations have shown how good the community employment program has been. A survey conducted by the Department last year discovered that almost 60 per cent of those involved in CEP had gained some employment experience within six months of leaving the program. I illustrate that with reference to one project, a cycleway along the Nepean River at Camden. That project clearly illustrates that a number of opportunities for permanent employment were generated and, on top of that, a marvellous facility was provided. If anyone knows the town of Camden, they will know that people there can hardly be classified as sexual deviants, political radicals, feminists or anti-Australian. It is a bastion of the Liberal Party within my electorate and I would hate to think they would be classified as such. It demonstrates how effective this project has been. The engineer in charge of the project has received full time employment with an adjoining council. A number of workers who had no previous skills have now gone on to open a concreting business for themselves. Women were employed on the project and they gained skills in areas that were perhaps not open to them previously. This is representative of how these projects are working. I commend the program to the House. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.40) —The Christmas break provided something of a lull in the privatisation debate. The debate in recent weeks has been conducted on a rather more rational level than that reached last year. I was interested in the remarks of Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, who said recently: I have no ideological preference for public or private ownership. In my view what is important is not whether a business is public or private but whether it delivers the goods and services required by the public efficiently, that is at lowest cost. He also said, I thought very interestingly: In any organisation with monopoly power-public or private-the work force will use its power. That quotation gives us a line on the thinking in the Australian Labor Party about privatisation. As we all know, the Labor Party is very much the creature of the trade union movement and the strongest parts of the trade union movement are those who live off the monopolies in the Australian economy. I take the opportunity of complimenting Senator Walsh on making a statement which contains some elements of common sense and which reflects the point of view that we in the Liberal Party have been stating for some time. Mr Barry Jones —You should quote the whole speech. Mr REITH —I am glad that the Minister for Science approves as well. The other indication which I thought was reasonable and interesting in the remarks of Senator Walsh was that he revealed the campaign launched by the Government last year against privatisation for its shallowness and hypocrisy in regard to the Government's hysterics last year. I suppose his comments could also be said to reinforce the reality that the Government itself is involved, in various degrees, in levels of privatisation. One can instance the Belconnen Mall and applying the principle of competition to the Commonwealth Bank by opening up the financial sector to foreign banks. One can also refer to the Government's continuing support for non-government schools, reportedly described last year by some of the radicals in the teacher union movement as privatisation. One can also refer to the proposed privatisation of the defence service home loans scheme. If the debate rises to a rational level, we in Australia will be in good company. We often hear at the international level of steps taken to privatise by the British, and of course by the Chinese. The Singaporeans have been involved in measures of that sort in recent times, as have the Americans, the communist Chinese and the communists in Vietnam, as we saw in the papers the other day. Recently I had the honour of going to Japan with an Opposition delegation. I took the opportunity to discuss with people in Japan the program of privatisation which they have got going. They are looking at privatisation in regard to their national railways, in regard to tobacco and in regard to telecommunications, just to mention a few. I think the idea to privatise telecommunications is one of particular interest and one which we ought to look at some more. I think it is one which ought to be discussed in public debate in Australia. The backdrop to privatisation in telecommunications in Japan is that the Government there has a deliberate policy of moving the Japanese economy towards the age of information. What the Government is doing is entrusting that movement to the private enterprise sector. As the head of one of Japan's biggest computer complexes told us: `Competition is important. It provides the right of choice'. I quote his exact words when he said: `The consumer is king'. The remarks of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) did add some rationality to the privatisation debate. I hope that it sets us on a more rational plane for the future. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.45) —The international criminal police organisation, Interpol, always had a romantic image in my eyes. I presume that it was so because the media, mainly in cinema and television programs, created a public perception of Interpol as an organisation of super cops, always ready to fight crime in the international arena. Except for this romantic image I knew nothing else about Interpol until recently. I was prompted to look at Interpol activities by a question on notice asked by Senator Missen in another place on 7 November 1985. The senator, amongst other things, asked: How may requests has the Australian Government received from Interpol to supply information during the financial years from July 1980 to June 1985. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in his reply revealed that 24,878 requests were received by us from Interpol. This would average approximately 5,000 requests per year, or the equivalent of an average of 20 requests each working day. I think this is quite a large number of inquiries daily from an organisation operating from Paris. It was certainly enough to alarm me and awake my curiosity as to the real nature of Interpol and its history. The organisation was founded in Vienna in 1923 by Dr Johannes Schober, head of Vienna Police, and police representatives from another seven countries. When Hitler invaded Austria, 38 nations were members of the organisation and its headquarters were moved to Berlin. Interpol and its files were in the hands of the nazis for eight years. In 1941 Reingard Heydrick, Himmler's deputy, was presiding over Interpol. While very little is known about Interpol's activities during these eight years, it is obvious that it was used by the nazis for their political goals, namely, the domination of Europe. The organisation's files were used to facilitate the rounding-up of Jews for extermination in various countries. After the war Interpol was resurrected with headquarters in Paris and with 19 member nations. In 1968 Paul Dickopf, a former nazi SS intelligence officer No. 33725 of the Sicherheinsdienst was elected as its president. Dickopf was one of the founders of the new police force during the nazi era in Germany. May I say, from my experience and from the experience of some of my friends, one would not want to have anything to do with the so called new German police during the Hitler era if one were a Jew or an anti-nazi. So, Dickopf, who distinguished himself as one of the founders of the dreaded nazi police in Germany, was the head of Interpol between 1963 and 1972. In general, the list of presidents and executive members of Interpol reads like a nazi Who's Who during, as well as after, the war. I am not a great admirer of spooks and the gentlemen who are members of the police, as they are at the best of times imbued with a fascist ideology and are a priori of such disposition. But if you then place a nazi in charge of a fascist inclined organisation like Interpol, the result of such a crossbreed is dreadful to contemplate. If one adds to this the fact that the organisation is its own master-not responsible to any government or to the United Nations-one might rightfully ask: Under what charter or treaty does our own Government supply information on our own citizens to a private organisation? The next question then follows naturally: Who is in charge of the information supplied; who decides where it goes to, and to what use will it be put; how long is the data kept; is it destroyed after a certain period; and, if so, under whose supervision is it destroyed? There are too many questions and too few answers to have any confidence in Interpol. Yet, our police readily co-operate with this private organisation, an organisation which is accused of facilitating the escape and disappearance of wanted nazi war criminals. It is time that the Australian Government requested a United Nations supervised investigation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(7.50) —As a consequence of the dry period country New South Wales is presently suffering, two towns within the Federal electorate of Parkes are presently without water-Byrock and Girilambone. It is disturbing in this day and age, when we can put a man on the moon and spend over $40m on an entertainment centre in Sydney or a High Court building in Canberra, that there are towns in Australia that have no water. Byrock is only a small town of some 40 residents, but it is an important one, being the last stop on the long haul of several hundred kilometres from Dubbo to Bourke. One needs at least 40,000 acres at Byrock to make a living in a normal year. I called in there to the local pub last week to escape the 43-degree centigrade heat, as just about everyone does who passes up and down the Mitchell Highway. I must say that the hospitality of mine host, David Greenaune, was as friendly as always, and I would recommend to any honourable members who are ever passing through that remote part of the world that they call into that pub and have a drink, for it is one of the finest and most modern in Australia. An added attraction is David's lovely wife, Debbie, who must, indeed, qualify as the most attractive barmaid in Australia. With David I inspected what is the town's normal water supply-a hole in the ground some 400 metres long and 100 metres wide. It holds 200,000 cubic metres of water. The trouble is that the hole is only five metres deep. Because