Friday, 14 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That the House at its rising adjourn until Tuesday next at 2 p.m. This motion facilitates the House not sitting on Canberra Day, which will fall on Monday, 17 March. It will also give those of Irish descent the opportunity to celebrate St Patrick's Day on Monday next. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to amend the law relating to partial takeover bids. The Bill also makes certain other amendments to the law relating to the disclosure of substantial shareholdings. I am introducing this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth/State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. The Northern Territory Government has now joined the co-operative scheme and is in the process of drafting legislation to apply Commonwealth companies and securities legislation. In accordance with the formal agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State companies and securities legislation. Outline of Proposals Subject to some modifications agreed to by the Ministerial Council, this Bill will implement recommendations made by the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee in its report on partial takeover bids. The CSLRC reported to the Ministerial Council following consideration of public submissions on a discussion paper on partial takeover bids issued in March 1985. The takeover amendments in the Bill are essentially about equity amongst all shareholders in a target company-they are not part of the broader debate on whether we have too many or too few takeovers in Australia. The Bill should not be read by the investment community as a signal that the Government has adopted a general anti-takeover position. The Government recognises that the takeover process, which involves the maximisation of returns on assets employed, is a crucial ingredient of a healthy economy and to long term growth in output and employment. The amendments are not designed to prohibit partial takeover bids but to remove the problems identified by the CSLRC in relationship to pro rata partial bids. Since the announcement of the proposed reforms in December 1985 the Ministerial Council has received strong representations from both the business and employee groups that the amendments be enacted as soon as possible, without the usual exposure of draft legislation, because of a possible spat of pro rata bids launched in an endeavour to pre-empt the proposed legislation. I draw the attention of the House to some of the more important proposals contained in the Bill. Partial Takeover Bids At present, a bidder may make a partial take-over bid by making offers for a specified proportion of each shareholder's holding, a proportional bid, or for all or a part of the holdings of each shareholder up to a specified maximum proportion of the capital of the company a pro rata bid. I understand that most partial bids in Australia have been structured on a pro rata basis. The Bill will confine partial bids to proportional bids. This will reduce both the coercive pressures on shareholders to accept partial bids and the uncertainty faced by a shareholder as to the number of shares which will eventually be bought by the bidder. The Bill will deem prospectively any existing pro rata bid at the commencement of the legislation to be a proportional bid. The Ministerial Council considers that this approach is justified on the grounds that the proposed legislative changes were announced in early December 1985 and because of the concern and belief in the market place that a large number of pro rata bids would be launched before the enactment of the legislation in an attempt to pre-empt the proposed reforms. The Bill also addresses the problem of pre-bid escalation agreements. Under such agreements, pre-bid sellers obtain the advantage of selling their shares to the bidder as well as participating in any premium later offered under the bid. Other shareholders do not enjoy such benefits. Under the Bill, any escalation agreement entered into by a bidder in the six months prior to a bid may not be triggered by higher prices offered under the bid. This rule will apply whether the bid is a partial bid or a full bid. The opportunity has also been taken in the Bill to clarify the existing policy underlying section 25 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980. That policy is that there can be no so-called `multiplier effect' permitting a larger proportion of acceptances to be made in relation to an original block of shares where the offeree shareholder accepts a proportional bid and then sells the balance of his shares in the target company to another person, who in turn accepts the offer for a proportion of the shares he has purchased. In addition, a company will be entitled to include in its articles a provision requiring a shareholder plebiscite before a partial bid may proceed. The Ministerial Council believes that such a shareholder plebiscite will reduce the coercive pressures on shareholders to accept a partial bid. Disclosure of Substantial Shareholdings Shareholders who acquire interests in 10 per cent or more of the voting shares of a company, that is, a `substantial shareholding', are required to notify the company and provide detailed information about those interests. Subsequent changes must also be notified. A survey of market participants conducted by the National Companies and Securities Commission indicated that these provisions, by requiring detailed notification each time the smallest change in a substantial shareholding occurs, are creating a major paper work burden for companies and shareholders while often providing information of little or no value. The Bill contains amendments to the companies legislation to impose a threshold below which a change in the level of a substantial shareholding need not be notified. The amendment will require a change to be notified only where it involves the acquisition or disposal of interests in one per cent or more of the voting shares in the company. This will remove the burden of disclosing and recording insignificant changes and at the same time assist the provision of more meaningful information to the company and shareholders. Financial and Regulatory Impact Statement The changes made by this Bill should not have any financial impact on Government revenues and expenditure. The proposals on partial take-overs can be expected to improve the position of the small shareholder although the benefits are difficult to quantify. The proportional bid route is not `costless' for the bidder to the extent that it does increase his risks. However, it is impossible to quantify such costs. The proposals on the disclosure of substantial shareholdings should result in cost savings to companies. I also present an explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.09) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of State Mail Centre, 501 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne. the proposal is to provide new accommodation for the State Mail Centre for the processing of mail and loading bays for mail trucks and containers, as well as offices, staff amenities and official and staff car parking. The new centre will be the main Victorian facility for the exchange of mail between Victorian mail centres and other States and for customer lodgment of bulk mails. The new building has been designed as a low building with a low profile to conceal its bulk. Essentially, it will be single-storey with only a plant room above. All operational facilities, staff amenities, offices and loading bays will be on the ground level, including an allowance for on-site car parking of 158 vehicles. The total estimated cost of the proposed work is $9.95m at February 1986 prices. The construction of public facilities, such as the State Mail Centre at Port Melbourne, is in accordance with the Government's desire to create new facilities in the public sector but also to stimulate employment through the construction of these facilities. We have been and are continuing to be successful, in both the private sector and the public sector, in non-residential construction. Total private sector non-residential construction activity is set to rise by about 10 per cent in real terms this financial year. In 1985-86, non-residential building activity is set to rise by up to 15 per cent in real terms, particularly because of greater building activity in the private sector, in addition to these projects that we build at the Commonwealth level. We expect the growth in non-residential building to plateau, possibly in 1986-87. In the 12 months to January 1986 building approvals for the private and public sectors have risen by about 50 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Up to January 1986, private sector approvals have risen by 50 per cent and public sector approvals have risen by 15 per cent. With those additional remarks, I have pleasure in tabling the plans of this proposed work and I commend the proposal to the House. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.13) —The Opposition agrees to the motion. Certainly it is very important that Melbourne, as with other cities, soon has the best possible mail distribution system. I believe that the plans, as presented, bear examination. We could certainly want to see finality to these plans so that the building can go ahead in the most functional way as quickly as possible to improve what most people still complain of as being a poor mail distribution service at present. There are occasions when one can debate more widely the question of postal services, but this is not one such occasion. We hope that the Joint Committee on Public Works and the Government will give priority to the State Mail Centre in Victoria. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the House on 11 March 1986, namely: The construction of car park lighting at Section 21, Parkes, adjacent to the Administrative Building. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.15) —As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House and as Opposition representative here, I say that we support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.16) —The purpose of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill is to extend the control of pollutant discharges from Australian ships on the high seas to include Australian ships in Australian territorial waters, and generally to strengthen pollution control in our territorial sea and coastal waters. There has been bipartisan support for a number of years for the signing and implementation of the International Maritime Organisation convention on marine pollution or, as it is commonly known, the MARPOL Convention. For example, the previous Labor Government signed the original 1974 MARPOL Convention and in 1979 the coalition Government signed the protocol to the Convention. The actual division of responsibility for the ratification of the treaty was discussed at a number of Marine and Ports Council meetings in the latter half of the 1970s, and in 1981 there was agreement to the following: Commonwealth legislation to control discharges from Australian ships on the high seas; State-Territory legislation to prohibit all discharges from ships in coastal waters; the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to prepare model State-Northern Territory Bills. The coalition Government introduced such high seas legislation in 1982, but this lapsed with the 1983 election. The present Labor Government and the present Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) passed the legislation in 1983. Since then the Minister has told us that he has been encouraging the States to pass the complementary legislation for the territorial seas. The Minister in his second reading speech said that he was not prepared to wait any longer for the States, that he had warned the States of his intention to proceed with this legislation and that there had been no adverse reaction from them. He also stated that there is a saving clause which will ensure that State legislation overrides the Federal legislation when a particular State passes the necessary legislation, and that the administration and enforcement procedures will be at the State level. The Minister also stated that he wanted the MARPOL coverage completed so that Australia could ratify the Convention and ensure the early and adequate protection of particular environmentally sensitive areas such as the Great Barrier Reef. The relevant Ministers-in Tasmania Mr Evers, in the Northern Territory Mr Hatton, and in Queensland Mr Lane-have all indicated to me that they have no objection to the legislation and that they intend to pass their own legislation this year. I do not know the position of the other States other than that the Minister has said that none so far has passed its own legislation. Mr Peter Morris —Victoria introduced its legislation yesterday. Mr LLOYD —The Minister says that Victoria introduced the legislation yesterday, so presumably all the States are at last proceeding with this. The three Ministers I referred to also noted that the Commonwealth legislation will not apply in their States once their own legislation is passed. This legislation, the 1983 and now the 1986 provisions, is an advance in marine pollution legislation in that I am told that MARPOL addresses all the various forms of ship source pollution in one treaty for the first time. There is also the provision that adequate reception facilities for the discharge of tank washings and sludge are provided at Australian ports. The Minister for Transport in his second reading speech in 1983 stated that he would defer the operation of Annex II of the 1978 protocol for three years to allow for the point I have just made, and that is the provision by the States of adequate reception facilities for the discharge of tank washings, sludge et cetera at ports which are controlled by the States. I must ask one question of the Minister. As we are now in 1986, what is the position with the States in the provision of adequate discharge and reception facilities at the ports which they control? The Minister in his second reading speech in Parliament stated that the legislation will also allow Australia to enforce more stringent construction and operating standards on visiting ships-for example, segregated ballast tanks and crude oil washing requirements. This also ties in with the need to complete the coverage from a pollution point of view as to adequate discharge and reception facilities. Once again that raises the question as to where we are in our ability as a nation to completely enforce these provisions. This legislation continues the bipartisan concern for the preservation of Australia's marine and coastal environment which has been evident for years and to which the Minister referred in his speech. The Opposition supports the legislation. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(10.22) —I rise in general to support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill. It would seem that, for once, this Government has actually applied its much-vaunted consensus approach. The Government has acted properly in advising the States and the Northern Territory of the need for complementary legislation, and through the Australian Transport Advisory Council, the Commonwealth's intentions if such legislation were not in place by the end of last year. It has acted properly by incorporating a saving provision that will ensure that Commonwealth law will be superseded by State and Territory law, once legislation is introduced at that level. I am advised by the responsible Northern Territory Minister that legislation on this matter will go before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly this year to supplant Commonwealth law. However, any legislation is only useful if it can be monitored and, if necessary, enforced by watchful people. It is this aspect that I wish to raise. The lack of surveillance over ships using our coastal waters is infamous. Particularly in northern Australia coastal surveillance it is a shambles. That is no criticism of the short-staffed supervising Federal Police officers. They are attempting to co-ordinate that task with the barest minimum of staff, less than minimal resources and continuing Budget cuts. Before members opposite leap to their feet to ask for a ruling on the relevance of this matter, they might wish to study the recent media reports on a massive hashish smuggling venture which, among other revelations, featured the scuttling of a freighter off the Northern Territory coast after the drugs were transferred to small craft. It is appalling that our northern coastline is so poorly surveyed that a drug ring can expect to be able to get away with sinking a large ship just off the coast without any surveillance authority noticing. We can assume-since we are discussing the prevention of pollution of our coastal waters by ships-that this action resulted in major pollution not just by oil of our northern waters. I doubt whether the people involved in this operation thought to ensure that the freighter's fuel tanks were empty before they pulled the plug. I mention this instance merely to establish the obvious link between coastal surveillance and the prevention of pollution of our seas. Coastal surveillance is usually considered to be a responsibility to prevent the import of illegal drugs, exotic diseases, plants or animals, but there is clearly a vital role to be played by coastal surveillance in enforcing the intent and objectives of this Bill. But what chance will the authorities have to carry out either this responsibility or any other coastal surveillance function? Australia is unique in the world, in that our international border is all coastline-better than 36,000 kilometres of it-and this places a special responsibility on the Commonwealth to ensure that unwelcome substances, unwelcome people and unwelcome pollutants do not cross or foul our coastal areas. Yet the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), while admitting international embarrassment over the delays in implementing the International Maritime Organisation convention on marine pollution, apparently experiences no embarrassment over Australia's almost total inability to enforce the intent of this Bill. If drug smugglers can dispose of an entire ship off our coast, it should not be too difficult to get away with dumping a few thousand litres of oil or oily mixture over the side. The figures show that the Federal Government's decisions on coastal surveillance have led to a massive rundown in our ability to protect our shoreline and nearby waters. The Government has clearly used the misguided Beazley review to downgrade our coastal surveillance capabilities and to cut costs. This Government has scrapped 24-hour surveillance, has ceased night flights, and has reduced both the funds available for the Coastal Protection Unit and the frequency of littoral flights over our northern coastline. Indeed, since the Beazley review aircraft surveillance of our northern waters has dropped off by 44 per cent-nearly half the number of flights in 1985-85 in comparison with the previous year. There may indeed, be some embarrassment for the Minister in relation to his responsibilities to the MARPOL convention, but there should be huge embarrassment for the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) as well, all of whom head up departments which contribute to the coastal surveillance effort. Surely even their thick skins register some uncomfortable sense of hypocrisy as this Bill is being debated. How can Australia present a serious image overseas on the question of marine pollution of our seas while our Government continues to refuse to guard those seas with any sense of determination to enforce the provisions of this Bill or the many laws concerning immigration, drug trafficking, and the introduction of exotic diseases, plants and animals? There is nothing in this Bill that offends me or with which I will quibble. But it offends me deeply, and if offends all residents of northern Australia, that this Government refuses to devote the necessary funds and resources to secure our international borders and ensure that our coastal waters are not as open and free to polluters, smugglers and other unwanted guests as the eighteenth century Barbary Coast. What equipment of any consequence is there between Brisbane, or even Sydney, and north around to Perth to cleanse coastal water pollution should it occur? I make one other point. It is a fact that the great majority of sea pollution is not off-shore dumping, but poor on-shore planning and control. At the birth place of present day Australia, Botany Bay, this year and last year there have been two major oil spills, both of which were due to ruptured submarine pipelines between tankers and the on-shore facilities. How can this Government expect to register its environmental sincerity internationally or to persuade shipping companies to obey the provisions of this Bill in this situation? If the Government is not prepared to provide the resources for coastal surveillance and stands by while its colleagues in the New South Wales Government permit serious pollution of the site of the first landing, I wonder how seriously this legislation will be taken by the other signatories to the International Maritime Organisation convention on marine pollution. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(10.29) —It is a great pleasure for me to rise in support of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill because I believe that it is not just an excellent example of the practical effects of international co-operation and its benefits to Australians, but it is also very important to the electorate that I represent, for reasons that I want to make clear in a minute. I am also pleased that the Opposition has indicated its general support for this Bill, because it is legislation that is of genuine benefit to all Australians who care about the marine environment and who care about a clean sea shore, which really means all Australians, given the extent to which we all make use of the sea for our entertainment and recreation. My electorate, Madam Speaker, as you know, is easily the prettiest in Australia and is bordered along one side by the best beaches in the country. But it also has within it South Australia's only oil refinery, where oil products are loaded and unloaded. It is of extreme importance that this legislation extends the protection, which at present applies to ships on the high seas to the territorial sea and to coastal waters landward of those seas, gulfs and so on. The Bill thus covers the area of the St Vincent Gulf in South Australia. It also makes reference to the MARPOL convention itself, which the legislation seeks to implement, and which contains provisions directed to the prevention of pollution by ships to the Great Barrier Reef-one of nature's wonders and a unique area of our heritage. All Australians will welcome the fact that the Barrier Reef is especially covered in this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is not only to extend the scope of Federal legislation relating to marine pollution to territorial and coastal waters but also to cover Australian ships. At present, the MARPOL convention applies to ships flying flags other than Australian flags, but the ridiculous situation has arisen that it does not apply-until this legislation is passed-to Australian ships. That is part of the purpose of the legislation. It will thus facilitate the implementation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships 1973, as amended by the protocol of 1978, and known, as the MARPOL convention. The three main practical provisions of the Bill are as follows. The first is to prohibit the discharge of oil or oily substances into the sea, in line with the requirements of Annex 1 to the MARPOL convention. I will go into more detail on that in a moment. Secondly, it prohibits the discharge into the sea of other noxious liquid substances such as hazardous chemicals and poisonous liquids of various kinds, in line with the requirements of Annex 2 to the MARPOL convention. The third main provision of the Bill is to impose a duty on the master of an Australian ship-a duty which already applies in the case of foreign ships-to report any instances of, or incidents relating to, unauthorised discharges into the sea of oil or oily mixtures or other harmful liquid substances. I have mentioned already that foreign ships are covered by existing legislation but that that legislation does not extend to the territorial sea and coastal waters. This particular Bill has been made necessary partly because the States in Australia have not yet acted to implement the necessary legislation. I emphasise that the States have been consulted about this legislation through the various Ministers for Transport, and have indicated no objection to it. But until the States act to pass their own legislation, this legislation is necessary to cover the position-and the position at the moment is defective because the States have not passed the necessary laws. It is also the case-it is provided in the Bill-that when the States do pass the necessary legislation, the Federal legislation will in effect lapse, so no questions of States rights ought to arise because those rights are not being infringed. Another good result of this legislation will be to enable Australia to impose stricter construction and operational standards on ships which visit Australia. That is in line with annex 1 to the MARPOL convention. It will, for example, result in our being able to insist on the following series of measures to prevent and control the discharge of oil from ships-separate compartments for ballast water in tankers to prevent oil-contaminated ballast being discharged; improved methods of cleaning tanks following the discharge of oil cargo; the provision of holding tanks for cargo residues; the requirement to have monitoring equipment to record the oil content in ships' discharges; protective location of ballast tanks in tankers to help prevent accidental discharges of oil following collisions; and a number of other measures, such as maintenance of detailed cargo record books, stringent requirements for port facilities to receive oil wastes, and positive methods of port state control over visiting ships, including the introduction of an international oil pollution prevention certificate and inspections to ensure compliance. So this Bill adds considerably to the legislative protection which will guard against pollution to our coasts and coastlines. As I have mentioned, these measures are of particular importance to my electorate because the beaches of Adelaide have been subject to pollution from oil and such like discharges in the past. Adelaide is fortunate in enjoying a largely unspoiled beachfront environment which has been considerably improved in recent years as a consciousness of environment and conservation values has grown. There is a particular environmental concern in my electorate because the only oil refinery in South Australia is located in what may be thought of as a rather vulnerable position on the coastline at Lonsdale in my electorate. Loading and unloading there is done through pipelines connected to a jetty on a rather exposed coast. I believe that it is a tribute to the skill of the operatives who conduct the loading and unloading operations that incidences of the accidental discharge of oil and such substances have been extremely rare in the past. The loading and unloading is often done under quite difficult conditions on an unprotected coast where the winds are not always favourable. I want to pay a compliment to the skill of those who manage these operations-often, as I say, under difficult conditions-since serious instances of pollution have not occurred for a number of years. But obviously those efforts need to be supplemented by this legislation, which will cover Australian ships, and cover the coastal waters of St Vincent Gulf. It is a deficiency that foreign ships at present are under stricter controls than those that apply to Australian vessels and this Bill will remedy that situation. I particularly commend another important aspect of this Bill, which is to enable Australia to fulfil its international obligations under the MARPOL Convention negotiated through the International Maritime Consultative Organisation, IMCO. As the House will know, I have spent a good deal of my life working as a diplomat in such bodies, and one often encounters the criticism within Australia that all international bodies do is talk, and do not seem to resolve any practical problems of any direct relevance to people in Australia. The MARPOL convention is a good example of what international co-operation can do. It is perfectly clear that Australia, on its own, and without co- operating with other countries, could not guarantee the safety of its coastlines from environmental pollution. We have no control, on our own, over what ships do on the high seas. We have no direct control on our own of what foreign ships may do in waters bordering Australia. By becoming a signatory to conventions such as the MARPOL Convention, we can ensure that a regime of international law applies to all vessels, with direct benefits to Australia and Australians. I ask the House to imagine the chaotic situation if other countries were not party to this Convention, as we are to become. Protection of our marine environment would simply be impossible. There are many other examples of international co-operation at this down-to-earth, practical level-through bodies such as the World Health Organisation and the International Telecommunications Union, for example. I point to this Bill as being an excellent example of the kind of international co-operation which can occur, and which can result in genuine benefits for countries such as Australia, whose Government, which I am proud to support, is keen to see such international co-operation implemented and extended. In conclusion I am very happy to support this Bill, for the enhanced protection it will provide against pollution of the marine environment, for the protection it will provide in particular to the beaches, marine national parks and seafront environment of the electorate in which I live, and as an instance of genuine international co-operation which will be of practical, direct benefit to all Australians. I commend the Minister and commend the Bill to the House. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(10.40) —I invite the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), when next in Sydney, to visit the electorate of Cook. I will show him what real beaches are all about. I will take him around Port Hacking, which is surely the loveliest spot on the coast. In return I will expect him to do the same for me when I visit Moana, in his electorate, for the national surf championships in two weeks' time. Mr Bilney —Then you will really see a great beach. Mr DOBIE —I hope to see a great carnival. First, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) who is at the table. We do not often, in this Parliament, congratulate Ministers of other parties. We do not often hear Ministers from any government being grateful for it. However, on this occasion I say `Well done' to the Minister for having taken action, despite the laziness of some of the States, in coming forward with the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 1986. It is a positive move. The Minister should be congratulated by honourable members on both sides of the House. I am pleased to support this Bill which will effectively pave the way for Australia's ratification of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as amended by the 1978 protocol. It should be recalled that in May 1981, at the meeting of the Marine and Ports Council of Australia, Federal and State Ministers agreed on the division of responsibility to facilitate the ratification of this Convention, known widely as the MARPOL Convention. The division was that the Commonwealth legislation would control discharges from Australian ships on the high seas, while the States would be responsible for legislation to prohibit all discharges from ships in coastal or territorial waters. I think the House should remember that it was the Fraser coalition Government which instituted proceedings to live up to its end of the bargain and in 1982 introduced legislation into this House. The present Government, to its credit, saw that that legislation was given passage in 1983. It would seem that the States, although agreeing in principle to the legislation, have yet failed to live up to their end of the deal and produce legislation to cover their territorial waters. I understand that at least two States-Queensland and Tasmania-as well as the Northern Territory, may soon have such legislation on their statute books. I was pleased to hear the Minister reply to our Opposition spokesman that the Victorian Government introduced its legislation yesterday. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has heard anything about the other Labor-controlled States. The key element of this Bill is that it: Does not infringe the rights of any State or Territory because it contains a saving provision which will ensure that the Commonwealth legislation will not apply when appropriate State or Territory legislation is in force to cover all areas within the relevant jurisdiction. I hope that this saving provision will act as an incentive for the States-excluding Victoria, which has already done so-and the Northern Territory to come to the party more quickly than they have so far with their own legislation, for I am not in favour of Commonwealth legislation that impinges on States' rights. However, the saving clause in this legislation ensures that the Bill is a temporary, stop-gap measure. It is most important that marine pollution, certainly ship-caused pollution, is the subject of legislation by all the Australian parliaments. Not the least reason for this is that we have a great responsibility to protect our natural heritage, our coastlines, estuaries and our magnificent Great Barrier Reef. We hold these natural wonders in trust for future generations. Any deficiency on our part to protect and preserve-although it may sound strong-is a crime against humanity. The Bill has particular significance for me because my electorate of Cook, bordering on Botany Bay is, as our national anthem tells us, `girt by sea on three sides'. It is the birthplace of Australia but, more importantly in relation to this Bill, it is the site of a large container port on the northern side of Botany Bay and on the southern side of my electorate is the Australian oil refinery and its attached berthings and oil pipeline facilities. The residents of Kurnell and the Sutherland Shire are no strangers to the calamitous effects of oil spills from visiting ships, all the more calamitous because Kurnell, being the birthplace of our nation, should be a national monument. I think the people of Kurnell would laugh at this assertion at present because they are currently fighting a battle to save their peninsula from becoming a dumping ground for the chemical industry. They consider it a great irony that Australia's birthplace is about to be buried by chemical storage although, I can assure the House, not without a battle from those of us who support the people of Kurnell. As I have mentioned, over the years Botany Bay has seen some devastating oil spills. One has only to go through newspaper files to realise how frequently oil spills, both major and minor, occur. I take the time of the House to read briefly from a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 8 February 1985. The headline read: Oil will kill young mangroves, scientists say. The story went on to point out: State Pollution Control Commission officers expect large areas of young mangroves in Botany Bay to die after Tuesday's oil spill. Commission scientists reported yesterday that mangrove stands at Towra Point, Quibray Bay, Weeney Bay and Woolooware Bay had been heavily contaminated with oil. Older, more mature mangroves probably would survive but young mangroves and seedlings would not withstand the stress and would die. Honourable members may not be aware, but parts of the Kurnell Peninsula are nature reserves. The reason for this is that they are breeding grounds for very rare birds. Some of these birds migrate from as far away as Japan. It is worth noting that Australia is a party to a treaty to protect the wetland areas at Towra Point which provide nesting for these Japanese birds in particular. Any negligence on our part in enforcing strict guidelines to protect against ship-sourced pollution, as it has been described, represents a failure to honour such bird life treaties. I have expressed concern that the States have been slow in coming forward with their legislation in this regard. I am concerned also that legislation of this nature should contain what is called a statutory defence. I am told that an Act which presently exists in New South Wales, namely the New South Wales Clean Water Act, does not allow this right to justice. As this right is contained in this Bill, I hope that when the New South Wales Government brings forward its legislation it will be in keeping with the Commonwealth Bill, which allows the right of appeal by those who have been charged. I give an example. I talked with Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd this morning to get some figures. The figures supplied are its figures and not government figures. Nonetheless they make the point. According to the figures produced by Caltex since 1956, 28 oil spills totalling 1,000 tonnes of crude and refined oil have occurred in Botany Bay. This refers only to spills during the loading of refined oil or the receipt of crude oil. It does not include incidents where ships have been cleaning their bilges at the container port on the northern side of Botany Bay. Of the 1,000 tonnes of spill, Caltex believes that 800 have been Maritime Services Board related, through pipes being dug up or fractured, and that 200 tonnes has been Caltex related. To put people's minds at ease in my own area, it should be noted that during that time the total throughput of oil was in the vicinity of 160 million tonnes. Nevertheless, the smallest of oil spills, as I am sure all members of the House will be aware, has a devastating effect on the new life, the mangroves and the bird sanctuaries in Botany Bay. I mention this because I believe it is necessary, when a company as responsible as Caltex can say to me that 800 of the 1,000 tonnes have been brought about by the digging up or fracturing of the pipelines, that there should be some form of appeal in all legislation of this nature. As I pointed out, we already have that protection in this Bill and I am pleased to see it, but the fact is that the New South Wales Clean Water Act does not permit any appeal in any form whatsoever. Though this may not be a popular thing to say politically because emotions run high when there is an oil spill in Botany Bay-I share that reaction-I believe that we have to be very realistic when we come to these situations, having campaigned against Labor administrations in New South Wales which arranged for the pipeline to be built across Botany Bay. I mentioned that as the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has now joined us. I spent 20 years campaigning against the New South Wales Labor Government in its continued attempts to pollute the land surrounding Botany Bay. I campaigned from the days when the Cahill Labor Government authorised the establishment of this very oil refinery. Rumour has it, and we know what political rumours are like, that the New South Wales Cabinet decided way back in the 1950s and 1960s that there would be no oil refinery at Botany Bay, that it would be up in the Minister's area at Port Stephen. Rumour has it that overnight Premier Cahill changed his mind and the next day made the announcement that the oil refinery would be sited at Kurnell. That was before I was in Parliament, of course. The second issue that came along occurred when Pat Hills, in his State ministerial portfolio, advocated that Towra Point should be the site for the second airport for Sydney. It is worth recording within this Hansard that, strangely enough, the speech made by Minister Hills was not indexed in the State Hansard. One wonders why. People should be reminded, in view of what subsequent speeches in this debate may turn to, that the decision by Minister Hills to support the creation of a second airport at Towra Point was endorsed by the then Labor Sutherland Shire President, the current Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt. I am keen to see these matters placed within this record of the House and duly indexed. At the time of this debate on the pollution of Botany Bay by the creation of an airport at Towra Point, I opposed the proposal totally and completely. This is something that should be said in a debate about pollution. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) has said, a good deal of the pollution of the waters is brought about by mismanagement of the land planning relating to the water areas. I am very pleased to see that this legislation has become a reality in this House. I am pleased to hear that the Victorians came to the party yesterday. I congratulate the Minister on having forced their hand and having brought this important legislation to the House as quickly as he has. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.54) —I was also pleased to hear about the Victorian Government bringing in its particular Bill on the prevention of pollution from ships. It is a very innovative Government and I can assure honourable members that John Cain and his able team of Ministers are doing a great job down in Victoria. It is with much pleasure that I rise to speak to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 1986. This Bill departs from previous marine pollution conventions in that it addresses the various forms of ship-related pollution in just one treaty, being based on the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It is interesting to note that the Protection of the Sea Bill 1983 dealt mainly with improving controls for oil pollution by ships and the operation of ships carrying noxious liquid substances in bulk. It is also interesting to note that the original Bill was introduced in this place on 21 October 1983 but lapsed when both Houses were prorogued in February 1983. However, the Bill was subsequently reintroduced on 4 May 1983 and passed. The International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as the MARPOL Convention, contains annexes 1 to 5, which deal respectively with pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances carried in bulk form, sewage and garbage. Annex 1 was recognised internationally in October 1983. Annex 2, relating to pollution by noxious liquid substances, is expected to enter into force on 6 April 1987. The remaining three annexes are yet to be acted upon. More specifically, annex 1 of the Convention and the Federal legislation introduced an entirely new series of measures to control the discharge of oil from ships. Some of these measures include having separate compartments for ballast water in certain tankers to prevent oil contaminated ballast being discharged; requirements for monitoring equipment to record the oil content in ships discharges; more stringent requirements for more adequate port facilities to receive oil; maintenance of more detailed cargo record books and the requirement to report all discharges; protective location of ballast tanks in tankers to help prevent accidental discharge of oil following collision; and-I feel most importantly-the special protection of the waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. I specially emphasise and applaud this final measure relating to the provisions for the Great Barrier Reef. As a person who is committed to conservation and, over the past three years in particular, having become very well acquainted with the beauty and extreme delicacy of the reef, I am extremely proud today to draw the attention of the House to this part of the legislation. As all honourable members are aware the reef was included in the World Heritage List in 1981 in recognition of its eminence and the worth of preserving it for everyone to enjoy. The MARPOL Convention prohibits oil discharges from machinery spaces within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land for all ships. The MARPOL Convention defines the nearest land as the outer boundary of the reef. Therefore, all the water to a distance of 12 miles beyond the Great Barrier Reef is protected by the Convention. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I commend the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) for the farsightedness of this very important clause. I would be pleased if honourable members would note that this added protection of the reef was included in MARPOL at the request of Australia. It is indeed heartening to know that at least the Federal Government recognises the importance of the protection of the reef for fellow Australians and the whole international community. As well as being concerned about environment and conservation issues that have been brought before the Standing Committee, I am equally concerned about such issues that have been brought to my attention by other sources. Some time ago, my attention was drawn to a report released by the Western Port Catchment Co-ordination Group and prepared by a special working group. The group has alerted the Western Port community in Victoria, which abuts my electorate of Dunkley, of the massive seagrass loss at Western Port. The huge loss of seagrass has major implications for the health of the bay, for water quality, commercial and amateur fishing and tourism. A drastic reduction in the seagrass area of approximately 70 per cent has occurred between 1973 and 1983. I will read a small portion of the report. It states: The investigations into the problem which has been carried out over the past 10 months stresses that massive losses of seagrass have occurred in Western Port over the last 10 year period. In 1973 seagrass beds covered some 250 square kms or 38% of the seabeds in Western Port. I am very glad to see the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) in this House as this is part of his electorate-it used to be mine-and I know he takes a great interest in this matter. The report continues: Since 1973 the situation has drastically altered and the total area of seagrass beds at the present time is approximately 70 square kms-- that is, it has dropped from 250 square kilometres to 70 square kilometres-- The seagrass beds support a diverse plant and animal community and provide a habitat for many fish species, including King George whiting which is important for commercial and recreational fishing. The seagrass also plays an important role in stabilising the mudflats-- which are very common within Western Port Bay-- and is a major influence on water quality in the bay . . . increased erosion of some foreshore areas has created greater water turbidity. That is the point that I would like honourable members to note. The report continues: This not only affects uses such as swimming, diving and fishing, . . . tourism and recreation will continue to be adversely affected and this will have serious consequences for local business. The special working group has identified a list of possible causes of seagrass loss and near the top of this list is shipping operations. My family and I spent two weeks this year holidaying at Phillip Island. We walked several miles along the beach towards Ryhll. It was a pleasant and quiet day. Suddenly my attention was drawn to the rumbling of a huge anchor chain of a large tanker which was anchoring in the bay. My train of thought travelled with that anchor to the sea floor and I tried to imagine the damage that it would do. This is not pollution by chemicals or waste but pollution by making the water extremely murky and turbid. Huge anchors are tearing and scouring the bottom of Western Port Bay. The bay is dying and it is interesting to note that this problem has been noticed only since the huge influx of tankers to Western Port. When I was a youth holidaying at Phillip Island, I used to fish Western Port Bay with my father. We caught many fish in beautiful, crystal clear water. Fish are now very hard to catch in comparison with 20 years ago. It has been claimed that excess fertiliser is coming down the creeks that flow into Western Port and that this is also causing the seagrass to die. The left hand side of the Cowes Pier where I swam and fished as a youth is now completely devoid of the seagrass that grew there prolifically. Pollution of the sea in all forms must be looked at very closely. Hundreds of huge tankers have anchored in the bay. I ask: What part have they played in bringing about the very slow death of this beautiful part of our nation? Mr Reith —Are you suggesting the closure of Western Port Bay to shipping? Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member for Flinders always sees something sinister in what I say. I do not suggest that Western Port be closed to shipping but that the area should be looked at closely to see whether these huge tankers anchoring in this beautiful bay are destroying the bottom of the bay, causing the water to become turbid and thus killing the seagrass and the environment in Western Port Bay. It is also very interesting to note an article in the Age of 8 November 1985 concerning Phillip Island's fairy penguin population and its increased death rate-about which the honourable member for Flinders has spoken in this House. The penguin parade at Phillip Island is one of Victoria's most popular tourist attractions with over 400,000 people coming to see it annually. A research project is under way to examine the dramatic increase in the penguin death rate. Already, initial data indicates that starvation is a major factor. One cannot help tie together the loss of seagrass which fish feed on in the same area as the penguins' habitat and the demise of their numbers. So the problem of pollution of the sea is very far-reaching. I am sure that honourable members will be pleased to learn that by introducing legislation such as this Bill the Government is giving high priority to protecting the sea and leading the way to putting an end to senseless pollution of our seas. We cannot pollute one part of our environment or ecosystem without affecting the living environment of other forms of life. We must be constantly vigilant to protect our natural heritage. This legislation does much to protect our seas which provide us all with such a bountiful harvest. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(11.05) —I commend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill. I support its aims. I want to speak just briefly about the Gulf of St Vincent, on which Adelaide is situated, and associated areas, and to point out the problems in South Australia that exist with pollution of that gulf. Inevitably, when a gulf is as closed as this one is, and when there is a great deal of recirculation of what is put into that gulf, it is of vital importance that there is careful scrutiny of how refuse and pollutants are allowed into that body of water. Just the disposal of sewage from Adelaide through the two main plants into the sea has created doubts about the viability of marine life, especially marine plant life, for a considerable area at those particular outlets. In addition, the Gulf of St Vincent seems to suffer from what man puts into that body of water. I know of people who use the Gulf for yachting purposes and who have counted as many as nine dead sheep close to suburban beaches in one day. Obviously, they were sheep that had been thrown overboard at Outer Harbour from the loading during the live sheep export trade. I say, as a supporter of that trade, that something will have to be done about the oversight of the disposal of carcasses. Obviously, they should not be thrown overboard close to suburban beaches, as happens now. From the observations of one day's sailing, to find the remains of nine sheep close to suburban beaches is not good enough in terms of public health. An enclosed body of water of that nature must be kept clean for all recreational purposes. Further than that, I raise the point of Federal Government pollution of the Gulf of St Vincent, which is a serious matter on the shores to the north of Adelaide. In 1928, the Port Wakefield proof range was established on that Gulf. Since that time the Army has used that base to proof test the basic artillery ammunition for the Services in Australia. That testing range has utterly polluted one of the best beach areas north of Adelaide between Adelaide and Port Wakefield. This is a matter of regret. The decision taken in 1928 was taken in different social and economic circumstances. One cannot blame those planners who decided at that time to situate the test proofing range in that area. However, a new proposal has arisen and the current Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is proposing to extend dramatically that proof range because of the advent of the new howitzer in the Australian Army. His plans have been published for all to study in an environmental impact statement which has been widely circulated in South Australia. Unfortunately, that statement has been seriously inaccurate in many of its measurements and details of the Government's intention. However, upon correction of that statement and its indications, it is quite obvious that, if the Government proceeds with the extension of that proof range, a significantly larger area of coastline and shallow waterways will be polluted for this and succeeding generations by unexploded shells. I believe it is entirely unconscionable for the Government to think of proceeding with the extension of a proof range that will so pollute recreational beaches so close to the north of Adelaide. Whilst I do not carry with me today for the sake of this debate the most accurate figures, from memory I understand that shells would lob at the furthest extent of the test range to within 27 kilometres of Outer Harbour, the main overseas port for deeper ships in South Australia. Some additional kilometres of beach would be utterly polluted and unavailable to the public because of unexploded shells. The Minister has been approached with some vehemence over this issue. In fact, his predecessor was also approached with some vehemence. The Government has responded by pressing its case. Neither Minister has acceded to the demands that the beachfront and recreational areas be preserved in this area. It is a matter of great regret that the Government is sponsoring this Bill in the House today but is by its own action an agent for further pollution in South Australia. The Government should be censured for proceeding with this plan. I understand that the Minister is placing some pressure on the State Government to accede in this matter. It is a matter of enormous concern to people who use that beach and to the fewer people who reside there and who will be dispossessed of their property if the Government proceeds with this course of action. There are factors that may preclude the Federal Government from acting in this way and further polluting the sea and the adjacent foreshores. The one factor which is paramount in this calculation is that there are parklands involved in the quite large area that the Commonwealth has given notice that it wants to acquire. The parklands have been dedicated by the State Government for the recreation of the public. The acquisition of the additional area that the Government will pollute will be of no purpose to it unless it can get its hands on these parklands. Of course, under the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act the Government cannot acquire parklands. That would require the complete agreement of the State Government to resume the parklands, to remove their dedication and then to allow the Commonwealth to acquire them. Subsequent to the Commonwealth's approach in this matter there has been a legal opinion that indicates that the State Government may well not have the power to resume those parklands if they are being used in the manner for which they have been dedicated. Therefore, the Government finds itself in a bind in promoting this legislation with respect to my State. This Government promotes desirable legislation but, under its own powers in the defence area, it intends to proceed with one of the most major plans for pollution in Australia in proceeding with the pollution of some additional kilometres of recreational area north of Adelaide. I put it to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, that he ought not to approach this issue with two prongs of action. He ought not to approach it in support of a Bill which will preserve our territorial seas from pollution and, at the same time, support his colleague in a plan which will further pollute those seas. Whilst I do not expect him to have this material at his fingertips, I ask him seriously, when the matter arises in Cabinet for discussion, to take into account his support of this Bill and to make sure that he does not support his colleague in the extension of the Port Wakefield proof range that will further seriously pollute the sea and the foreshore north of Adelaide. Mr LEE(Dobell)(11.09) —I rise today to support the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill. This Bill, as several other members have mentioned today, will allow Australia to ratify the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships. That Convention is the result of a meeting in 1973. At a second meeting in 1978, a second protocol was issued which amended the original proposal. That complex Convention is, thankfully, known as the MARPOL Convention in short and I seek to address my comments today to the MARPOL Convention. The purpose of this Convention is to control the discharge of oil and other harmful substances into the sea. This Convention has five annexes dealing with many different types of pollutants. It is important that the MARPOL Convention address all of those under the one treaty. The first annex addresses the question of oil pollution. I suppose that that is the form of pollution at sea which attracts the greatest attention. I am sure many of us can remember the news coverage given to oil tankers which have collided or have caught fire, or oil rigs that have had blow-outs and have subsequently caused massive pollution. Both in the North Sea and off the Mexico-Texas coast there have been some massive consequences of oil pollution following these events. Not only is the sea covered in oil but also the native wildlife suffers. We have seen pictures of birds covered in oil and, no matter what veterinarians and conservationists seek to do, those birds are doomed to death, and for many years afterwards the local sea grasses and the animals that live off those sea grasses are wiped out. It is important that the annex on preventing or minimising the amount of oil pollution be the first area addressed. That is appropriate. The second annex addresses the pollution which results from the loss of bulk noxious liquids. The third annex addresses noxious packaged substances and sets various standards for the packaging, storage and stowage of such substances. The fourth annex addresses the release of sewage into the ocean and, lastly, the fifth annex addresses the release of garbage into the ocean. It is unfortunate that before a MARPOL annex takes effect at least 15 countries and countries covering at least 50 per cent of the world's merchant shipping tonnage must ratify it. It is disappointing that perhaps not as many countries as we would have liked have ratified all five annexes of the MARPOL Convention. The Hawke Labor Government and in particular the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) deserve to be congratulated for accelerating Australia's actions in ratifying the treaty as soon as possible. I pay particular tribute to the Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Shortland, who is at the table, for his excellent efforts in this area. I note that the second annex, dealing with bulk noxious liquids, will take effect in April 1987. I welcome that. All countries which have signed that part of the MARPOL Convention will then be bound to apply all the rules and regulations covered by this second annex. It is unfortunate that at the moment we do not have any likely date on which the third, fourth and fifth annexes will apply. I am pleased to note that the Minister has given us an assurance that legislation is currently being drafted for the third, fourth and fifth annexes and it will then simply depend on enough countries agreeing to abide by those annexes. I hope that countries around the world will rapidly take action to bring them into effect. An important part of this legislation was mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) in his speech in the House this morning. This Bill provides for outright prohibition of all discharges within 12 nautical miles of the Great Barrier Reef. I understand that this clause has been inserted at the request of Australia and I am sure that there is bipartisan support for this proposal. Many of us realise the effect that any oil spillage would have on an area such as the Great Barrier Reef and I am pleased to see that on this occasion the Australian Labor Party is being supported by the Liberal and National parties in seeking to preserve the Great Barrier Reef. I remember that in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was talk about the Queensland National Party Government seeking to encourage oil exploration and perhaps drilling and production on the Great Barrier Reef, but I am pleased to see that the National Party has seen the light and now agrees that there should be no risk of oil pollution affecting the reef. I understand that at the moment Australia is in an embarrassing situation. Because we have not ratified this part of the MARPOL treaty to date-that is what this legislation will do-vessels flying the flags of countries which have ratified this part of the treaty are required to observe the special treaty obligations that ensure that there are no discharges of oil within 12 nautical miles of the Great Barrier Reef, while vessels flying the Australian flag would technically not be breaking the law if they did discharge oil near the Great Barrier Reef. That is most embarrassing for Australia and I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken this urgent action to have this legislation brought before the Parliament today. In fact, I understand that these regulations which prevent the discharge of oil near the Great Barrier Reef apply to 80 per cent of the world's tonnage and yet at the moment they do not apply to the Australian fleet. I am pleased that that is about to change. Technically this legislation should have been passed by each of the State governments because there is a long tradition in Australia that the relevant State and Territory governments control the territorial seas-that is, seas from the coastline to three nautical miles out. Beyond that are the high seas. Because the State governments pass all legislation which governs those territorial seas we had expected that they would have taken action by now to pass legislation which would have ratified this part of the MARPOL treaty. I note that this matter has been on the agenda of every meeting of State and Commonwealth Transport Ministers since early 1983. I believe that the current Minister, the honourable member for Shortland, advised the States more than a year ago that if the States did not have legislation on their books by 31 December 1985 he would introduce legislation into the national Parliament to provide this protection. I am proud of the fact that today the Minister has brought this legislation before the Parliament. If the State governments do not have their houses in order to date, we will help them. That is not to say that we are seeking to infringe State rights. As my friend the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) is suggesting, we are not seeking to override the States; we believe that the States have a legitimate right to exercise their own constitutional responsibilities. Clause 5 of the Bill will ensure that this Commonwealth legislation will roll back as each State passes complementary legislation which ratifies the MARPOL Convention. However I understand that if any State legislation is not as stringent as the Commonwealth legislation, the Commonwealth legislation takes priority. That ensures that the best possible result is obtained for the protection of Australia's coastline and sea. The MARPOL Convention will require several things; firstly, that Australian vessels meet certain minimum design criteria. Such things as the steel structure of vessels must meet a certain standard to ensure that if there is a collision the least possible amount of oil pollution occurs. As a result of this legislation many vessels will be required to have separate ballast, bilge and washing tanks to ensure that there is the least amount of accidental, or perhaps deliberate, pollution of the sea by operational vessels. In addition, ports will be required to have oil waste removal facilities. That is very important. We are insisting that oil tankers which in the past have washed out their tanks at sea, as a result often pumping large amounts of oil into the ocean, now have oil separation equipment on