of the intense heat in that area, all tank or dam water evaporates at the rate of 1 3/4 metres a year and, as Byrock has not had good run-off for some time, this underground tank is dry. Six loads of water are carted 80 kilometres from Bourke each week on the back of a truck. However, because Byrock is so far from Bourke, this is costing the Bourke Shire and the taxpayers of New South Wales $1,400 a week. So hot and dry is Byrock at the moment that no sooner is the water pumped into the 25,000-gallon overhead steel tank than it evaporates or is lost in the pipes. The longest any lot of water has lasted is 20 minutes. The shire now delivers the water to each of 15 delivery points in the town. However, the meagre allocation of water is not enough. I wonder whether honourable members realise the hardship the people of Byrock are going through. A resident, Mrs I. Muirhead, tells me that whole families are using the same bath water to bathe in. Some families cannot bathe at all. Gardens are non-existent, lawns are dust and trees are dying. The 14 school children cannot flush their toilets and have to wash their hands in a bucket of water that must be used over and over again. All the water is undrinkable. Mothers have to wash nappies in used bath water and babies may not be washed at all. One family has already left town. Unfortunately, the solutions to Byrock's water supply problem all cost considerable amounts of money. For Bourke Shire to drill a bore and fully connect it with power and pipe would cost upwards of $100,000. There is also no guarantee that one would strike water when one drilled for it at Byrock. To deepen the underground tank would cost about $2.50 a metre to rip and move the rock and dirt. Because the pump would have to be replaced and three-phase power connected instead of the one phase power the residents have now, the all-up cost of this operation could be about $70,000. The catch drain system to the tank would also have to be improved. Pumping water from Bourke to Byrock could also be considered. However, whichever way one looks at it, the sum involved is quite beyond the ratepayers of Byrock and the Shire of Bourke in these depressed times. Obviously, government help of some form is needed to help Byrock and Girilambone. This would not be some pork-barrelling handout but merely providing the most basic of facilities to town dwellers in Australia who in this case live on a major highway. It would merely be a matter of rearranging government spending priorities so that money is spent on basics first, and luxuries such as the Entertainment Centre could be funded later on if any money is left over. As it is also costing the taxpayers of this country $1,400 a week to cart water on the back of a truck to Byrock, I would think it would make very good economic sense to fund a permanent supply, especially if this drought lasts much longer. City dwellers would find it hard to imagine the conditions outback people have to live with. The dam water used at Byrock is coloured red from the soil of the dam it comes from. We can fill a beer glass with it and not be able to see from one side to the other. It was interesting to talk to Julie Traynor when I was in Byrock last week. Her husband, Ken, works in the district as a welder. She happened to be doing bar duties that night and told me the problems there. When women go shopping for clothes they never buy anything white; the red washing water soon sees to that. So in conclusion, I hope that the Government can do something to help these fine people. The shortage of water there was really brought home on that day of 43 degree heat when one resident said to me after I had been there for a while: `I hope the talkin' don't make you thirsty, cause up here we don't like to see water wasted'. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(7.55) —I rise to respond to the very colourful report presented to this House in the adjournment debate on 20 February by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Honourable members will recall how impressed the honourable member had been that the Goulburn Valley Wives Trucking Support Group had the signatures of one forty-eighth of the population of Shepparton on a petition about fuel prices and how the honourable member explained that he had gone to this town to tell people about the Interstate Road Transport Act. What the honourable member did not tell us-perhaps because he was too modest-was that the Shepparton sojourn was one of a series of meetings he and his Liberal colleagues have organised on this subject, particularly during the South Australian and Western Australian election campaigns. One such meeting, organised without the courtesy of informing the local member, was held in the Western Australian town of Esperance. Firstly, I would like to remind all honourable members that in referring to the Interstate Road Transport Act we are referring to legislation that arose from a comprehensive national road freight inquiry. We are referring to legislation that encompasses major reforms for the trucking industry, reforms which the industry itself wanted to see addressed. We are referring to legislation that had the support in principle of all States and was not-I repeat not-opposed by the Liberals in this Commonwealth Parliament. While the honourable member for O'Connor regaled this House with references to a black box which he said truckies would have to have fitted to their vehicles, he failed to mention that the box is only one small component of this legislation and a component which is optional. He failed to mention that the legislation includes a fast track package of measures to help the industry. He failed to mention that this package includes the removal of the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas to improve safety. He failed to mention that it includes improvements in finance and insurance arrangements to give truckies the same protection as consumers, and he failed to mention that it includes a system of assessing the extent of cost recovery by both interstate road and rail transport to place competition on a fairer basis. I know not whether the honourable member for O'Connor explained these aspects of the legislation in Shepparton, but I doubt it. Certainly, he gave no indication that he had done so in his report on the meeting to this House. One might also, therefore, wonder whether the honourable member made it clear that the first element in the legislation is that which enables vehicle registration fees to be charged on interstate vehicles. These fees will be passed back to the States so that interstate operators contribute in the same way to the maintenance of our road system as do intrastate operators now. Perhaps the honourable member for O'Connor is unconcerned about the maintenance of roads in the Western Australian electorate that he represents. If that be the case, perhaps he should confer with his Liberal colleague the Shadow Minister for Transport in Western Australia, Norman Moore, who told the trucking magazine Western Transport: The State Opposition sees some merit in requiring interstate operators to pay a registration fee for their vehicles and we also agree that there is urgent need for more uniformity in the laws governing the road transport industry. Let me return to the comparison between the Shepparton meeting and that which the honourable member addressed in Esperance. The major difference between those two meetings is that at the latter the honourable member for Esperance-Dundas in the Western Australian Parliament did learn about the scheduled meeting and did attend. The honourable member for Esperance-Dundas, for the benefit of those who do not know, is Julian Grill, who also holds the office of Minister for Transport in the Western Australian Government. His attendance ensured that while the honourable member for O'Connor was able to give his usual dissertation on the Interstate Road Transport Act he was not allowed to make his remarks unchallenged. Let me make it quite clear that the honourable member was not interrupted in his speech to the meeting. He was allowed his say-a courtesy he repeatedly failed to give others. Honourable members will recall that this same Liberal behaved so disruptively at the Merlin Hotel in Perth when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) attempted to address farmers at that venue that he was asked to leave. Let me add that the officials of the Primary Industry Association in that State expressed dismay that because of his actions the orderly gathering of farmers was denied the opportunity to hear the Prime Minister. He attempted the same disruptive tactics in Esperance when Mr Grill addressed the meeting-but this time he failed. This time he reckoned without the straight-shooting of Western Australian Transport Minister Julian Grill. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 12 March 1986: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Human Rights Commission-Report for 1984-85. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 73) Mr Milton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What processes will he employ to monitor the adherence of successful applicants for banking licences to the commitments made in their applications. (2) What government departments, authorities or other agencies will be involved in this monitoring process. (3) Will monitoring occur on a continuous or periodic basis. (4) Under what circumstances will licences be withdrawn. (5) Will an evaluation be undertaken of the contribution and impact of new banks on (a) the competitiveness and efficiency of the banking sector, (b) employment, union coverage, industrial health and safety in the banking sector, (c) the range of banking services available to the public, (d) the ownership of banks, (e) the manufacturing, exports and housing industries and (f) the availability of finance to small and medium business; if not why not. (6) If the evaluation is to be carried out what bodies will be responsible for this evaluation and what range of instruments will be used to make the evaluation effective. (7) Will he report this information to the Parliament. (8) What resources will be set aside by the Reserve Bank to monitor and assess the risk of the parent body of foreign banks, licensed in Australia, overcommitting their lending resources in other borrowing countries and reducing their financial stability. (9) What additional prudential arrangements are envisaged to protect the Australian financial market from international banking collapses transmitted through subsidiary banks and will these arrangements be formal and reported to the Parliament; if not, why not. (10) What resources will be set aside by the Taxation Department to monitor and report on transfer pricing and other tax avoidance practices occurring in the banking sector. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The successful applicants for banking authorities have been required to develop their applications to the final submission stage in consultations with the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. In these processes the authorities have had careful regard to the commitments contained in the original applications. The formal banking authority given to the successful applicants is, or will be, made conditional on compliance with the prudential standards set from time to time by the Reserve Bank. In addition, where judged appropriate banks have been asked to give commitments in regard to their proposed operations. These operations will also, of course, be monitored regularly by the Reserve Bank, including from a prudential standpoint, and all banks will be required to provide such information as the Reserve Bank may require in connection with their operations and the Reserve Bank's prudential arrangements. (4) The Banking Act does not provide for the revocation of a banking authority other than where a bank ceases to carry on banking business in Australia (Section 9 (8)). However, the Banking Act provides penalties for contravention of provisions of the Act, including failure to comply with conditions specified in the authority. In addition, where a bank is convicted of an offence against the Banking Act or the regulations the High Court may direct it to comply with provisions and regulations and, if the bank fails to comply, may authorise the Reserve Bank to assume control of and to carry on the business of that Bank. (5) and (6) The factors referred to have been carefully considered by the Government in evaluating each application. The Government's aim, in determining the successful applicants, was to admit banks that would make effective contributions to efficiency and competition, to the broadening of banking services to the Australian community generally and to employment in banking. While the successful applicants include some of the world's leading banks, their success or otherwise in the Australian market place will be the ultimate test of their capabilities. See also (7). (7) The Reserve Bank, which has responsibility for the oversight of banks subject to the Banking Act, is required to report to Parliament on its operations each year. Such reports include reports on prudential matters. The Reserve Bank also keeps me informed of significant developments pertaining to the prudential supervision of individual banking institutions and the banking industry generally. (8) The Reserve Bank keeps itself informed of developments in banking operations and supervisory practices overseas. However, responsibility for the supervision of the parent bodies of foreign banks operating in Australia rests with the respective parent authorities. (9) As I indicated in my statement of 10 September 1984, new banks will be locally incorporated. This means that they will have accounting and operating structures, including capital and liquidity, which are separate from those of the parent banks; they will be required to hold assets in Australia of a value not less than their deposit liabilities in Australia; and they will be subjected by the Reserve Bank to at least the same prudential standards and supervision as existing banks. The Reserve Bank will require that on an on-going basis, the subsidiary of a foreign bank in Australia has sound and prudent management, financial resources adequate to its scale of operations and an ability to stand securely in the Australian market place. Its relationships with its foreign bank parent will have to be at arm's length, although the parent will have an obligation to its Australian banking subsidiary to provide additional capital when required. See also answer to Question (7). (10) Concern over the incidence and potential use of transfer pricing and other arrangements to shift profits abroad or to eliminate taxation in Australia has led the Commissioner of Taxation to establish specialist international compliance units within the Australian Taxation Office. One of the major functions of those units is to combat international profit shifting arrangements. Emphasis is being placed on industry studies and on an industry-wide system of audits which examines comparable prices and other information relating to selected industries. In addition, information is regularly exchanged with some treaty partners on taxation problems of common interest, especially those related to multinational companies. The Commissioner has assured me that banks will be treated like any other taxpayer in this regard. Specific provisions in the income tax law and in Australia's international taxation treaties allow the Commissioner of Taxation to redress losses of revenue that could arise from the use of transfer pricing and other tax avoidance practices. To ensure greater voluntary compliance and more effective enforcement of taxation laws the Government recently initiated a number of changes to those laws. These include an increase in the level of penalties for breaches of the taxation laws and modernised provisions for the prosecution of offences against those laws. As a result any taxpayer, including a bank, engaging in profit shifting practices may expect to be liable to substantial pecuniary penalties. (Question No. 645) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) When did he or his Department engage a Sydney barrister to work on a new Bill of Rights, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 April 1985. (2) What work has the barrister been engaged to perform. (3) When is it anticipated that the work of the barrister will be concluded. (4) What are the Government's intentions with respect to the Bill of Rights drawn up during Senator Evans's term of office as Attorney-General. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) See answer to Question No. 1392 (2), (3), (5) in relation to Consultant, J. Young, Esq. Mr Young was engaged as a Consultant. (4) Senator Evans's Bill has been made available to the public, under the Freedom of Information Act. No other action is being taken with respect to it. (Question No. 1127) Mr Wright asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to press reports that Asian counterfeiters are reproducing Australia's oldest coin, the holey dollar, of such quality that even experienced numismatists could be fooled. (2)What action can be taken to prohibit this practice in view of the harm that it could do to the Australian numismatic industry. (3) What penalties exist at the Commonwealth level for persons found guilty of counterfeiting activities. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) The Attorney-General has advised that the question of what action can be taken to prohibit the practice, so far as any legal sanction is concerned, depends upon whether a holey dollar is covered by the provisions of the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 which came into operation on 16 December 1985. If it is, then the counterfeiting, irrespective of where it was done, would constitute an offence. Any offender amenable to Australian justice would be liable to be dealt with according to law. It may be mentioned in passing that on 8 September 1981 in the second reading speech on the Crimes (Currency) Bill, it was indicated that that Bill, as then drafted, purported to deal with the reproduction of holey dollars (see Hansard, House of Representatives, 8 September 1981, at p. 1032). Also, so far as introducing counterfeit holey dollars into Australia is concerned, it needs to be noted that under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation the importation of counterfeit coin is prohibited absolutely. Any person who imports counterfeit coin commits an offence under the Customs Act 1901. (3) Under the provisions of the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981, the maximum penalty for making counterfeit money is fourteen years in the case of a person not being a body corporate. For a body corporate, the maximum penalty is a fine of $75,000. (Question No. 1437) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1)What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (4). Advertising campaigns and research studies commissioned by the Department of the Treasury during the period March 1983 to August 1985, were as follows: (1) Advertising Campaign or Research Study 4 (a) Cost 4 (b) Agency fees $ $ Advertising Campaigns: Australian Savings Bonds... 4,686,626 215,564 Special Bonds Maturity... 29,681 985 Australian Savings Bonds Maturities... 202,409 2,816 Treasury Bond Tenders... 1,398,356 158,656 Treasury Bond Maturities... 188,745 9,227 Treasury Indexed Bonds... 308,978 38,474 Research Study: Australian Savings Bonds... 18,300 NA (2) The relevant area of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism co-ordinates all Treasury advertising campaigns and research studies related to the promotion of Commonwealth Government Securities. (3) Advertising agencies and market research firms used: (a) Name (b) Amount paid Mar 1983-Aug 1985 $ Ogilvy and Mather (Aust.) Pty Ltd... 17,161 Rodney Silver and Partners Pty Ltd... 408,561 Bennett Research Pty Ltd... 18,300 (Question No. 1465) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Treasury produces a publication entitled The Round-up. (2) (a) The then Round-up of Economic Statistics was first published in February 1973. As from March 1985, the style and format of the publication were changed and the title abridged to The Round-up. (b) The Round-up is co-ordinated and produced by the Economic Branch, General Financial and Economic Policy Division of the Treasury. Most Treasury Divisions contribute material for inclusion. (c) The co-ordination of The Round-up requires approximately one person-year each year (i.e. twelve issues). About 30 to 40 Treasury officers are estimated to contribute small amounts of their time in preparing or reviewing material which is included regularly. The workload arising from occasional supplements to The Round-up is variable. (d) Monthly. (e) The Round-up is printed by the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS). The print run is generally of the order of 2,000 to 2,200 copies. (f) The Round-up is a priced publication. Each month around 900 copies are delivered to Treasury for use within Treasury and for distribution to, inter alia, Federal Parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Press Gallery and overseas posts. Approximately 900 copies are sold by AGPS to mail order subscribers and the remainder are offered for sale at AGPS bookshops. Mail order subscribers include Commonwealth and State departments and authorities, universities, high schools, private companies, professional associations, unions, foreign governments, the media and private individuals. (g) The Treasury has editorial responsibility for The Round-up. Each issue is passed to the Treasurer prior to printing for his clearance. (h) The objective of The Round-up is to draw together recently issued economic statistics and to present them (by means of text, tables and charts) in a manner designed to facilitate assessments of economic conditions. From time to time The Round-up includes supplements on topics of current economic interest. (i) For 1984-85 as a whole, production costs (artists' fees and printing) amounted to around $60,000. Administrative costs are estimated at $25,000. (1) Treasury Economic Papers (TEPs). TEPs are a series of occasional papers on matters of topical interest in economic policy. In many cases they are Treasury Submissions to Committees of Inquiry or Senate Standing Committee Inquiries that have been published as TEPs in order to contribute to a broader public awareness and understanding of the issues involved. The series commenced in 1972, superseding the earlier series of similar papers published under the format of Supplements to the Treasury Information Bulletin (itself superseded early in 1973 by the Round-up of Economic Statistics). Publications in the TEP series are as follows: TEP 1 Overseas Investment in Australia (1972). TEP 2 Economic Growth: Is it Worth Having? (1973). TEP 3 Flexibility, Economic Change and Growth: Treasury Submission to the Study Group on Structural Adjustment (1978). TEP 4 Job Markets: Economic and Statistical Aspects of the Australian Market for Labour (1979). TEP 5 Energy Markets: Some Principles of Pricing (1979). TEP 6 NIEO: An Assessment of the Proposals for a New International Economic Order (1979). TEP 7 Technology, Growth and Jobs: Treasury Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia (1981). TEP 8 Resource Development: Maximising Opportunities: Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources: The Development of the Bauxite, Alumina and Aluminium Industries (1981). TEP 9 The Australian Financial System: Treasury Submission to the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System (1981). TEP 10 Public Monopolies: Telecom and Australia Post Submission to the Committees of Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia and into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission (1983). TEP 11 Competition in the Air: Treasury Submission to the Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation (1985). Copies of Treasury Economic Papers are available for purchase from AGPS bookshops. (2) (a) 1972. (b) Department of the Treasury. (c) Most recent publications have been of material initially prepared for other purposes. In the latest case, the additional work involved in preparation for publication was of the order of 2 person-weeks. (d) See list in (1). (e) AGPS. There is a print run of 600 copies for official use. The AGPS determines how many it will produce for sale in AGPS bookshops. (f) The copies for official use are distributed by and within Treasury. Other Departments, libraries and the interested public may purchase copies from AGPS. (g) The Secretary to the Treasury. (h) The aim of the series is to raise the standard of public debate on issues of economic policy and to combat common misconceptions of economic questions. (i) The estimated cost of producing 600 copies of a 25 page, B5 typeset TEP as at April 1985 is: administrative costs, $1,000; typesetting and printing, $1,400. (1) The Australian Life Tables (2) (a) The Australian Life Tables were first calculated for the period 1881-1890 and were first published a few years after the 1911 census. (b) The Office of the Australian Government Actuary. (c) The Australian Life Tables are produced after each census. Currently censuses are being held at five yearly intervals. (d) Three officers are involved. Detailed records of the time spent preparing the Life Tables are not kept, but it is roughly estimated that the officers spend a total of thirty person-weeks over a five-year period in examining population mortality including producing population mortality tables and publishing those tables as the Australian Life Tables. That estimate included time spent discussing data requirements and obtaining data, considering the construction of the tables, performing calculations, drafting the report, liaising with the publisher, distributing copies and answering follow-up queries from government departments and the public. Some of the estimated thirty person-weeks would relate specifically to the Australian Life Tables publication but much of the work would be performed even if the Life Tables were not published because the Office uses population mortality in its own work (for example, in costing superannuation scheme benefits). (e) Australian Government Publishing Service. The number of copies printed was 1,161. (f) About 30 copies were distributed to major Australian libraries. A further 291 copies were delivered to the Office of the Australian Government Actuary for distribution to official users, including the Australian Taxation Office and other government departments. The remaining 840 copies were offered for sale at Australian Government Bookshops. The publication is of particular interest to lawyers because the Life Tables are used in compensation cases. (g) The Australian Government Agency controls the content of the publication. (h) The series of Life Tables forms a record of the changing mortality rates of Australians over the period 1881-90 to 1980-82. In addition, the most recent Tables can be used to estimate probabilities connected with persons living or dying in the future. (i) Printing costs incurred by the Office of the Australian Government Actuary for the 291 copies of the Australian Life Tables 1980-82 which were for official use were $488.39. Typesetting costs were $454.77. Staff costs cannot be assessed because it is uncertain what proportion of the total time devoted to the analysis of population mortality would be avoided if the Life Tables were not published. (1) Quarterly Statistical Bulletin. (2) (a) June 1980. (b) Office of the Life Insurance Commissioner. (c) It is estimated that five staff members contributed approximately 25% of their time totalling 58 person-weeks. (d) Quarterly-March, June, September and December. (e) Australian Government Publishing Service. Print run of 500 copies for the Office, plus AGPS run on of approximately 300 copies. (f) Approximately 475 copies distributed by the Office, plus 300 copies sold by AGPS through bookshops throughout Australia. Circulated within Australia to industry, government departments and authorities and other interested parties. (g) Life Insurance Commissioner. (h) To provide the life insurance industry, government and other interested parties with an up to date statistical summary of the operations of the industry within Australia. (i) $2,500 printing costs plus administrative costs estimated at $28,000. (1) Half-Yearly Financial and Statistical Bulletin: (2) (a) 1977. (b) Office of the Life Insurance Commissioner. (c) It is estimated that five staff members contribute approximately 35% of their time totalling 113 person-weeks. (d) Twice yearly-June and December. (e) Australian Government Publishing Service. Print run June edition 1,000 copies and December edition 600 copies for the Office, plus AGPS run on of 500 copies for June edition and 200 copies for December edition. (f) June edition 950 copies and December edition 550 copies distributed by the Office both within Australia and overseas, plus approximately 500 copies for June edition and 200 copies for December edition sold by AGPS through bookshops throughout Australia. Circulated to industry, government departments and organisations and other interested parties both within Australia and overseas. (g) Life Insurance Commissioner. (h) To provide a financial, statistical and actuarial summary of the operations of life insurance companies operating in Australia. (i) $2,500 printing costs plus administrative costs estimated at $54,000. (1) Maximum Endorsed Industry Prices for Petroleum Products: (Motor Spirit, Automotive Distillate, Aviation Gasoline, Aviation Turbine Fuel, Refinery Produced LPG). (2) (a) 1 October 1979 by Prices Justification Tribunal, continued by Petroleum Product Pricing Authority and first produced by Prices Surveillance Authority on 1 April 1984. (b) Prices Surveillance Authority. (c) It is estimated that one staff member contributes approximately 10% of his time totalling 5 person-weeks per year. (d) Monthly. (e) Prices Surveillance Authority, 233 copies. (f) 233 to State government bodies and municipalities and major private sector parties interested in prices of petroleum products. (g) Chief Executive Officer, Prices Surveillance Authority. (h) Information on wholesale prices of petroleum products. (i) Printing costs approximately $60 per month and administrative costs approximately $300 per month. (1) Price News (2) (a) August 1985. (b) Prices Surveillance Authority. (c) It is estimated that one staff member contributes approximately 25% of his time totalling 12 person-weeks per year. (d) Quarterly. (e) Australian Government Publishing Service print run 5,000 copies. (f) 5,000; the ACTU, State and Regional Trades and Labour Councils, major employer organisations, Chamber of Commerce, State governments, local government organisations. (g) Chairman, Prices Surveillance Authority. (h) Comments by the Prices Surveillance Authority on movements in prices of supermarket items. (i) Staff-$2,136 per quarter, printing-$500 per quarter, postage-$125 per quarter. (1) Income Tax Ready Reckoner. (2) (a) 1915. (b) Australian Taxation Office. (c) Statistical tables are computer generated, but editorial preparation and checking require three people almost full-time for about three months. (d) Annually. (e) Australian Government Publishing Service with a print run of 20,100. (f) The publication contains statistical tables showing the amount of income tax payable, before the allowance of any tax rebates, on taxable incomes up to $41,000. There are separate tables for calculation of tax on incomes exceeding that figure. It is used by tax agents throughout Australia and by the Australian Taxation Office within its own offices. (g) Editorial control is exercised by the Australian Taxation Office. (h) It is designed to simplify finding out how much tax is payable by individual taxpayers, as well as being a useful aid for tax practitioners. (i) It is not possible to identify the total printing, staff and administrative costs associated with this single publication. (1) A list of publications produced and distributed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is contained in the Catalogue of Publications (ABS Catalogue No. 1101.0), a copy of the most recent edition of which (1985) has been provided to the honourable member. (2) (a) The data on which each publication was first issued is shown in the catalogue referred to in (1). (b) The Australian Bureau of Statistics. (c) During the financial year 1984-85, the average monthly numbers of ABS staff involved directly in publishing activities throughout Australia were 65 full time and 3 part time. (d) The frequency of issue of each publication is shown in the catalogue referred to in (1). The following table provides a summary of numbers of titles published and issues released during the financial year 1984-85: Number of Titles Number of Issues Annual... 272 323 Quarterly... 89 292 Monthly... 87 873 Other... 77 79 Total... 525 1,567 (e) The bulk of ABS publications are printed `in-house' by the Government Printer's Subprintery. The remainder are contracted out by the Australian Government Publishing Service to either Government Printers or private enterprise. Print runs vary from a minimum of 400 to a maximum of 16,000 copies. (f) ABS publications are circulated within the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments and their instrumentalities, throughout the private sector and amongst the community as a whole. Numbers of statistical publications sent to ABS mailing list subscribers vary between a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 12,000 copies per publication. Additional stocks are held by the ABS for response to ad hoc requests. (g) The Australian Statistician has ultimate editorial responsibility, with day-to-day responsibility in the hands of the Assistant Statisticians in charge of relevant subject matter areas and the Director of the Information Service Section. (h) In general terms the objectives of ABS publications are to satisfy a wide range of user requirements for a variety of official statistics. (i) The direct costs of ABS publications activities for the financial year 1984-85 amounted to $1,378,000. This amount does not take into account the salaries of many members of staff throughout the ABS who contribute material for the Bureau's publications, as part of their normal duties. (1) Economic Newsletter; Housing Report. (2) (a) Economic Newsletter-1978; Housing Report-1985. (b) Commonwealth Bank of Australia (both publications). (c) It is not feasible to nominate the number of staff involved in the production of either publication or the percentage of time devoted to it, since the work is interwoven with the other activities of the Bank's economic research personnel and, in the main, would be carried out regardless of whether the publications were issued to the public. (d) Economic Newsletter-monthly; Housing Report-quarterly. (e) Printers: Elizabeth Cook Administrative Services of Eastwood, NSW. Print run: Economic Newsletter, 3,000; Housing Report, 2,500. (f) Distributed throughout all branches of the Bank and directly to clients. (g) Economic Newsletter, Chief Economist; Housing Report, Chief General Manager, Retail Banking. (h) Economic Newsletter-to provide meaningful economic commentary to senior personnel within the Bank, its clients and financial markets. The newsletter is similar in concept to economic publications issued by most major banks. Housing Report-to provide up-to-date information on housing, such as trends in prices, characteristics of home borrowers, lending activity, etc. (i) Economic Newsletter: Printing and typesetting... $21,000pa Distribution, postage and other administration... $33,000pa $54,000pa Housing Report: Printing and typesetting... $3,000pa Distribution, postage and other administration... $1,300pa $4,300pa (1) Reserve Bank Bulletin. (2) (a) 1937. (b) Reserve Bank of Australia. (c) None full-time, information is prepared in conjunction with other activities of the Bank. (d) Monthly. (e) Currently Ambassador Press Pty Ltd; 5,000 copies. (f) Approx. 5,000 copies Australia and overseas. (g) Reserve Bank of Australia. (h) Dissemination of information. (i) $7,400 printing cost only. (1) Functions and Operations. (2) (a) 1966. (b) Reserve Bank of Australia. (c) None full-time, information is prepared in conjunction with other activities of the Bank. (d) Reprinted (with revisions at irregular intervals). (e) 5th Edition (1984)-Cover: Merritt Madden Printing Pty; Text: Ambassador Press Pty Ltd. 15,000 copies. (f) mainly distributed within Australia, upon request. (g) Reserve Bank of Australia. (h) Dissemination of information. (i) 5th Edition $9,500 printing cost only. (Question No. 1493) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Details of computer or ADP hardware for organisations within the Treasurer's portfolio are shown in the attachment. (3) The Treasury uses the Department of Finance Amdahl computer on a bureau basis for econometric modelling applications and some minor information systems; there is no other sharing of any major system with any other user. COMPUTER OR ADP HARDWARE (1) Hardware Brand Description (2) For major systems: Principal function (a) Date installed (b) Hardware cost ($'000) (c) Anticipated life (years) (d) at date of purchase Replace- ment action (e) AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS-SEPTEMBER 1985 FUJITSU M382 CENTRAL COMPUTING INSTALLATION Fujitsu Printers Statistical processing 1980 309 6-8 * Storage equipment Statistical processing 1980-85 5,095 10-15 * Processor and ancillary equipment Statistical processing 1984+ 8,380 10-15 * Digital Printers Statistical processing 1980-81 580 7-10 * Network equipment (Excluding printers) Statistical processing 1980-81 3,520 10-15 * Information Electronics Visual display units Statistical processing 1980-85 1,095 5-10 * Tally Printer attachments Statistical processing 1980-85 230 5-10 * Control Data Installations Control Data CYBER-72# Statistical processing 1975 1,820 10-15 Phased out Sept. 1985 and replaced by CYBER 180-81 (see below) 3500# Statistical processing 1972 2,180 10-15 To be phased out Dec. 1986. No direct replacement-workload will be transferred to the Fujitsu M382 installation. Cyber-180-81# Statistical processing 1985 683 10-15 * Data Entry Systems Nixdorf Data entry equipment (Mini computer and data entry work-stations) Entry of statistical; data 1984-85 1,015 10-15 * Word Processing (Includes printers of same brand) Olivetti ETS1010 (several) Word processor Text production 1983-84 90 5 * Olivetti ETS1010 Word processor Text production 1985-86 7 5 * Digital WS247 7 Station word processor pool Text production 1979-80 76 7 * Decmate I Word processor Text production 1981-82 7 5 * Decmate II (several) Word processor Text production 1983-84 43 5 * Decmate III Word processor Text production 1984-85 4 5 * Remington NBI Word processor Text production 1984-85 17 5 * Wordplex 80/4 Mathematical text processor Text production 1984-85 27 5 * IBM Displaywriter (2) Word processor Text production 1982-83 30 5 * Telecommunication equipment Tandy TRS80 Model 16 (2) Microcomputer Communication/administration 1982-83 24 5 * Tandy Model 4P (3) Microcomputer Communication/text production 1984-85 2 5 * 3M Whisperwriter (several) Telecommunication terminals Electronic mail 1983-84 24 5 * Microcomputers (Including processor, memory, disk storage and monitors) IBM PC XT (several) Microcomputer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 1985-86 82 5 * Macintosh XL (several) Microcomputer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 48 5 * Macintosh XL (FAT MAC) Microcomputer Project management/ statistical processing 1984-85 4 5 * National JB 3000 (several) Microcomputer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 20 5 * MICA V253-INS Microcomputer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 7 5 * Microcomputer printers/plotters IBM Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 3 5 * NEC Spinwriter (several) Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 1984-85 6 5 * Apple Imagwriter Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1984-85 1 5 * Apple DMP Graphics Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 2 5 * Apple Daisy Wheel Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 2 5 * HP Laserjet Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1984-85 6 5 * EPSON FX100 (several) Printer Project management/ statistical processing 1983-84 16 5 * HP 7470A Plotter Project management/ statistical processing 1984-85 1 5 * + - The M382 central processor, and ancillary equipment, replaced the M200 processor originally purchased in 1980. * - No replacement action contemplated at this time-this equipment is expected to remain appropriate and viable for several years. # - These stand-alone computers consist of a central processing unit and all peripherals. AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE 1. Control Data Mainframe & Associated Peripheral Equipment (eg Disk & Tape Units & Controller, CPU, Memory Expansion Units, Printers Main Computing Equipment 4/77 7/82 Purchased $3,176 Leased approx $102 per Month 7-9 years Initial studies have commenced. Acquisition Planned Completion 1988/89. 2. Prime Network Communication Controller and Data Entry Operations Communications and Data Entry 7/82 to date $9,182 7 years None at present. 3. Honeywell Data Entry Data Entry 1973 Not available 12 years In hand, being replaced by Item 6. 4. Network Systems Corp Data Communications Equipment 5. Wang Word Processing 6. Time Office Computer Local Area Network and Data Entry Terminals Data Entry Terminals and Lan Hardware and Software 12/83- to date $11,768 7 years Nil 7. IBM Olivetti Kaypro Epson Apple Stand-a-lone Microcomputer Workstations (Some include printer equipment) 8. Tallgrass Technologies External Hard Disk Units for Microcomputer Workstations 9. Hitachi Printers at remote computing sites 10. Toshiba, Epson, Facit, Microline Network & Microcomputer Printers 11. Telex Terminals & Printers 12. Wyse Televideo Terminal Equipment 13. Princeton Taxan Microcomputer Monitors RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA Facom M380 Facom M180 Facom 4 x M150 Mainframe Mainframe Mainframe Accounting, Payroll, Personnel and Investment functions, Management information systems, banking and registry systems 1984 Not available COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION IBM Processors CPU's in computer centre-IBM 2 years $28.5m 5/7 years. However this could be reduced dependent on development in technology. . . NCR Processors IBM Disk drives IBM Tape controllers IBM Printers IBM Communication controllers IBM MICR processor IBM Olivetti NCR Microfilm units Branch terminals Branch terminals Ancillary equipment in computer centres-IBM, disk drives, tape controller printers, etc. Built up over last decade Approx. $41.5m 7/10 years or as directed by tech- nology Continual program revising obsoles- cence and growth require- ments. IBM NCR Self Service Terminals Self Service Terminals CPU's and ancillary equipment in computer centre-NCR. 1 year Approx. $1.8m 7/10 years . . Burroughs Point of Sale Terminals Autobanks-Self Service Terminals-IBM Over last 4 years Approx. $18m 10 years . . IBM VDUs and support Memorex VDUs and support Point of Sale Terminals-Burroughs 6 months Approx. $2.1m 7 years . . Branch On-Line terminals-Olivetti Over last 10 years Approx. $44m 7/10 years Continual replacement program for obsole- scence Branch On-Line ter- minals-NCR 3 months Approx. $5.7m 7/10 years . . VDU (Screens) and support-IBM, i.e printers and controllers Over last 7 years Approx. 3.8m 7/10 years Preliminary planning only at this stage. VDU and support-Memorex 1 year Approx. $2.6m 7/10 years . . Note: Details do not include systems in subsidiary or associated companies or offshore points of representation. ROYAL AUSTRALIAN MINT Wang VS 65 Central Processor Office Automation 26.6.85 73 10 years Nil Wang VS 65 Central Processor Manufacturing Sys. 26.6.85 82 10 years Nil Wang 4 x 4230 Terminals Wang 8 x 4205 Terminals Wang 3 x 5533 Printers Wang 2 x DWOS/55 Printers Wang 1 x 5574 Printer Wang 1 x 5577 Printer Wang 3 x PC.004A P.C.-Diskettes Wang 1 x PC-XC3 P.C.-Winchester PRICES SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY Convergent Technologies Microcomputers Qume Printers THE TREASURY Wang VS100 Honeywell DPS 6/75 Minicomputer Minicomputer Word Processing Agents and Brokers Dec. 1982 Dec. 1980 981 242 7 years 7 years Replace- ment by enhancement being considered from FY 1986/87 onward. Wang Professional Computers IBM Personal Computers Honeywell Microcomputer Commodore Microcomputer Wang Workstations IBM Terminals Attached to the Department of Finance Amdahl mainframe. Epson Printers Hewlett Packard Plotters and Laser printer Microline Printers Juki Printer Raytheon Terminals Tektronix Plotter Houston Plotter (Question No. 1675) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Is sales tax exemption for fruit juice products restricted to (a) pure Australian single strength fruit juice or (b) cordials utilising at least 25% Australian fruit juice? (2) What was the amount of sales tax collected on imported fruit juice in each of the last 3 financial years? Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. In addition to non-alcoholic beverages consisting wholly of juices of Australian fruits or vegetables (including herbage) and cordials for the making of non-alcoholic beverages containing at least 25% Australian fruit juice, exemption also applies to preparations for use in the flavouring of food and concentrates for the making of non-alcoholic beverages which consist of not less than 25 per cent by volume of Australian fruit juices. Further, fruit juice products of the kind described but manufactured from the juices of New Zealand fruits or of Australian and New Zealand fruits are exempt from tax, whether manufactured in Australia or New Zealand. Similarly, imported fruit juice products of the kind described but manufactured from juices of fruits of Papua New Guinea are also exempt from sales tax. Fruit juice products which do not qualify for exemption are taxable at the general rate of 20%. (2) Amounts of sales tax revenue derived from particular commodities are not recorded separately. However it has been estimated that collections of sales tax on imported fruit juices in 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were $6m, $8m and $8m respectively. (Question No. 1859) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Further to his answer to question 1184 (Hansard, 10 September 1985, page 611), will he request the Ministerial Council to take steps to ensure that the preparation and the tabling in the appropriate State Parliament of annual reports of State Corporate Affairs Commissions is made obligatory. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: While ultimately it is a matter for each State as to whether the reports of its Corporate Affairs Commission should be tabled in its Parliament, I am sympathetic to the concern underlying the honourable member's question, namely that as Corporate Affairs Commissions play a very important role in the co-operative companies schemes, their operations should be publicly reported and able to be scrutinised. Accordingly, I will seek to raise the honourable member's request at a meeting of the Ministerial Council. In the meantime, as noted in my answer to question 1184, the annual report of the National Companies and Securities Commission deals in some detail with the administration of the Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme Acts and Codes by the Corporate Affairs authorities in each State and the Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 2064) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2). My Department has not had any services provided by Mr Phillip Adams or Mr Rod Cameron or their respective companies. The Independent Air Fares Committee has not had any services provided by Mr Phillip Adams or Mr Rod Cameron or their respective companies. TAA considers that information of the type requested is commercially sensitive and confidential. QANTAS advises that no amounts have been paid to Mr R. Cameron or Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls. Payments have been made for advertising services to Monahan Dayman Adams Ltd of which Mr P. Adams is a principal. However, details of the amounts are confidential business information which QANTAS does not wish to divulge publicly. (Question No. 2133) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Is it a fact that motor traffic laws vary considerably from State to State and that these variations in law create confusion and costs to the community. (2) Will he convene a meeting of State Attorneys-General with the specific purpose of achieving uniformity in motor traffic laws. (3) Will he take up this issue as a matter of urgency with the Minister for Transport. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Although a number of differences in traffic laws do exist, a high degree of uniformity has been achieved in regard to the road rules themselves. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that the Federal Government, through its involvement with the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC), is seeking resolution of the remaining differences. (2) Given that this matter is already being dealt with by ATAC, no need is seen for it to be raised by the Commonwealth in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. (3) I am advised by the Minister for Transport that a National Road Traffic Code, which is the model for traffic rules and regulations in Australia, was endorsed in 1962 by the ATAC. A major revision of the Code, which is subject to continuous review, was endorsed by ATAC in 1981. (Question No. 2134) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Further to my question on notice No. 1669, has the Trade Practices Commission asked the Government to consider modifying the normal rules of evidence to allow an easier and more meaningful assessment of business conduct in trade practices cases. (2) Has the Trade Practices Commission called for a review of (a) the procedures of the Federal Court, (b) whether cases involving complex issues of law and economics should be dealt with by the General Division of the Federal Court or by a special division created for this purpose, (c) whether Judges of the Federal Court should have the assistance of an economist sitting with them on cases involving competition issues and (d) whether a specialist tribunal, such as the Trade Practices Tribunal, should deal with competition issues on reference from the Court. (3) If so, is he able to say what action he intends to take on these recommendations. (4) Will he consider appropriate amendments to section 4d of the Trade Practices Act in the light of the decision of the Federal Court in the Freight Forwarders Case, and the recommendations of the Trade Practices Commission in its Annual Report for 1984-85; if not, why not. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Trade Practices Commission drew attention to these matters in its 1984-85 Annual Report, in relation to the Decision in the Freight Forwarders' Case and called for a review. (3) The matters raised by the Trade Practices Commission in its report are substantial issues. My Department has them under examination and discussions have taken place between it and the Commission. I will make a decision on what further action should be taken when these discussions are completed. (4) An amendment to section 4d of the Trade Practices Act, along the lines suggested by the TPC, is included in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill currently before the Parliament. (Question No. 2497) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Is his Department administratively responsible for the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. (2) Does the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission maintain a register of incorporated associations. (3) Does the Ordinance oblige a public officer to file (a) a copy of a balance sheet of an incorporated association at least once in every 12 months and (b) any advice of changes in the constitution of the organisation, its address and office-bearers. (4) Does the Ordinance provide a penalty in relation to an officer who fails to comply with these legal requirements. (5) What action is taken by the Corporate Affairs Commission when it becomes aware that an organisation has failed to meet its obligations under the Ordinance. (6) Are breaches referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, or are any other steps taken either within his Department or within the Commission to seek compliance with the Ordinance. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3)- (a) Yes. (b) The public officer is required to notify the Commission of changes in the Constitution and of his own address, but not of office bearers. (4) Yes. (5) and (6) I am informed that when an association fails to meet its obligations under the ordinance the Commission sends a demand to the public officer of the association that he attend to the lodgment of the outstanding document. The Commission's primary objective is to secure lodgment on the public register. The practice in this area has not been to refer cases of this kind for prosecution. Many of the associations in question are community based organisations. In addition there are shortcomings in the existing ordinance which make prosecution difficult. I have recently approved proposals for a major reform of the ordinance which followed upon a complete reappraisal of its provisions. The drafting of the new ordinance is a substantial task but I am informed that it is well advanced. The making of the new ordinance will remove the shortcomings to which I have referred. (Question No. 2498) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) How many organisations are registered with the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission under the Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. (2) Are organisations registered under the Ordinance required to advise the Commission of any change in their constitution and objectives, as well as changes in office-bearers and registered address. (3) Does the Ordinance provide a penalty for a failure to notify such changes. (4) Does the Commission, or his Department, or any authority responsible to him, check compliance by incorporated associations with the Ordinance. (5) How many incorporated associations have failed to comply with the obligation to file, at least once in every 12 months, particulars of the financial affairs of the association and balance sheets. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 5 February 1986 there were 1223 organisations registered under the Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. (2) The public officer is required to advise the Corporate Affairs Commission within one month of any alteration to the association's objects or rules. The public officer is also required within 14 days of his appointment, or of changing his address, to notify the Commission in writing of the change. There is no legal requirement for the association or public officer to advise the Commission of changes of other office-bearers of the association. (3) Yes. (4) The Corporate Affairs Commission checks on the requirement imposed upon the public officer to lodge a balance sheet each 12 months. (5) 1113 associations were due to lodge balance sheets during 1985. Of these, approximately 613 had not done so at the end of January 1986. (Question No. 2499) Mr Ruddock asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Is the Tau Community Association registered under the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. (2) At 16 October 1985, was the most recent document lodged on the register, a constitution filed on 25 June 1984; if so, have documents been lodged since that date notifying (a) a change in the aims and objectives of the constitution, (b) a list of office-bearers or (c) a statement of its financial affairs and balance sheet. (3) When were such documents lodged with the Commission. (4) If the documents were lodged before 16 October 1985, what was the reason for the delay in the documents being placed on the register. (5) Is it possible for documents to be lodged and not placed on the register. (6) Is it a fact that the Tau Community Association has claimed that it filed with the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission a financial return and balance sheet. (7) If the document is not now on the register, has any search been undertaken to locate the missing document or documents; if so, what has the search disclosed. (8) If a search has failed to disclose the documents, what action will be taken in relation to the organisation and its public officer to ensure compliance with the Ordinance and will he outline to the House particulars of action taken. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (a) On 22 October 1985 a notice was lodged advising that on 27 March 1985 two of the Rules of Tau Community Association Incorporated were altered. (b) No. A list of office bearers is not required to be lodged under the Ordinance after incorporation. (c) On 25 October 1985 a balance sheet as at 31 December 1984 and a statement of receipts and payments in respect of the Association for the year ended 31 December 1984 were lodged together with an audit report. (3) and (4) See above. (5) It is a possibility. (6) The ACT Corporate Affairs Commission is not aware of any such claims having been made by Tau Community Association Incorporated. (7) and (8) The documents mentioned in my answer to part (2) are on the register and thus no action in relation to Tau Community Association Incorporated is presently necessary. (Question No. 2505) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The Royal Australian Mint made a donation of $120.00 to the ACT Apprenticeship Week Committee in June 1985. (2) No. (3), (4) and (5). Not applicable. (Question No. 2510) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has compiled with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Grants from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program (NERDDP) and the National Water Research Program (NWRP) will be paid to both the Australian National University and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in 1985/86. (2) No. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. The NERDDP Standard Conditions of Grant provide for various financial and technical reports to be submitted by grantees. Payment of grant instalments is conditional on these reports being received in the Department by the due dates. The NWRP General Conditions of Grant have similar provisions. (Question No. 2529) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Petitions pertaining to matters within my portfolio are in the first instance passed to me. If appropriate, they are then referred to my Department for consideration of the issues raised. (Question No. 2546) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Petitions received in my office which are relevant to the Aviation portfolio are referred to the Department of Aviation. The views expressed in the petitions are taken into account in the development and administration of policies and programs in the same way as the views expressed in direct representations received from other organisations and individuals. (Question No. 2578) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the Hume Highway is being upgraded between Table Top and Woomargama, NSW, to less than national highway standard; if so, why. (2) Who is doing the reconstruction work and what is the expected (a) completion date and (b) cost. (3) Is the Commonwealth or NSW Government paying for the work. (4) If the Commonwealth Government is paying, were tenders called. (5) When will work commence on the 4 lane national highway in this sector. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I approved a number of proposed maintenance projects which were to involve rehabilitation works of existing pavement formation on parts of the Table Top to Woomargama section of the Sydney-Melbourne National Highway. The construction to National Highway standards is to follow. During the performance of the works the DMR provided side-tracks to facilitate traffic flow, and these were subsequently incorporated into the Highway as a third lane. The Federal Department of Transport has since issued clear guidelines requiring that any widening works be classified as construction. The DMR has provided an assurance that it will comply with this requirement in future. (2) The DMR is carrying out three pavement rehabilitation projects between the Table Top and Woomargama using its own workforce Location (a) Expected completion date (b) Estimated cost $000 Frogs Hollow to Sweetwater Creek (136.4 km to 141.4 km south of Gundagai) prior to 30 June 1986 100 Sweetwater Creek to Main Road 282 (141.4 km to 148.4 km south of Gundagai) prior to 30 June 1986 500 Bowna to Yellow Creek (148.4 km to 153.0 km south of Gundagai) prior to 30 June 1986 2000 (3) The Federal Government is paying for the works under the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985. In the fiscal years 1983-84 and 1984-85 funding of the works on this section was under the Roads Grants Act 1981. (4) No. Under the Roads Grants Act and its replacement, the Australian Land Transport Act 1985, tendering is only required for construction works on National Roads. Under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982, tendering is required for National and Arterial roads. The pavement rehabilitation works in question were approved as part of the New South Wales National Roads maintenance program. As I indicated in Question 1 the DMR has provided an assurance that all widening work is to be classified as construction. The DMR has also undertaken to ensure that tenders are called for future widening works. (5) I have already approved one project on this section for the provision of four lanes. This involves some 7 kilometres of road and works are scheduled to to tender and commence during 1985-86. The DMR has not submitted projects for approval for construction in 1986-87 as yet. I will shortly be calling for the submission of the 1986-87 program and will be specifying that projects in this section be included. (Question No. 2588) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the investment market is inhibited by the absence of a set of approved accounting standards and (b) a secure and informed market for investors would be created by (i) accurate statistical information and (ii) greater disclosure required by any standards to be approved. (2) Is it a fact that after 19 months the Accounting Standards Review Board has been able to approve only 3 standards out of 15 proposed by the accounting profession and other interested organisations; if so, what is the reason for the delay. (3) Will he allocate sufficient resources to enable the Board to complete and review a set of approved accountancy standards by May 1986. (4) Will the Ministerial Council consider standards already operating overseas if the delay continues. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I agree that the investment market would be assisted if there were in force a comprehensive group of approved accounting standards. (2) I refer the honourable member to my answer of 30 November 1985 to his earlier Question on Notice No. 1384 relating to this subject (Hansard p. 4117). (3) and (4) The question of the resources to be provided to the Accounting Standards Review Board under the co-operative companies and securities scheme is a matter for the Ministerial Council. At its last meeting in Canberra on 5/6 December 1985 the Council expressed its concern at the delay in the development of approved accounting standards. To overcome this problem, the Council has instructed the Accounting Standards Review Board and the National Companies and Securities Commission to develop `fast track' procedures to increase the number of approved standards in force. I am informed that the development of these procedures is at an advanced stage. In the event that this approach proves successful, it will not be necessary for the Council to consider the other options available for improving the number of standards in force, including the question of the extent to which it may be appropriate to adopt existing overseas standards. (Question No. 2679) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: What travel entitlements are available to (a) directors, (b) employees and (c) relations of employees of Qantas Airways Limited. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised by Qantas that travel concessions are available to directors, employees and relatives of employees as summarised below: (a) DIRECTORS Directors, their spouses and children under 21 years are eligible for one 90% rebated trip per annum on Qantas services. (b) EMPLOYEES After 12 months service employees, their spouses and children under 26 years each receive the following concessions annually: four 90% rebated space available international trips unlimited 90% rebated space available trips on Qantas' Australian domestic, New Zealand and Fiji services unlimited 50% rebated trips on Qantas' international and domestic services on a space available basis. (c) RELATIVES OF EMPLOYEES Parents of married staff and parents, brothers and sisters of single staff may share between them four 80% rebated space available international trips per annum. They are also allowed unlimited 80% rebated space available trips on Qantas' Australian domestic services. In addition to the above concessions, employees receive after 10 years service and every five years thereafter, two long service free of charge adult trips and one free of charge trip for each child on a space available basis. At the employee's discretion, one of the adult trips may be utilised by another eligible relative, such as a spouse. Employees and eligible near relatives may also utilise staff tours packaged by QH Tours Ltd for which the level of rebate varies from time to time. Employees, their spouses and dependent children may also utilise reciprocal travel concessions arranged with some 100 other domestic and international airlines around the world. These concessions vary from 90% to 75% rebate depending on the carrier. On certain carriers, Board Members and their families may also utilise these concessions. (Question No. 2690) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign Against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7). Not applicable. (Question No. 2695) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements, if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No, at least not until the advertisement was drawn to any attention through the honourable member's question. (2) No. (3) to (7) Not applicable. (Question No. 2759) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: Further to his answer to question No. 1657 (Hansard, 21 November 1985, pages 3541-7) concerning applications for international passenger charters, why was an application, lodged on 13 September 1985, by the NZ company Mount Cook Line for 2 charters between USA and Australia approved, while one lodged by East West on 27 March 1985 for 4 charters due to commence in October 1985 is still being considered. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Mount Cook Line is the Tour Company in Australia which handled arrangements here for Ports of Call, the US operator. The application for the two inclusive tour charter flights was filed by Ports of Call, an established US charter airline certified under US Federal Aviation Administration Part 1. The two flights operated by Ports of Call originated and terminated in Denver, USA. All passengers originated in the operator's own territory (i.e. USA) and remained with the tour throughout. No passengers left the tour while in Australia. Under the May 1980 Memorandum of Understanding on charters between the USA and Australia the Australian Government agrees to approve, `with minimum administrative requirements and formalities, the operation of inclusive tour, affinity and single entity passenger and cargo charters to Australia from the United States'. The application was approved in accordance with this provision. While the Mount Cook Line application fitted the definition of charter operations, East West Airlines' applications were for international flights over a three year period to Perth, Brisbane, Cairns and Darwin from Guam and Amsterdam. East West sought to serve each Australian gateway once and possibly twice weekly, which amounts to scheduled international services in all but name. The East West Airlines' proposals thus raise a number of important issues and at present remain under consideration. (Question No. 2791) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-Aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Attorney-General's Department Equal Employment Opportunity Program includes a number of initiatives designed to increase Aboriginal employment in the Department. In particular, actions related to recruitment and staff development and training have been developed. A Departmental Liaison Officer and contact officers in each region for Aboriginal recruits have been appointed. Increased attention is being given to the Aboriginal Sponsorship Program and the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program. Assistance is being given to selection committees interviewing Aborigines, recruitment information is being distributed more widely and sponsored staff are being advised of general vacancies and encouraged to seek advancement. Career training for Aborigines is to be upgraded. The availability of Identified Positions in Clerical Administrative positions is being investigated with the aim of providing career paths for Aboriginal recruits. (2)-(a) 8. (b) 3. The following answers to questions were published on 30 November 1985 with incorrect question numbers: (Question No. 1740) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) Did he state in 1984 that in the past he had been an articulate and active opponent of Australia's involvement in the Sinai but that he had seen both sides were committed to a settlement and the presence of a peace keeping force would make that settlement possible. (2) If so, why has he changed his mind regarding the retention of a peace-keeping force in the Sinai; if not, why did he proceed with the withdrawal of the Australian contingent. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In my statement to the Parliament of 7 May 1984, in which I announced the Government's decision to agree to a limited extension of the participation of the Australian contingent on the Multinational Force and Observers, I noted that the Australian Labor Party had expressed major reservations about Australian involvement at the time it was initially mooted in 1981. My visit to the Middle East in January 1984 was particularly intended to assess the role and effectiveness of the MFO and Australian participation in it. I found that the MFO was performing its task effectively and had contributed to stability in the region; and that both Egypt and Israel appeared to be committed to peace. While there had been a settlement of one element of the Middle East problem, other aspects, in particular the Palestinian issue, remain unresolved. (2) The reasons for the Government's decision regarding Australia's contribution to the MFO were outlined in my statement of 7 May 1984. (Question No. 1967) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Has the Government included, as part of Australia's 1985-86 official development assistance budget, funding for the education of overseas students in Australia. (2) What proportion of Australia's GDP constitutes aid payments excluding funding for overseas students. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question as follows: (1) The Government has allocated in the 1985-86 official development assistance budget $140.283m in support of education and training programs, most of which will be conducted in Australia. A major component is the contribution by the Commonwealth towards the education in Australia of sponsored and private students from developing countries at the post-secondary level. This is estimated at $97.398m for 1985-86: (a) The estimated educational contribution for sponsored students is $8.984m. The Government also meets the overseas student charge, fares and living expenses for all sponsored students. (b) The estimated support for the education of private overseas students is $88.414m. For private students from Papua New Guinea and other South Pacific countries the Australian Government also meets the overseas student charge. Official development assistance (ODA) in 1985-86 is estimated at 0.45 per cent of the Gross National Product (GNP). If the cost of the education support for private overseas students (estimated at $88.414m in 1985-86) is excluded from the calculation, the ODA/GNP ratio is estimated at 0.41 per cent.