them so that they are able to collect the oil sludges and pump reasonably clean water into the ocean. However, that means that the next time those vessels come into port they have to be able to discharge in the port the oil sludges which have been collected by the oil separators. I am pleased to see that we will require ports to have these oil waste removal facilities. I also understand that some vessels will be required to install oil pollution monitoring equipment and any accidental or deliberate discharges should be picked up by this oil monitoring equipment. Before I became a member of parliament I was an electrical engineer at a coal-fired power station which had on its chimney stacks pollution monitoring equipment which was independently inspected by the State Pollution Control Commission to ensure that power stations did not break, through inadvertent or deliberate action, the regulations which applied to them. In the same way, the installation of this oil pollution monitoring equipment will be a great step forward. I believe that vessels are also required to keep records of any discharges which they make. It is also important for us to consider the effect oil pollution can have on ordinary Australians. Earlier this year I had an unhappy ex-perience. I am sure that many honourable members are aware of the great holiday attractions of the New South Wales central coast. Mr Peter Morris —A top place. Mr LEE —It is a top place, as the Minister suggests. He ably represented a great part of that area in this House for many years. Earlier this year I was swimming at a very famous beach called Jenny Dixon beach at Noraville and I happened to notice some clumps of dried up bitumen on the beach. I was there in summer during the school holidays and many families had taken their children there to play on the beach and they were playing with these clumps of bitumen. As soon as anyone touched a clump of bitumen it turned into a runny, oily waste and as one sought to clean the oil off one hand it spread to the other. I am sure that many children's swimming outfits would have been damaged, perhaps beyond repair, as a result of some oil pollution off that part of the coast. I accept that a vessel sank there due to heavy storms late in 1985. Perhaps it was the fuel oil of that vessel which had floated to the beach over a month or so. However, I am pleased to say that this legislation will ensure that such accidents will be thoroughly investigated and if an Australian vessel deliberately pumps oil into the ocean it will be liable to prosecution. It is important to understand that vessels flying the Australian flag will be prosecuted by the Australian Government if they break the MARPOL Convention anywhere on the high seas. Similarly, if a Liberian tanker sailing off the Australian coast pumps oil into the ocean and Australia passes on that information to Liberia, it is then up to Liberia to prosecute the captain. Some people have suggested that no action would be taken against captains of vessels flying the Liberian flag because many vessels fly the Liberian flag as a flag of convenience. That is wrong. I can give one example. A vessel making its way from Singapore to New Zealand-it did not call at any Australian port-dropped oil near the Great Barrier Reef. Honourable members can imagine the effect that that would have on that great reef. I understand that the Australian Government brought this matter to the attention of the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Government carried out an inspection when the vessel arrived in port in New Zealand. That evidence was forwarded to the Liberian Government, which fined the skipper of the vessel. It is a pity that there are not more successful prosecutions. It is difficult, but not impossible, to identify the sources of oil spillages. I am amazed that greater use is not made of satellites. The Americans and Russians have spy satellites which watch everything we do. Fidel Castro claims that the American satellites take photographs of women on Cuban beaches. I understand that these days spy satellites have an amazing capacity. We have in Australia the joint facilities with the United States Government. Perhaps the Americans will be able to tell us if vessels pump oil into the ocean. I am sure that that would be seen by the Australian people as of great benefit to us as we seek to track down the people who are polluting the oceans. It is important to remember that the vast majority of spillages occur in ports when vessels are loading fuel oil into their bunkers. At this point I return to a few comments made by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), who mentioned the effect of oil pollution in Botany Bay. I was disturbed that the honourable member for Cook appeared to defend the Caltex oil refinery and its behaviour in Botany Bay. Many honourable members would be aware that a great deal of damage has been done to Botany Bay, the seagrasses and Towra Point by oil pollution. There has been a large number of spillages and they have done a lot of damage. At the moment a dispute is raging in Sydney over whether the New South Wales Government should force Caltex to install a pipeline from the northern side of Botany Bay. The argument is that if there is a spillage at a terminal on the northern side of Botany Bay, the Maritime Services Board of New South Wales could swiftly install booms and, because the prevailing winds are north-easterly, the chance of damage to Towra Point, that great national park area, would be reduced. I certainly support the attempts of the State Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Bob Carr, to encourage Caltex to install that pipeline. The State Government has offered to build the terminal on the northern side of the bay if Caltex will install the pipeline. It is a pity that the honourable member for Cook is not strongly supporting the New South Wales Labor Government's attempts to reduce oil pollution in Botany Bay. The honourable member for Cook also attempted to suggest that the Labor Government was responsible for the establishment of the oil refinery and as a result was responsible for the pollution in the bay. It is true that the Cahill Labor Government was responsible for providing the oil refinery at Kurnell. At that time it created a lot of jobs in an area that was depressed. However, the honourable member for Cook forgets one important point about Towra Point-he now claims to be the champion of Towra Point and its preservation-and that is that he was the local Federal member when his Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton, announced that Towra Point was to be the site of Sydney's second international airport. We could all go through newspaper files and Hansard to find out what opposition the honourable member for Cook put up when his Party sought to make Towra Point the site for Sydney's second international airport. Also, it should not be forgotten that it was the Liberal Party, under the Askin Government, which decided to put Port Botany where it is. It is commonly acknowledged that the layout of the wave deflection concrete pylons directs the wave energy which comes through the heads at Towra Point. That has done a lot of damage to Towra Point and the national park. That is the result of the then State Liberal Government's actions. I think it is a great credit to this Government and the Minister that we have the Bill before the House today. Once again I congratulate the Minister on bringing it before the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.35) —I join in the debate today to mention one or two aspects which I think are vitally concerned with the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill. I appreciate that honourable members on both sides of the House support the legislation. It is very important indeed that we do our utmost in Australia to ensure the protection of our coastal areas and also the purity of the sea. I sometimes wonder whether we are inclined to over-emphasise some of the factors we speak about because the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), who has just addressed the House, happened to speak of Botany Bay and the possible effect of pollution from the rivers around our Australian coastline. We must not be critical as far as the development of Botany Bay is concerned. I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament when legislation went through that Parliament to develop the Botany Bay area. There was talk at the time of a coal loading facility in the Bay but that suggestion was overriden afterwards by the Wran Government. I will not question whether that was right or wrong but I draw the Parliament's attention to the fact that it is costing us a lot more now to export coal from the extremities of Sydney-from Wollongong, Port Kembla and the Newcastle area-and it must be transhipped from the Blue Mountains area to the ports. At present, because of costs, this is a great disadvantage as far as our exporting of coal is concerned. But that is not the point. The Botany Bay area would have served this purpose. It is nice to see the Botany Bay area being developed as it is at present. I do not have the knowledge to be able to say whether or not the facilities were erected in the proper places but the House may be assured that there was a lot of investigation into that matter. I believe that what has occurred there has been for the betterment of Australia and particularly for Botany Bay and, one could say, the Sydney Harbour region, as it was greatly overcrowded. If we look at the Georges River area and at the pollution there, which is very severe, we see that measures have been adopted by the State that are quickly overcoming the problems. I say this to make a comparison between the pollution from one ship or a number of ships at sea with what may be occurring in the Georges River area and in other tributaries along the wide Australian coastline. Water is continually discharging into every ocean on earth-water that is polluted and water that is causing soil erosion on our rich agricultural lands that is being swept out to sea. There must be tremendous pollution there. I accept the fact that the States of Australia in particular have brought in legislation that is protecting our soils, growing more trees and protecting forests from being cleared, to try to cope with the problem of erosion along our coastal streams. We must compare what is occurring there with pollution from ships and we must not overlook this in the legislation that is before the Parliament. I commend the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) as he is doing as much as he can under the legislation with the co-operation of the States to try to overcome the problem. I would like to see the States fall into line and pass legislation that will enable them to control their own coastlines more with respect to pollution from ships. I rose principally today to say something about a matter that is very dear to my heart, that is, pollution from our ships that may bring into this country foot and mouth disease and other exotic diseases that will have a tremendous effect upon the marketing of our beef and other primary industry products. There is always this threat. I know that the maximum has been done as far as the treatment of garbage from our ships is concerned to eliminate the prospect of foot and mouth and other diseases. But we can never be sure that the measures that are being taken will be effective enough. We read almost weekly in the Press of possible landings on the shores of Australia of boats from the east that are coming after our shells and our fish. No matter how effective our coastal surveillance may be it is not always possible to be able to detect these landings around Australia. It is so important that we do our utmost to protect primary industry from the pollution effects of the garbage of those people who are illegally coming to Australia. This nation is so dependent upon the export of its cattle herds for our wealth. If ever foot and mouth disease comes into this country we will suffer because those countries which import our beef will not be interested in purchasing from us if we have prevalent foot and mouth disease within Australia. That is why I wanted to emphasise today that we must do our utmost in any legislation or any future measures that can be adopted to ensure that the greatest protection possible is given to primary industry and our cattle herds in Australia. I know that speakers before me have mentioned this morning that ships of other countries flying other flags have very strict requirements insofar as disposal of garbage and other effluents are concerned. That is why we have an international convention. The legislation is before the Parliament this morning in order that Australia falls into line with these requirements. The sea covers a very large area; but it can be polluted. I pointed out earlier that it can be polluted and is being polluted by other measures that are beyond our control as a Commonwealth. This is the responsibility of the States and the States are taking the measures, but I wonder whether other countries are doing the same as we are doing within Australia because we are aware of these problems. I am sure that the Minister and the Government, when they meet around the table with representatives of governments of other countries, will do their best to ensure that those countries are measuring up to their responsibilities. The sea covers a very large area. It is hard to understand that pollution of the sea around the shores of Australia may even reach far distant areas of the world. But this is a possibility. That is why it is so necessary for all the countries involved to be able to say that they are doing their very best as far as this matter is concerned. When we talk of these measures I often think of the protection of our wildlife, our national parks and forestry lands. All of a sudden we see prevailing fires destroying in a matter of minutes very vital wildlife in our national park areas. The same thing can happen in the sea. We cannot do much about fires, no matter how many fire protection measures we have throughout the continent. I am sure that we are doing as much as we can. We must always accept that a lot of damage is done to wildlife and marine life by these acts of nature or these acts of God that occur. I just wanted to make these points in the debate on this Bill and to relate particularly to the fact that pollution from ships is a very important factor as far as Australia's rural industry is concerned. The Commonwealth and the States have to adopt all the measures that they can possibly adopt in order to protect the farming industries generally of Australia. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.45) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1986). The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1986) introduce tariff alterations foreshadowed by my colleagues the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in a Press release of 24 February 1986 advising decisions taken by the Government on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. As announced, additional duty will be imposed on certain refined petroleum products and the increase will become payable at the same time as the adjustment to petrol prices by the Prices Surveillance Authority. The Authority today announced that the new wholesale prices will take effect on and from 15 March 1986. These proposals will operate simultaneously. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1986) increase the excise duty on the relevant petroleum products. Excise duty on motor spirit and diesel is increased by 5.329c per litre. The increases for aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are 4.486c per litre and 4.262c per litre respectively. For other kerosene, fuel oil and heating oil the increase is 1.105c per litre. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1986) make complementary changes to the Customs Tariff Act in respect of duties applying to equivalent imported refined petroleum products. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and will be available from the Table Office. I also advise honourable members that the rates of diesel fuel rebate will increase in conjunction with these duty changes. The new rebate rates for currently eligible use of diesel fuel will be 15.766c per litre in respect of primary production, 13.378c per litre for mining operations and 12.005c per litre for other prescribed use in residential premises, homes for aged persons, nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions providing medical or nursing care. Honourable members will note that the rebate for eligible primary production is, in fact, a 100 per cent rebate of the excise duty. The new rebate rate for eligible mining operations will also effectively mean no increase in excise duty payable. I commend the proposals to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.47) —In responding to these tariff proposals, I would point out that it is true that Australians have known of the Government decision since 24 February 1986. This proposal gives effect to the Press release issued by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). This debate provides an opportunity to point out to the people of Australia the sorry history of the pricing of fuel in Australia since the Labor Government took control. I vividly recall that at the time of going to the election, a promise was made that fuel would be 3c a litre less under Labor than it was under the Fraser Government. To give an indication of what has happened since that time, I point out that the excise of 6.5c a litre as it was at that time has now escalated almost three times to 15.766c a litre-a far cry from the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) prior to the March election. In fact, it has been a significant part of costs to rural industry and to exporters and indeed of cost structures throughout Australia. Although rural industries will be given the full concession operating as from the application of this increase and other concessions will be allowed to prescribed use in residential premises, homes for aged persons, nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions providing medical or nursing care, it must be emphasised that the consumer of fuel, the motorist, the ordinary citizen of Australia, will be asked to bear an extra burden through this increase of some 5.3c a litre. I say that, because this is the response of the Government to a decline in world prices. Even at this stage I do not believe that the reductions reflect the price of crude oil on the world spot markets today, which is down to about $US12 to $US13 a barrel. In fact, a further reduction should be in the pipeline and should be effected at this stage, but it will not arrive until an adjustment is made following the next decision of government on this matter. The Government has responded in this way to ease what it believes to be a severe budgetary situation. I take it that the Government is concerned about the Budget deficit. I believe that the Government should be concerned about the fact that the revenue to the Government through taxes, particularly through this device of oil parity pricing, is $1 billion over target at this moment. The problem with the Budget deficit is not one of collection of funds through this excise or any other proposal, but government expenditure that has run out of control. The Opposition has made clear on previous occasions, as it makes clear now, that this increase was not unexpected. It could have been foreseen from the time of the Budget presentation in August, and certainly at the time the tax proposals were presented in September, that the world oil price was about to drop. That gave the Government the opportunity to schedule its expenditure accordingly. If the Government did not take that opportunity at the time and this has come as a surprise to it-an argument we do not accept-it is up to the Government to pass on, as has been the policy of previous governments, the full reduction associated with the world pricing arrangements. The Fraser Government which introduced the device made clear that it would reflect the Saudi Arabian light crude price. At that stage it was to be adjusted every six months, and that is another aspect with which I shall deal. When the Australian dollar was devalued, when the price of fuel was going up in Australia because it was linked to the American currency, the Government took the unusual step of moving away from that arrangement to modify it every two months instead of every six months, which meant additional income to the Government. If the Government was prepared to take such an attitude when the price was on the way up, why is it not prepared to do so when the price is on the way down? I suggest that what is required is not an adjustment of excises to compensate for what the Government says will be a loss to revenue, but reduction on the expenditure side. The Government should be cutting its cloth to the measure of the Budget as presented in August, as it was evident at that time that the world price would decrease. The other aspect of this saving in the Budget to effect a change from a well-head levy to an excise means that there will be an automatic indexation of the figure of 15.766c a litre every six months in accordance with government policy. This means that every six months there will be an automatic increase which the Government hopes will not be felt by the motorist. I make a plea on behalf of motorists-people who are not on-farm or in other special categories-who should have been given the benefit of the complete reduction. The Opposition goes further and believes that the rearrangement of the policy that has existed for the last eight or nine years is being torpedoed as a matter of political expediency by the Government to try to balance the Budget, but it is attacking the issue from the wrong direction. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), shakes his head, but he knows that that is absolutely correct. He knows that the Labor Party went to the election in 1983 on the promise of a reduction in fuel prices for the motorists of Australia. It said the price was to steep then, when the excise was 6c a litre and the world price of oil was $US30 to $US32 a barrel. Now, when the Government should have been able, with dignity, to accept that arrangement, it has fallen into the trap of trying to offset the Budget deficit by increasing taxes yet again, instead of taking the logical move which the motorist anywhere in Australia would expect: That the Government cut its cloth through expenditure reductions. This is precisely the point. The Australian people should be demanding that the full price drop, related to world prices, should be effected in this way. Goodness knows what effect this arrangement will have on future exploration for oil in Australia. As far as I can see, there will be no encouragement whatsoever for people to get out there and do the development and production that are necessary in this regard. The Opposition would like to sheet home to the Government the previous position and the position it promised. The particular proposal now falls far short of the expectations of the Australian people. There are other areas in the greater economic debate that we should be addressing, as I said, such as efficiencies within the economy of Australia-and that efficiency can only come about by cutting expenditures. We have landed on the shoulders of the people of Australia, this additional tax. I emphasise the point about the insidious nature of this transfer from one levy to another. Every six months, whether the Australian consumer of fuel likes it or not, fuel excise will be automatically indexed with the consumer price index, which at this moment is almost double the inflation figures of our competitors overseas. So, in every respect, we are putting another levy on some of the exporters of Australian resources. I say `some exporters' because I realise that the rural industries will be exempt, but through this measure a further cost will be borne by the people who are trying to create Australia's wealth-that is, the exporters. The Government ought to come clean in that connection and indicate that its policy index the excise upwards every six months. More particularly, the Government has been very quiet as to what will happen in the event of the recovery of oil prices on the world market. What if the price goes up to the extent that the 5.3c per litre excise which will basically be effected by this transfer is recovered first and then the adjustment to the levy is made afterwards? The Government has indicated that it will adjust the levy as the price increases, but at what trigger point will the Government be prepared to reduce the excise in sympathy with the increasing world oil price? I will bet dollars to a peanut that the Government will recover that 5.3c a litre first, through the increasing oil price as the price of oil goes up, for its own coffers before it gives any relief as far as the excise is concerned. The Government has been noticeably quiet in that regard. The Opposition condemns the Government for its manner of approach in this matter. It has blatantly broken promises and undertakings given, at election time and since, that it would allow for the full reduction in the spot price of world oil, or Saudi Arabian crude. Now it has come to this situation, which I believe is less than satisfactory. As regards the introduction of this measure, initially it was suggested that the decrease could be as much as 6c per litre as far as the drop in world oil prices was concerned, but this eventually turned into 11c. The Government was then prepared to say that it was honouring the promise of 6c initially indicated. It is double that, according to what we are dealing with now, and with the present world price of oil, the decrease should be substantially more than it is. We condemn the Government for all those reasons. The Government has done a great disservice in regard to future exploration for oil in this country. Debate (on motion by Mr Ronald Edwards) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Madam Speaker has received the following message from the Senate: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day: That the following amendment be made to the Resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, viz: Paragraph (12), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: `(12) That the committee report by 30 April 1986.' The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this Resolution. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(12.01) —I move: (1) That the House concurs in the resolution transmitted in message No. 230 of the Senate relating to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, and (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. The effect of the message is to extend by one month, from 31 March to 30 April, the date of reporting of the Committee and the deliberation of its activities. The Government agrees with the content of the message and I understand, from communications with the Opposition, that the Opposition also supports the motion. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.02) —I confirm that the Opposition is in agreement with these arrangements and will be supporting the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(12.02) —Colleagues of mine on the Government side of the House, the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) and the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), have given substantive comment on the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 1986, and my friend and colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) will also be joining us in the debate shortly with some comments of relevance in his area. There are a number of issues to be addressed in this matter. The honourable member for Dobell was accurate in saying that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) deserves congratulations for ensuring that this legislation has been brought forward. People in the community might well wonder why we are debating legislation called `Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill 1986'-a big mouthful. One wonders what the impact of that is upon the Australian community. As the honourable member for Dobell said and as I think we all need to understand, the Australian coastline is a very precious resource to us all. Many Australians use the beaches. They probably rank as the major recreation resource in Australia. The honourable member for Dobell spoke about the difficulties that he had when he was swimming at a beach at Noraville, where there had been an oil spill, and he spoke of its impact upon people. We are not really used to that in Australia. Fortunately, we are not used to the experience of oil being spilt on beaches. However, when it is spilt it is quite distressing. I have had a similar experience to that of the honourable member for Dobell. As he said, sensibly, it is a great inconvenience, and it is also a great nuisance. It is a health problem. Children suffer particularly, because they tend to try to pick up the sticky black blobs and they end up by getting it everywhere. Mr Lee —And it is costly. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, it is a costly process. So, when we talk about this legislation, we are talking about something that is really at the centre of many Australians' experiences, particularly in regard to their summer time expectations-that they will spend time at the beach and will be able to swim in clear, clean water, and that they will not find that water being polluted by oil spills. This legislation goes to the heart of that matter. Therefore, when we are discussing why we should have legislation of this kind, clearly we appreciate that the base reason is that we as a government and as a community-there is bipartisan support for the Bill-are concerned about the impact of sea pollution upon our coastline, particularly oil pollution. I will address some more comments to the specific impact of the Bill upon our coastline and beaches in a moment. I have some very telling things to say about it. It is important to say to the House and to the community that the administration of this Bill will be conducted within the existing resources of the Department of Transport. That means that the Department of Transport will not be asking for more staffing or finance to deal with it. If we look at the financial impact statement of the legislation, we find that no net budgetary impact arises from the Bill. In other words, the legislation will be administered by the Department and will not have any cost implications for the Australian community. In these times it is good to be able to say that. It is also good to be able to say, as has been said by my colleagues on this side of the chamber in earlier speeches, that the failure to have an appropriate legislative framework to deal with this aspect of pollution would have long term cost implications for us as a community. Through this legislation we are linking in to an international convention, the MARPOL Convention. So, at the international and national levels we have the assurance that the administration of the legislation does not have cost implications. To neglect this area would certainly have cost implications. What about the State level? Concern could be expressed by members that the legislation may infringe the rights of the States. It does not do that at all. The Minister for Transport-the honourable member for Dobell explained this-very specifically allowed, in the manner in which the legislation was dealt with, the States to enact the necessary legislation; in other words, to get their houses in order before we moved. As it turned out, time passed and we are now in the position where we have to move to ensure that the MARPOL Convention is enacted in Australia. If the States, particularly with regard to their port authorities, already have legislation in place, this legislation will be complementary to it. It will not override it. As my friend the honourable member for Dobell has said, we are putting in place a comprehensive framework which will deal with the impact of pollution from ships. That is the background with which I think the community might justifiably be concerned. It has been a background of appropriate consultation and an attempt to reach consensus. Consensus has been achieved. The legislation has no cost implications in terms of its enactment or administration. On the other hand, the cost of not doing anything could at some stage be quite substantial. I will address that matter later. As I said earlier, we are a nation of people for whom the coastline is quite significant. My friend the honourable member for Capricornia will speak in a moment. He would have a great interest in reef country. We have some of the best reef country in the world. The Great Barrier Reef is a marine national park. A number of regulations and legislative arrangements protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine National Park. The honourable member for Dobell very appropriately asked what would happen if there was a spillage by, for example, a Liberian ship which was en route from Singapore to New Zealand. What arrangements do we have for dealing with that sort of pollution, pollution that could impact very adversely on the Great Barrier Reef? That is a very important issue. I draw the community's attention to it, because it cannot be ignored. As I indicated at the outset of my speech, we have beaches which I claim are the best in the world. I know that there certainly would be some disagreement if I were to claim that Western Australian beaches were the best in the world. However, I doubt that anyone who visited them would want to disagree with that claim. Australian beaches are superb recreational resources. I think many people in Australia have had the unhappy experience of going to a beach and finding that it was polluted. In Western Australia the incidence of that is not very great. Mr Lee —Nor at Noraville. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Nor at Noraville, as the honourable member for Dobell says. The Australian authorities have been very good in the way they have been able to deal with the question of marine oil spills. However, we would be neglectful as a national government if we said: `Let us do nothing. Let us pretend that oil spills are not going to be a problem. We will not enact this legislation or provide a bridge to the MARPOL Convention. Our beaches are all right, nothing will happen'. That is not the case. A study of marine oil spill risks, conducted by the Department of Transport and published in 1979, identified certain categories of marine oil spill risks. Those categories are: Spills associated with the loading or discharging of oil and oil products in ports, which are classified as `oil handling spills'. So, one can have spills associated with the movement of oil in ports. There are also the spills associated with bunkering operations in ports which are referred to in the report as `bunkering spills'. There is the classification of `miscellaneous spills'. These spills are those associated with any other operation, such as ballasting and tank cleaning in ports. Previous speakers have referred to them. It is very important that we know we have an arrangement in place whereby ships cannot simply enter Australian ports, clean their tanks and leave oil adjacent to the port to move in on our metropolitan beaches. That has been a problem. There has been a recognition of that problem. I cite an instance of such a spill which occurred at Trigg Beach, adjacent to Scarborough Beach, in my electorate in Perth. I might add that it was dealt with very appropriately by the Marine and Harbours Department when we reported it. Another category is spills outside ports but sufficiently close to the coast to be potentially damaging. These are at sea spills. Another category-which is very important because we are an oil producer-is drilling rig blowout spills where a blowout occurs on a rig, such as the North Rankin rig in Western Australia. Those spills are horrendous because it is usually high pressure oil that is spilt. One has to deal with quite a substantial amount of oil spill. Off-shore platform spills, associated with off-shore platform oil production, is another category. The final category is undersea pipeline spills. I think people would recognise that those spills can also be a problem. There are two measures for dealing with that problem. One measure is the application of dispersants that can deal with marine oil spills. The other measure is boom mechanics, which has been referred to by the honourable member for Dobell and which is particularly appropriate in harbour or bay areas, such as Botany Bay and Cockburn Sound in Perth. This method involves containing, through a mechanical device, an oil spill. Oil floats on water, so one can stop it dispersing by using a mechanical measure. If that method fails, of if one is dealing with a spill in an isolated locality, it is more appropriate to use a dispersant to try to change the chemical base of the oil through a detergent action and make it more biodegradable. These are the risks that we face. The spills that are of most concern in regard to this legislation are bunkering spills, associated with the movement of oil in ports and tank cleaning. They are the spills over which we could have some control. However, if we did not have this legislation we would not be enacting that control. Let me now deal with a problem emerging in Western Australia. Many people would be aware that Western Australia is to have very intense marine activity in the very near future-the America's Cup. Already there is intense marine activity. A substantial number of 12-metre yachts are already trialling. We have just had the 12-metre yacht world championships off the coast, off my electorate of Stirling. So far there has been no reason for anyone to be concerned about spills at sea because we are dealing with yachts. However, at the time of the America's Cup we are going to have a vast spectator fleet in Western Australia. I am pleased to say that the Western Australian Government has already anticipated the difficulties associated with that. By a vast spectator fleet we are talking about 30-foot or 40-foot vessels that will be going out to accompany the yachts in the America's Cup competitions. What will they do with the on-board wastes? Previous speakers have referred to the risks of other pollution at sea. These on-board wastes represent substantial pollution problems. If we have, and it is no exaggeration to say this, something like 6,000 or 7,000 pleasure vessels going out to watch the America's Cup being sailed just off the metropolitan beaches of Perth and we do not have an appropriate convention or regulatory arrangement that enables us to deal with the wastes on board-I am talking about a wide range of wastes that are generated on board; many of the larger vessels have bathroom, toilet and cooking facilities-metropolitan Perth will face a real problem. We cannot afford the risk of having our coastal waters polluted inadvertently or deliberately by people as a result of a large maritime activity. As I indicated earlier, the Western Australian Government is aware of that and is moving on that. I would like to say from our point in the national Parliament that I believe, in relation to our support for the America's Cup, that we should be well aware that this extra supervision and control may incur expenditures and if it does, as the national Government, we might have to financially support the endeavours of the Western Australian Government to ensure that such wastes and potential pollutions that might occur are minimised. If we do not do that properly and if we neglect that area, the people who use the beaches-they are the majority-are going to ask why the Western Australian Government and the Federal Government did not cover those options. As I have indicated, there is an anticipation by the Western Australian Government and the appropriate departments are planning for that. It is not something that we should be unmindful of because it could be of quite a concern. As well we must be aware of what might happen if there are one or two associated marine disasters involving vessels at sea, with fuel on board, due to the failure of people to anticipate changes in the weather conditions. The metropolitan coastline of Perth is noted for its very strong south-westerly winds in the afternoon. If people have listened to cricket broadcasts they will have heard of the `Fremantle doctor'. Very strong south-westerly conditions can be experienced and if there are inexperienced people at sea, there may well be accidents which result in spillages of fuel. This legislation puts in place an appropriate mechanism for dealing with that but I think it is important that we recognise that we cannot just be laissez-faire about this. I do have another concern, which is the question of the licensing of people who control vessels at sea, be they 15-foot run-abouts or 45-foot vessels. So far the licensing arrangements are totally inadequate. Queensland has very well placed legislation and regulations but the licensing arrangements are totally inadequate and can lead to severe accidents because all one needs to put a large vessel to sea is to have the necessary money to buy it. I suggest to my honourable friend from Dobell that, unlike operating a motor vehicle, one can simply go out of the port and go to sea. The current arrangements are quite inadequate. This legislation does not provide an opportunity for me to deal with all of those aspects. In the Parliament at a very early date I propose to deal with the need for State arrangements to control licensing, particularly in relation to the putting to sea of these craft, but also in relation to operating speed craft. I believe there are a number of those issues we have to address. When we talk about marine oil spill risks and when we talk about this particular legislation, we are saying that we have a very important resource in Australia, which is called our coastline. It is a resource which is taken for granted, which is abused and which has been very badly handled in certain instances. There has been coastal development which has been negligent. There have been developments in Australia which should never have proceeded. Fortunately, I might say, we have recently seen the withdrawal by East-West Airlines in respect of Lindeman Island. This is an example of the sort of coastal vandalism we have in Australia. We have been very negligent in Australia in dealing with our coast. We have to have appropriate coastal management policies. My own electorate of Stirling in Western Australia has a big coastal area. It has two popular beaches-Trigg Island and Scarborough. We now have in place through the State Planning Commission a Coastal Management Committee, but I believe the only way we will eventually get proper coastal management in this country is for the national Government to recognise its coastal management responsibilities and be prepared to provide funding and research to support State governments in their coastal management activities. The pattern in Australia is very varied. Some States have virtually no coastal management arrangements and thereby leave our very precious resource to the whims of ad hoc and piecemeal planning decisions. That is not good enough. We want substantial coastal management. This piece of legislation provides the at sea management aspect but the coastal management or the on-shore management is something that we must address. I believe that ultimately the only way we will get proper coastal management right throughout Australia, because of the tardiness of one or two States-I have mentioned Queensland-is through a comprehensive national coastal management policy. That would fit in with what we are addressing here, which is the at sea or water management. However, it is also the management of the sand, the foreshores and the reef country that we also have to address. I believe that what we are putting in place here is a very important piece of legislation. I conclude with an anecdote, like the honourable member for Dobell, about swimming in the sea only to find that the sea has been polluted. I noted when swimming at Tel Aviv, in the Mediterranean in Israel, that the amount of oil in the sea there was quite appalling. They have an arrangement on the beaches there whereby swimmers can clean their feet with kerosene when they come out of the water. I do not think any Australian would want a situation where we had to ask people when they went to the beach: Excuse me, would you mind cleaning yourself down with kerosene before you have a shower and go home. That is an appalling possibility. What we are doing here is putting in place legislation that will prevent that. It will deal with that and provide international recognition that we are about the business of proper management of our major resource. Obviously I am pleased to support this legislation. I believe it is very necessary and I congratulate the speakers in this debate and the Minister for introducing the legislation. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DOBIE —Most grievously so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DOBIE —During the debate the honourable member for Dobell saw fit to mention matters relating to Towra Point which were the subject of my speech in this same debate. During his speech he made comment that it had been the policy of Prime Minister Gorton and myself to support the establishment of Towra Point as the site for a second airport. He also went further in his speech to say that by searching through newspaper files and references it was just not possible to come to any other conclusion, or words to that effect. Without taking the time of the House, I wish to vouchsafe the authenticity of the short Press reports I am about to present to the House. On 1 April 1969, the St George and Sutherland Leader said-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member that he should restrict his remarks to explaining to the House the basis for his claim that he has been misrepresented. There is no need for him to quote at length any Press releases, I am sure, in order to do that. Mr DOBIE —It would be very hard for me not to quote from the papers to totally deny the misrepresentations that were made about me. The four short reports I have are in fact brief accounts of a report which totally denies officially what has been said in this misrepresentation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DOBIE —In the St George and Sutherland Leader on 1 April 1969 it was reported: Civic leaders in the St George and Sutherland Shire have been unanimous in their praise of the decision to rule out Towra Point as an airport site . . . The Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, announced the decision at a Press conference at Mascot Airport on Saturday afternoon. The Sunday Telegraph on 30 March 1969 said: Prime Minister Gorton announced yesterday that the Government had abandoned plans for a jet airport at Towra Point. He was speaking at Mascot Airport before leaving for the US to attend the funeral of General Dwight Eisenhower. Mr Gorton made his announcement flanked by three Federal members who had campaigned strongly against the proposed Towra Point development. They were Mr L. Bosman (St George), Mr J. D. M. Dobie (Cook) and Mr W. T. Arthur (Barton). Mr Gorton said that the community noise problem involved-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member has explained the basis of his misrepresentation. Mr DOBIE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude my remarks by saying that similar remarks were made in two other papers. Praise was made of me by the Chairman of the Towra Point Protest Committee. I explain to the House that I can understand the problem of the honourable member for Dobell because he was 12 years old at the time. Mr LEE(Dobell) —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member seek to make a personal explanation? Mr LEE —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Dobell may proceed. Mr LEE —The honourable member for Cook has misunderstood what I said. I did not say that the papers said that he did not oppose the airport. What I said was that I would be interested to read the newspaper comments at the time. I note that all of the Press clippings from which the honourable member for Cook has quoted were dated after the Gorton Government abandoned its original proposal. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Dobell. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Cook that the Chair will not allow this matter to become the subject of cross chamber rebuttal of claims by the honourable member for Cook and the honourable member for Dobell. If the honourable member for Cook claims that the honourable member for Dobell has, in his recent remarks, misrepresented the honourable member, he may proceed. Mr DOBIE —It is not my intention in any way to intrude on the procedures of the House, or on your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. Had I been disobedient to your former ruling I would have read the Press releases in full, and it would have become clear in the remarks just made by the honourable member that, in fact, it was generally agreed that it was the Department of Civil Aviation and the State Planning Authority that wanted the airport, not the government of the day, as recently declared by the Minister. I will make newspaper reports available to him. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(12.26) —I welcome the initiative taken by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in introducing the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill. Australia has been a member of the International Maritime Organisation for about 25 years, since its establishment in 1959. Honourable members will appreciate that the IMO is a specialist agency of the United Nations whose function is to promote maritime safety and the protection of the maritime environment. I am very pleased that our nation, certainly under the leadership of Labor governments, but also under non-Labor governments, has been very active at the IMO. Australia is regarded internationally as a valuable member whose involvement has resulted in significant contributions to international maritime regulation. As a country we are in an enviable position of being both a ship-owning nation and a shipper nation with responsibility for a diverse and sensitive environment. It is no wonder that our voice is heard and listened to at the IMO. It is no wonder that in 1975 and in 1985 we were elected to the Council. This reflects the esteem in which Australia is held. I note that, since coming into office in 1983, the Hawke Government has lodged nine instruments of acceptance of maritime conventions and protocols covering maritime pollution and ship safety arrangements. Again, I congratulate the Hawke Government for that. In an industry such as shipping it is essential to ensure that internationally recognised standards apply in relation to operational and technical matters. There are sound reasons for the uniform development and application of internationally endorsed technical and safety standards. Again, Australia has been party to these conventions and provisions. It is apparent that the enacting of this legislation and the subsequent ratification of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships will benefit Australia in many ways. Firstly, the environment will be protected when the more stringent ship operation requirements are enforced. Secondly, new controls will be established in relation to the carriage of noxious chemicals by ships and, thirdly and most importantly, Australian flag vessels will join the 80 per cent of the world's tonnage already party to the convention. As an Australian concerned about the protection of our nation's maritime environment I believe that it is of the utmost importance that Australia be a continuing signatory to MARPOL. Australia signed the original convention in 1973 and also signed the 1978 protocol to the convention. It is worth recording that the actions by Federal government, irrespective of what political party has been in power, have been supported by the States and the Northern Territory. I raise that point because it concerns me that it is now about three years since these new measures were first announced. Yet there has been little activity by the States to bring down legislation. I am the more concerned because of the lack of action by Queensland. This legislation is of very special importance to Queensland because of the Great Barrier Reef. If one considers the matters listed in annexes 3, 4 and 5 one will start to appreciate why it is important that the nations of the world adopt not only annexes 1 and 2 but, as quickly as possible, we find the 15 countries necessary, which control 50 per cent of shipping to agree to annexes 3, 4 and 5. Personally, I see the most important advantage of adopting the MARPOL convention as the enhanced protection that it will afford to the Great Barrier Reef. I state in this House and I would say it over again that it is vitally important to every Australian, not just to Queenslanders, that we protect it. Mr Ronald Edwards —And we don't sell it off. Mr WRIGHT —That is a very good point on which I will comment briefly in a moment. The Great Barrier Reef is a very important asset to our nation. It is a highly sensitive issue in Queensland. This was demonstrated many years ago when the National Party Premier Bjelke-Petersen planned to allow oil drilling on the reef. There was a massive public outcry. Queenslanders everywhere spoke out against that. People say that we ought to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I am very pleased that the Minister is embodying in the legislation-it is part of the MARPOL convention-protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Shades of that period of planned exploration for oil on the Great Barrier Reef were seen recently when the National Party in Queensland sought to revoke the national park status of Lindeman Island and hand it over to Sir Edward Lyons, one of the National Party cronies. It certainly was people power speaking out, because right across Queensland and other parts of Australia people spoke out. They saw that this was an issue that affected not only national parks but also the total area of the Great Barrier Reef. Mr Ronald Edwards —It was outrageous. Mr WRIGHT —It really was. I am pleased that Bjelke-Petersen has been forced to back down. The international importance of the reef finally matured in 1981 when it was included on the World Heritage List, in recognition of its vital importance to the world environment. On looking closely at the MARPOL Convention one will quickly realise why all Queenslanders should support it. One would question why the Queensland Government has not acted more swiftly and expeditiously to bring down legislation in line with the convention. MARPOL prohibits oil discharges from machinery spaces within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land for all ships, and 50 nautical miles in the case of cargo space discharges from oil tankers. MARPOL defines `nearest land' as the outer boundary of the reef stretching from Maryborough to the territorial sea of Papua New Guinea. Consequently, all the water to a distance of 12 miles beyond the Great Barrier Reef is protected by the Convention. That might be one of the reasons why the Bjelke-Petersen Government has not been too keen to participate in this exercise. This protection was included at the request of the Australian Labor Government. Let it be said over and again that the Hawke Labor Government has a concern, interest and commitment in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The Government's actions reflect the recognition by the international community of the importance of the reef from an environmental protection viewpoint. It certainly reflects the attitude of this Government in safeguarding our environmental heritage. The matter also has an international application because unless this legislation goes through, ships which fly the Australian flag will not come under the convention. A ship flying the flag of a MARPOL member is required by its national legislation to observe the special discharge provisions in the reef region but the prohibition on discharges will not apply to Australian ships until Australia ratifies the MARPOL Convention. There is a need for bipartisan support. I hope that it is forthcoming. It is vitally important that we remove any risk to the Barrier Reef. There is always a risk of damaging the reef, a risk of discharge of waste-garbage and engineroom waste-and the problem of sluicing tanks of oil and coal. We have an increased growth in the coal trade in the northern parts of our nation around Queensland. The Great Barrier Reef is along a major shipping line. There is a greater use of the area by tourist vessels up and down the reef and a growth of marinas. So, we will see, again, increased shipping use. Every measure must be taken to protect Australia's Great Barrier Reef. It is of immeasurable importance environmentally, it is an international tourist attraction and it is vital to Queensland's tourism. I congratulate the Federal Government for its actions. I commend the Minister for his initiative and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(12.35) —in reply-I wish to thank those honourable members who have participated in what has been a very constructive and wide ranging debate on a very important issue. I particularly thank them for their complimentary remarks towards the Government and me on this issue. Those members were the honourable members for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), Kingston (Mr Bilney), Cook (Mr Dobie), Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), Dobell (Mr Lee), Lyons (Mr Burr), Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and, finally, the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). As the honourable members have pointed out in the debate, the issue is one of bipartisan importance to this nation and has been dealt with in the main on a bipartisan basis over the years. Had there been an ability by the States to implement their complementary legislation before this, the measure now before us would not have been necessary. I hope that they will bring in their legislation as quickly as possible. In answer to a question from the honourable member for Murray, I did indicate that the Victorian Government has introduced its legislation. I do not have any information on the stage reached by each of the States and the Northern Territory with their legislation but I do know that they have steps under way to have the legislation prepared. But we cannot wait any longer for that to be put through the respective parliaments. The honourable member for Murray, the shadow Minister for Transport, raised the issue of Annex 2 to the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships dealing with bulk chemicals and when it would come into force. I advise him that the entry into force, under provisions of the 1978 protocol to the Convention, is delayed for three years following international entry into force. At a meeting held at the International Maritime Organisation in December last, a decision was taken that Annex 2 be further deferred until 6 April 1987 to coincide with the entry into force of amendments to that annex. We have been advised by the States and port authorities that, in respect of the disposal facilities for operational waste under Annex 2, that the honourable member also raised, reception facilities are adequate in Australian ports at present. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said that there was no equipment to deal with oil spills around the northern coastfrom Brisbane to Perth. His assertion was incorrect. The honourable member for the Northern Territory introduced the only sour note into what otherwise was a very good, wide ranging and bipartisan debate. I say to the House that, under the national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil, which is a co-operative Commonwealth-State agreement, there are major stockpiles of equipment held in Darwin, Cairns and Port Hedland. Smaller stockpiles of equipment are held at each of the ports of Townsville, Gove and Geraldton. There are also a number of minor ports at which equipment is held. The sour note that was introduced into the debate by the honourable member for the Northern Territory was his action in using the debate as an exercise in which to grandstand on the issue of coastal surveillance rather than to direct his attention to the matters in the Bill. He made the statement that the rundown of the coastal surveillance effort-he asserted it to be a rundown-would jeopardise the ability to detect illegal discharges. He cast doubt on the ability of government to implement properly this Convention. The facts are that coastal surveillance is undertaken primarily for health, quarantine and fishery reasons. It is undertaken on the basis of assessment of risk in those areas. In some areas it is not undertaken on a daily or monthly basis. Some parts of the coastline are quite inaccessible and quite unapproachable during certain parts of the year. For those reasons the timetable is scheduled in a manner to make the best use of the public money involved. Pollution detection is a spin-off benefit of that surveillance program but it is not the fundamental justification for the existence of the surveillance system. The surveillance program does make a valuable contribution to pollution control by reporting suspected discharges and a number of successful prosecutions have arisen out of observations and detections made by the service in the course of its other activities. But, as I have said, we have a responsibility to ensure that the use of that service is in a manner that provides good value, all things considered, to the Australian taxpayer. It is not just a matter of operating the service for the sake of having a service. It is to get the best value for money out of the utilisation of taxpayers funds consumed. The honourable member for the Northern Territory tried to make a point about the so-called rundown of the surveillance service, which I have rejected. I want to draw the attention of the House to the hypocrisy of those claims because, before this Government came to office, the Fraser Government made a decision on 31 March 1983 to wind down the surveillance services, that is, the frequency of operations to the north of Australia. That decision was taken prior to our entry to government and it was taken in the full knowledge of the then Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, now the honourable member for the Northern Territory. He was a party to that decision and was aware of its having been made by the previous Government. The substantial reduction in coastal surveillance services was made during his period of office as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory; it was made by the Fraser Government. The decision was made before we came into government and was to operate from 31 March. More specifically, there was a major review of coastal surveillance in 1983-84. Several changes were made to contract aerial surveillance in order to meet better the needs of the user departments. I have outlined those earlier. There was a moderate reduction in the annual flying rate of aircraft on routine patrols off the northern littoral, which are undertaken primarily for quarantine protection, on the basis of advice from the Department of Health. Again, that involved a responsible and wise use of public money. Conjointly, the frequency of flights over various sectors was rationalised to reflect more accurately seasonal factors and variations in the level of risk. Patrols continued as frequently as before in areas where there is more threat of disease than elsewhere. This contrasted with the previous arrangements which provided for a constant daily level of flying throughout the year in most sectors regardless of the level of threat or the risk involved. That was simply a waste of public money. In association with these changes, a greater emphasis was given to surveillance by surface craft and to improving our capacity to take follow-up action when information is received. No reduction was made in the flying rate of the Royal Australian Air Force aircraft allocated to Australian fishing zone surveillance, or in contract aerial surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef. Whilst there was a decrease in littoral patrol hours, there was no overall reduction in finance available for the coastal surveillance program as funds were provided for the setting up of the Australian Federal Police Coastal Protection Unit and to meet the usual increases in the standard costs of contract surveillance and administration. So, in essence, what we did was to take an unsatisfactory system that was not making wise and responsible use of taxpayers, money and reorganise it into the Australian Coastal Protection Unit, under the direction of the Australian Federal Police, to give a better service and to make better use of the money involved. I reject outright the assertions made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory who, I am advised, is resident more times in Brisbane than in the Northern Territory. I can understand that in those circumstances he may not be as aware of the changes that have taken place or the detail of them. To get back to the real matter of debate, the contributions made by each of the honourable members have been positive, with the exception of that of the honourable member about whom I have just spoken. It is very encouraging, on an issue of this kind that does have major international implications for our nation, to have the co-operation of both sides of the House. This is one of those occasions of which listeners and the public say they do not hear or see enough, that is, the Parliament working as a parliament in the interests of the nation on a matter that transcends party political interests and on which we agree. The current Opposition when in government and ourselves when in opposition, and both of us now in our respective positions, have worked to ensure that Australia moves to ratify the MARPOL Convention as quickly as possible to protect that great resource around our coastline, to enable us to take the measures necessary to deal with an incident should one happen and to prevent the pollution of our shoreline. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Madam Speaker has received advice from the President of the Senate that Senator Morris has been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in place of Senator McKiernan. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the comments of the Treasurer last November when he declared that the J curve would have a beneficial effect and to the Treasurer's subsequent statement of only three weeks ago that he remained confident that the J curve would still work. I ask the Prime Minister whether he shares the Treasurer's blind faith in the J curve or whether he agrees with Senator Button's comment yesterday, namely: I don't know who invented the bloody J curve but I can tell you it wasn't an Australian who learnt about the Australian economy. Which is the authentic version of the Government's attitude? Mr HAWKE —The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition enables me to make the obvious observation that both the Treasurer and the Leader of the Government in the Senate speak with considerable authority, and reconcilable authority, in this matter. We have consistently said that initial progress would be slow, and in that sense I entirely agree with what Senator Button has said-that we do not expect any dramatic turnaround in the current account immediately. But we said, and the Treasurer and I have emphasised, that we expected and anticipated that progress would occur consistently through 1986. The important thing is that the February current account figures are consistent with that view. They are encouraging in that the balance of merchandise trade, which is very important, has improved consistently in seasonally adjusted terms over the past three months. The Government as a whole-certainly the Treasurer, Senator Button and I-is confident that the policies it has in place will continue to bring about an improvement in these fundamentals. Let me make it clear that we are not content merely with the general thrust of macro- economic policy being properly in place but, particularly under Senator Button's leadership, this Government has consistently but gradually brought about changes in the structure of Australian industry to ensure that in the years ahead it will be more competitive and outward looking so that it will be able to take advantage of the great opportunities available to this country through being placed, as it is, in the world's most dynamically growing economic region. We therefore have confidence in the impact of both our general macro-economic policies, for which the Treasurer has particular responsibility, and our industry restructuring policies, which are the particular responsibility of Senator Button. Mr HUMPHREYS —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is there any plausible alternative to the prices and incomes accord as a way of controlling wages and increasing employment? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to my good friend the honourable member for Griffith for his penetrating question. I will not take up a great deal of the time of the House in detailing the enormous achievements of the prices and incomes accord. They stand in stark contrast to the performance of our predecessors. But one has to ask what is the alternative posed by the Opposition. We really have what one might call a Liberals' lucky dip. Each morning we wake up and wonder what they are saying today about wages. I can therefore only address myself to the latest offering, which comes from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brown, who is reported as having said something quaint about this. Mr John Brown —Neil Brown. Mr HAWKE —Neil Brown; that is right. Neither John nor Bob is he; he is Neil. We have some very strange brews currently emanating from the Opposition. According to what I read recently, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that, under the Liberal Party, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would set minimum wages. But this would not be regarded as a Federal minimum wage which applied to all workers. Nor-this is equally quaint-would it necessarily be the minimum specified in each award for each category of work. But we are told, if I can quote him, that it would be `somewhere in the vicinity of the award wage'. So we can see that this is a recipe for chaos coming from the Liberals. Is it little wonder that their dear friend in the northern part of Australia yesterday had some offerings to make in the Queensland Parliament about the policies of the Liberal Party? May I briefly share with the House the observations made by Sir Johannes Bejelke-Peterson on the current state of the Liberals and their policies. This is what he had to say yesterday: Mr Howard . . . unfortunately he belongs to a party that has got an awful record. They've got a record of a mile long if you'd like to put it that way. They've never been able to go straight in one line, one direction very long . . . This sort of waffling, backing and filling you never know where they're going to go. He went on, having warmed to his subject: This sort of business you haven't got a clue where they're going. And of course I said to Mr Howard just recently when he visited me a few weeks ago. You know you've got to stand up, you've got to be counted, you've got a bad record down the years. A very bad record. He went on to say: I said people have got no confidence in you because of your record and your present day record and I said because you haven't got a policy. I suggest that the next sentence is the greatest gem of all. Sir Johannes Bjelke-Peterson said: The last federal election I told him they haven't got a policy and I campaigned for them in every capital city. I had to make my own policy because they didn't have one. Having said that he had to make a policy for them because they did not have one, he continued: And so today we find where the Liberal Party are heading nowhere . . . You can't have two bob each way . . . and all of these people that back and fill in their organisation you know no wonder nobody wants to have anything to do with them. That is the Liberal Party and its policies. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether the trilogy commitment of the Government means that tax receipts in 1985-86 must not exceed those in 1984-85 as a percentage of gross domestic product. If not, what does the Government's trilogy commitment imply about tax receipts in the current financial year? Mr HAWKE —I would have thought it would be clear even to these policyless Liberals what the position of the Government is. Let me make it clear that, as budgeted, receipts were consistent with the trilogy. Reliable estimates of the receipts outcome in 1985-86 are not available and will not be available until the company tax payments due in May have been collected. It is the case that strong growth in demand has meant that significant items of receipts are running ahead of Budget estimates at present. That is all that can be said at this stage, other than that the overall trilogy commitments of this Government will be met and they will represent the most astringent fiscal discipline that has ever been placed upon any government by itself in the history of this country and will be part of the reason why the economic results of this Government will far outweigh the pathetic performance of the Leader of the Opposition when he had responsibility for the economic management of this country. Mr CHARLES —I ask whether the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to a recent statement by the Opposition spokesman defence in which he claimed, among other nonsensical things: Labor has maintained a steady attack against the Navy and has turned it into a bathtub force. He also said: We are a one ocean Navy-and there's even some doubt about that. Firstly, are the Opposition's claims correct? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the two-ocean policy has been endorsed by the Government? Thirdly, are the Government and the Australian Labor Party mounting a steady attack on the Royal Australian Navy? Mr Carlton —Give us your weight, Kim. Mr BEAZLEY —This will not be a slimmed-down answer. The comments made by the Opposition's defence spokesman have been drawn to my attention. A few other statements have also been drawn to my attention. For example, he said that the Navy paid off HMAS Yarra because it did not have enough men and that we lost our aircraft carrier and our fixed wing aviation capability. He continued: During the recent Budget fights Mr Beazley has been silent. I hope that he won't let the high-spending social welfare program be maintained at the expense of Defence. He also said the other things to which the honourable gentlemen referred. I would have thought that all of these statements, taken together, constituted some reasonably serious charges. Given that they were made last week one might have expected them to have been reflected in an odd question or motion from the right honourable gentleman in the House this week. He has now had four days during which he has been capable of questioning me on these matters but apparently he has not chosen to do so. I suggest to honourable members that that is an indication of what he thinks about the weight of the charges that he has laid against me. Whether or not he thinks that total silence reflects an appropriate follow-up to his charges, I certainly think it does. Included among his charges is, of course, the usual farrago of nonsense that he has put out on this matter and he has not bothered to have it tested in debate in this House with the Government. For example, the Navy paid off HMAS Yarra because it did not have enough men: The Navy paid off HMAS Yarra because it replaced it with an FFG. HMAS Yarra is older than some honourable members. The right honourable member for New England continued: . . . We have lost our aircraft carrier and our fixed wing aviation capability. I have had occasion to point out in the House that it is quite true that we have lost our fixed-wing aviation capability. We were going to lose our fixed-wing aviation capability. We were going to lose our fixed-wing aviation capability in 1982 when Jim Killen told us that that was when we would lose it. So the suggestion that is implied in these statements that the Government has eliminated the Navy's fixed-wing aviation capability is just a load of nonsense. The honourable member then talked about whether the Government agrees with a two-ocean Navy policy. For years and years the Liberal Party of Australia announced that it had some sort of policy in this direction but it did nothing about it. Our record is as I have indicated previously in this place. We have put two of the Navy's most substantital ships in Western Australia. In contrast, the Liberals record is nil. If there are any doubts about whether or not there is an effective two-ocean Navy, the Australian Labor Party's performance is moving towards it. The Opposition's performance did not move in that direction. The right honourable member for New England also suggested that this Government has been ungenerous in defence expenditure. The simple fact of the matter is that in the Government's Budgets-I will refer to the last Budget as an example-the average rate of gross increase in defence outlays was close to twice the average growth in outlays. This Government has been substantially generous in defence expenditure, substantially more generous than its opponents. It is also a government that has been substantially generous in social welfare expenditure. Despite the considerable restraints under which the Government has operated and had imposed on it since it came to office, its performance in these two critical areas of government expenditure is far better than that of most other governments in this country this century. In that regard we do not need to explain ourselves to the honourable gentleman opposite. The right honourable member for New England also said: There is no way in the world we could mount operations like we have in the past. I do not know exactly what that statement is supposed to mean. At any point in time it can be said about the military that we cannot mount operations like we did in the past. Efforts to mount operations like we did in the past? In 1914 we saw French soldiers go into battle lines with red trousers because it looked good and that was the way things had been done in the past. One could find numerous examples in that regard. There is a requirement that our defence forces ought to match our necessary capabilities in our contemporary strategic environment. There is a constant requirement for the forces to be updated in order to do that and there are concepts of changed operations to do it. Only part of the reason why there is pressure on Navy manpower at the moment-I concede the pressure is substantial-is budgetary restraint. I do not see any Liberals leaping up suggesting that massive areas of increased public expenditure are a desirable course of action to be followed by this Government. We know precisely how defence and everything else would fare if the Opposition were to come to power. The other reason why there is substantial pressure on Navy manpower is that manpower requirements for managing new projects are coming into existence. There is now a substantial requirement on Navy manpower to man the projects on mining counter measures, to man the project for the new submarine and shortly to man projects for the new surface combatants. That is what is placing pressure on naval manpower. The upshot of those programs, when achieved, will be a contemporary Navy. Mr Sinclair —It is about time that we had a debate on defence. Mr BEAZLEY —The right honourable member knows very well that it is up to him to move notices of motion. It is the Government which is addressing the Navy's equipment needs; it is the Government which is producing a Navy that suits our contemporary interests; and it is the Government, not the Opposition, which pursues sensible budgetary policies towards the Department of Defence. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and trust that in his reply he will be somewhat more accurate than his colleague the Minister for Defence was in his reply. The Minister will recall his statement yesterday that it would be very appropriate for the rural sector to be the last to pay the 3 per cent productivity deal under the queuing concept. On what basis does he believe that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will not backdate the payment to 1 July 1986? Without this guarantee, what justification is there for his statement? Is it based, perhaps, on his acceptance that in neither the rural sector nor small business is there any productivity improvement on which the claim can be based? Mr WILLIS —The Leader of the National Party of Australia takes a long time to understand things. The reality is that we have had the renegotiation of the accord since September last year. It was made quite clear in that document, which the right honourable member has had for many months in order to read and understand, that the agreement between the two parties-the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions-was to pursue a superannuation outcome from a productivity case and for that outcome to be spread over a two-year period. That is, it would not be spread over a two-year period for each individual worker but rather some awards would be adjusted from 1 July this year and other payments would come in sequentially after that date. That is the process that was agreed upon. There was no suggestion at any stage in that document that there would be backdating for those who come in after 1 July. Some payments will start on 1 July, some will start later. What I said yesterday, and I repeat it, is that the Government's view is that it would be highly appropriate for rural awards to be adjusted towards the end of the two-year period. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Health able to comment on the alleged claim that there is a mole within the Health Insurance Commission who has been feeding confidential information to businessmen to enable them to rip off Medicare? Can the Minister also comment on whether he has received information from the Health Insurance Commission on allegations by a Newcastle doctor concerning corruption and intimidation? Dr BLEWETT —I indicated to the House earlier in the week that we were concerned about certain allegations made by a Newcastle doctor and we were sending investigators from the Health Insurance Commission to discuss those allegations with the doctor concerned. We began these inquiries after allegations were made by Gavin Gilchrist on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program on Monday and, subsequently by other journalists, that a mole may exist within the Health Insurance Commission. This allegation was treated extremely seriously by the Federal Government as I indicated earlier in the week. Subsequently, Dr Parker, in his interview with the Commission officers, categorically denied that this statement was made by any of the four people involved. He further stated that a certain amount of journalistic licence had been taken with his statement. Dr Parker has told the investigators that the Sydney group had only intimidated that `it knew how far it could take things with the Commission'. I might just observe on that point that the Health Insurance Commission does not have a standard monitoring system. It is flexible and parameters for monitoring overservicing are regularly changed on the basis of developing information. Dr Parker's statement to the Commission clearly refuted any suggestion that a mole is operating within the Commission. Dr Parker's allegations followed a meeting he attended about a month ago with two doctors and two businessmen, all from Sydney, who had wanted him to close his practice and set up a new practice with them as partners. At this stage, there appears to be insufficient substance to link that meeting with an incident two days later in which a brick was thrown through the front window of his practice. Contact has been made with a Sydney solicitor representing the two doctors who were at the dinner and attempts are being made to arrange interviews with those doctors. Inquiries are also proceeding with regard to the two businessmen concerned and, at this stage, contact has been made with the solicitor representing one of them who has indicated his client's willingness to assist the Commission. It is anticipated that this person will be interviewed in the near future. Investigations have proceeded rapidly. We have taken this issue seriously. I have to say that, at this stage, the evidence does not appear to warrant referral to the Australian Federal Police except with regard to the malicious damage to property. Mr N.A. Brown —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he has seen an opinion from the Attorney-General's Department to his Department which states that, in the first place, there is considerable doubt whether, as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act stands, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has jurisdiction to make awards with respect to superannuation; secondly, there are real doubts whether it is open to the Commission to include superannuation provisions in what it orders and; thirdly, it is desirable to have amendments made to the Act in this House to give the Commission that power if that is what the Government wants to do. In the light of that clear advice from the Attorney-General's Department, how is it that the Minister has allowed his Department to argue in the face of the Arbitration Commission that it is-I quote from the submission-`clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commission to make superannuation awards'? Why has the Minister allowed the Arbitration Commission to be blatantly misled in this fashion? Will the Minister correct the situation? Is it true that the Minister has contemplated amendments to the Act? When will it be amended so that this matter can be debated in the Parliament where it should be debated? Mr WILLIS —It is true that the Government has said, in the arbitration case going on at present, that the Commission does have jurisdiction to hear and decide on the superannuation claim. Of course, that claim has been put forward in a way by the Australian Council of Trade Unions which is undeniably within jurisdiction. In that sense there is no doubt whatsoever in the Government's view that the Commission has a capacity to hear and decide on that matter in relation to superannuation. The issue turns around whether there is an industrial relationship between an employer and an ex-employee which has been the traditional basis of saying that superannuation was not an industrial matter. As we see it, the fact of the matter is that, where an employer is making a contribution to a superannuation scheme on behalf of an existing employee, that is clearly an industrial matter and one which is within the power of the Commission to decide. That view of the Commonwealth comes from consideration of advice from the Attorney-General's Department and other sources of advice which lead us to the view that has been put by the Government in the case and which the Government strongly endorses. Of course, the ACTU has also put the claim on the basis that what it is seeking is a 4 per cent wage increase which can be alleviated by a superannuation payment by the employer. There is no doubt that an application by the ACTU for a 4 per cent productivity increase is within the jurisdiction of the Commission and that the course proposed by the ACTU is undoubtedly within the power of the Commission to decide upon in terms of the way in which it is put by the ACTU in its claim. The Government clearly believes that to be the case. I do not withdraw anything that has been said by counsel on behalf of the Commonwealth in the national wage case currently before the Commission. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask leave to table the opinion from the Attorney-General's Department to which I referred. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the House will look at the paper. Mr PRICE —Does the Special Minister of State agree with recent allegations that the New South Wales Government has emasculated the National Crime Authority? Is the New South Wales Government co-operating with the National Crime Authority? Mr YOUNG —Allegations that the National Crime Authority, the premier body for fighting organised crime in this country, is being hindered by a State government are very serious. From my viewpoint-from my involvement with the Inter-Governmental Committee and, as Minister for the National Crime Authority and also the Australian Federal Police-I must tell the Parliament that I can see no substance in the allegations. The New South Wales Government has requested the National Crime Authority to investigate a number of major organised crime matters and it has issued to the Authority the two formal State references so far requested by the Authority itself. In respect of these matters the National Crime Authority and the Commonwealth and New South Wales agencies are co-operating fully and effectively. In my briefings with the Authority members have indicated that they are very happy with the level of co-operation with all New South Wales authorities. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police has also stated to me that the degree of co-operation with the New South Wales Police and its Minister is very satisfactory. As to the States preventing the National Crime Authority investigating matters under its general powers, the National Crime Authority can, of its own volition and without any need for approval from anyone, investigate relevant criminal activities in any jurisdiction. I might say that it has done so all over this country. In order to use its special coercive powers, however, the National Crime Authority requires the approval of a State government before it can investigate matters within a State's jurisdiction using those powers. Proposed State references must, therefore, be approved by the Minister representing the State at the Inter-Governmental Committee of the National Crime Authority. The Inter-Governmental committee has resolved to announce publicly any case where a reference sought by the National Crime Authority is refused by that Committee. The State concerned would have to defend its decision in public. That was a decision that was taken at the very first meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee at the end of 1984. I also add that, in relation to the resources that have been made available to the National Crime Authority, when this Government was elected in March 1983 the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union had a staff of 63 people. The National Crime Authority now has a staff of 225. Combined with the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and the Costigan Commission, the National Crime Authority now has over twice the number of people that were available to both those commissions in 1983. No request for resources by the National Crime Authority has been refused by this Government. I would also add that in all the work I had to do with the former Police Minister of New South Wales, Mr Anderson, who has now been transferred to another portfolio, he worked very efficiently, effectively and co-operatively with all the other governments represented on the Inter-Governmental Committee during his period in that portfolio. Mr Howard —A very good answer, Mick. Mr YOUNG —You ought to listen. John Howard and Jim Carlton, the two great Liberals, were members of the Young Liberals when old Robert Askin was putting the five grand a week in his kick. They were running brown paper bags up to Askin's office. One would have thought that it was the picnic of the Painters and Dockers-and honourable members opposite tell us about fighting crime. Askin was a Liberal, was he not? It is convenient how the present Opposition members forget their former great leaders. They have forgotten Malcolm. Now they have forgotten Askin. I recommend they go to the Library and get a book called The Prince and the Premier and look at what was happening in New South Wales. The wall that was built around New South Wales by Askin has been torn down by Wran and by this Government. I am telling the Parliament what has occurred since this Government took over. Never have the law enforcement agencies of this country been as effective against organised crime as they have been in the last three years-not only under this Government but also under all the State governments. One cannot fight organised crime in this country without the co-operation of all the law enforcement agencies, both at Commonwealth and State level. If Opposition members think one can do all the things they dream about just under this Government and ignore the law enforcement agencies in the State jurisdictions, they have another think coming. They had better have a yarn with Neville Harper and the Minister for Police in Tasmania, because they do not represent my Party when they come to meetings of the Inter-Governmental Committee. Opposition members ought to get hold of that book in the Library and read what happened in New South Wales under the Liberals. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to page 946 of Hansard of 20 February and quote your words when you said: I will not tolerate, from either side, allegations or imputations of a personal nature, particularly remarks or interjections which go into the private lives of members. I draw to your attention the fact that the Special Minister of State is the first to break your ruling and I ask you to take action accordingly. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor that, if members of this House would keep quiet while people are speaking, I may have heard what the Minister said. As it is, I have no idea what he said in a personal manner. If the Minister made a personal imputation-- Mr Young —Madam Speaker, if I said anything to which the Opposition objects, I withdraw it. Mr N.A. Brown —Now that the Attorney-General has had the advantage of two consultations with his colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is he prepared to stand behind the opinion given by his Department on this matter? Secondly, will he agree to table that opinion and all other opinions written by the Attorney-General's Department and other outside advice obtained on this matter? Will he also table drafting instructions and related documents with respect to proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As a matter of interest, the opinion was one obtained from within the Department which I have not seen. I do not disagree with it. To shorten the matter, I understand that it is a reference to an opinion which I have not seen, but I understand from my colleague that he has no objection to the matter being tabled. Mr LEE —In view of the intense public interest in Halley's Comet, especially after the European Space Agency's successful Giotto mission in which the observatory at Parkes played such a vital role, will the Minister for Science arrange for members of this House to be given a briefing on the comet? Do some observers believe that the presence of the comet is a signal of momentous events? Is there any connection between the appearance of the comet and the Prime Minister obtaining three birdies in a row in this morning's round of golf? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Dobell for his question. Comets have always been regarded as supernatural auguries and marks of great divine approval. So who am I to question the inference raised in the question. I am pleased to advise that I have arranged for more than a briefing on Halley's Comet; I have arranged for a visit to Mount Stromlo Observatory on the evening of 9 April when the comet will be at its brightest and away from the bright lights of Canberra. I am grateful for the invitation offered by the Director of Mount Stromlo, Professor Don Mathewson. He advises that he can accommodate more than 100 members. Such is the liberality of this Government that it might even extend the invitation to senators as well. I am encouraged by the high degree of enthusiasm shown by members of all political persuasions. My colleague the Special Minister of State has handed me a marvellous piece in Dick Smith's Australian Geographic, which I could table. The Opposition had better look at that. I expect that no quorum calls will be needed. Some details of logistics remain to be worked out, but I assume that we will travel to and from Mount Stromlo by bus. The Deputy Prime Minister will be among those present, and I hope that the Prime Minister will be there, if not in person at least in spirit. The exact time will be advised when we resume sitting in April. I am confident that Halley's Comet will be one of the most memorable achievements of the Hawke Government. Mr Hawke —We will be here for the next one. Mr BARRY JONES —The Prime Minister says that we will be here when the next one comes. Judging by the performance of the Opposition, I would say that that is right. I should add that today has been a memorable day for astronomy. Spaceship Giotto was transmitting pictures up to a point 690 kilometres from the centre of Halley's Comet before its transmitting capacity was knocked out. It is hoped that Giotto itself has survived and will resume transmission. This has been an astonishing achievement. I am sure the House would want me to pass on congratulations officially to ESA-the European Space Agency-and to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's radio astronomers at Parkes, who played such a central role. Mrs SULLIVAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to the Minister's statement in this House on 11 March, this week, regarding housing finance, when he said: It is perfectly obvious that this Government is going to protect existing borrowers. Is the Minister not aware of the rapid increase in the number of people unable to maintain mortgage repayments because of increases in interest rates over the past 12 months and who are therefore being forced to sell their homes and forfeit all or most of their own equity in these properties? Does his Department have any record of the number of people who received the first home owners scheme grant and who have found themselves in this position and of the proportion of the grant that has thus been rendered wasted money? Mr WEST —There is no evidence that any large numbers of people who have received a first home owners scheme grant are losing their houses because of rising interest rates. The fact is that there has been some reduction in the number of grants under the first home owners scheme, fewer than we expected, and there will be some savings in that area this financial year. Mr Beale —How much? Mr WEST —The figure will be approximately $40m. But let me repeat: There is no evidence whatsoever that any large number of people are having their homes foreclosed-on the contrary. As far as interest rates are concerned, it is obvious that some difficulties are emerging with regard to housing finance. This Government will not apologise for its efforts in the housing area. If honourable members compare our policies and our results with what was achieved by the former Government they will see that over 200,000 households have already been assisted in the last couple of years into home ownership as a result of that scheme, which has been hailed by the industry and by first home seekers generally as the best and the most effective instrument in assisting people into home ownership that has ever been seen in this country. What is more, I remind honourable members opposite-the great housing experts who do not even have a policy at the moment and have the audacity to complain about sectoral downturns-that back in 1981-82 they achieved 105,000 starts, which was accelerated to 137,000 starts in the first year of the Hawke Government, and 153,000 in the last financial year, and the draft report of the Indicative Planning Council says that we will achieve 137,000 starts this financial year. I might say, too, that in 1984-85, over 100,000 extra households in Australia achieved housing loans over and above those that achieved housing loans in the last year of office of honourable members opposite. We understand that the present level of interest rates is impacting upon the ability of some people to obtain housing finance. But I would just like to point out to the House what the policy of the Opposition is. Mr Howard —Do you support the cuts? Mr WEST —The Opposition accepts that there are some problems with regard to the current account and they support tough monetary policy to deal with it. Having supported tough monetary policy, honourable members opposite then refused to say that the country should accept for a short time the results of high interest rates which evolve from monetary policy. Mr Howard —Do you support the cuts? Mr WEST —I just wish that Mr Thirty Per Cent, or Mr Thirteen Per Cent, according to the Herald poll, would listen to the answer to the question. Mr Howard —Do you support the cuts? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition must not sit at the table interjecting. Mr WEST —All that the Leader of the Opposition can do is to simply repeat: `Do you support the cuts?'. There is a front bench bereft of policy. Its members have no housing policy whatsoever. Having accepted that there are some difficulties on the current account, they support tough monetary policy and then accept the logical conclusion that that would result in high interest rates. They support this tough monetary policy and then complain of the sectoral impact. The Government is considering its options. We accept the fact that the Indicative Planning Council will indicate in the near future that there will be some downturn in housing. But it also indicates that it expects that there will be substantial drops in interest rates in 1986. I shall be releasing that report within a few days. As I said the other day, on the housing front there are a number of options that the Government can consider if it deems it appropriate to stimulate the industry, and the Government is considering its options. Mr GRIFFITHS —Has the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism been drawn to claims by a Melbourne University academic, Dr Neville Norman, to the effect that our tourism advertising campaign in the United States featuring Paul Hogan has given a false impression to visiting Americans and hence has contributed to disillusionment with Australia upon their return home? Mr JOHN BROWN —My attention has been drawn to the remarks made by Dr Norman at a recent travel seminar. Obviously, I am amazed at his ignorance. He suggested that the increased rate in visitors from the United States is: . . . a continuation of growth in the United States visitor numbers before the campaign started in 1984. That is plainly ridiculous because under the previous Government, which knew nothing about tourism and understood nothing of its potential, we limped along with a growth rate of about 5 per cent to 6 per cent from the United States annually. I have great pleasure in stating that the monthly average increase in airline passengers arriving from the United States at present is 40 per cent, and the number of airline flights from the United States to Australia has increased from 25 a week in 1984 to 45 a week in 1986. Visa issuance in the United States in the last six months has averaged a 45 per cent increase over the same period in the previous year. So, obviously, Dr Norman's statements in that area are plainly ridiculous. Dr Norman also went on to say that the campaign had led to disillusionment and that we certainly do not have any return visitors. That is also patently wrong, because surveys show us that 35 per cent of the United States visitors are return visitors. The number of telephone calls that have come to the toll line since these advertisements started now is over one million. That is matched by over three million calls to travel agents. The Director of NWE, the leading and most distinguished advertising agents in the United States, has recently said that this campaign is the most successful ever undertaken in the United States. It is with some degree of joy that I state that we have gone from forty-ninth position in terms of preference for United States visitors leaving America from the West Coast to first position, in two years. I am very happy to inform the Treasurer that this was with an investment of $11m over two years, as against the $2 billion that is spent annually in the United States by countries trying to attract visitors. So that plainly tells us how successful the Hogan campaign has been. Mr Jull —Are you going to start the Japan campaign now? Mr JOHN BROWN —We will go ahead with Japan, yes, of course. There are a few other things that I should like to say. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —I know that Opposition members do not like this. That is because they knew nothing about it. Madam Speaker, if I need something to back up my claims as to how successful these advertising campaigns have been, let me tell you this: The Hogan campaign has won 13 major advertising awards in the United States. Last year when the Cleos were being awarded-that is, the advertising equivalent of the Oscars-the Chairman had this to say: Cleos are awarded for creativity, cleverness and humour by a jury of industry peers. As far as we know, after 25 years in the advertising business, no one has ever won as many awards as the ATC's campaign picked up during 1984-85. That campaign was the America's Cup campaign. Finally, Dr Neville Norman certainly does not know anything about advertising. In his own chosen profession as an academic economist his record is also pretty poor. He was, after all, an adviser to Malcolm Fraser; QED. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —In Question Time yesterday the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) asked me a question concerning the community employment program. He referred to a letter dated 23 November 1983, I said if that the answer was and available through public information I was sure the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) would make it available to honourable members. In the absence of the Minister and with his agreement, I now table the letter. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the Arbitration Inspectorate for 1984-85. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Agreement Act 1970, I present the annual report of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board for 1984-85-very encouraging support for what a clever little species we belong to. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian National Gallery for 1984-85. I think it is rather a shame that an excellent report such as this is not in colour because paintings such as the Cezannes, the Pollocks and others would be much better displayed in colour. Madam SPEAKER —They would also be much more expensive, would they not? Mr COHEN —That is the price one pays for art, Madam Speaker. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, Madam Speaker, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —During the adjournment debates of 12 March and 13 March the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) made some comments relative to my attending public meetings to identify problems with the Interstate Road Transport Act. At the beginning of Question Time I sent a copy of the Act to the honourable member. He seems to have left the chamber immediately after receiving it. The points on which he misrepresented me, and, in fact, his whole speech, are about what I have said. He said: 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. The fact is that the Liberals sought to have the legislation referred to a Senate committee. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie also said: He failed to mention that the legislation includes a fast track package of measures to help the industry. He failed to mention 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. The reason I sent the honourable member a copy of the Act was that I hoped he would identify where the Act said any of those things whatsoever. As such, he has misrepresented me in claiming that in this case I had failed to mention things in the Act which never existed in the Act. The honourable member stated: . . . the honourable member for O'Connor regaled the 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. I refer the honourable member and the House to Part 6 of the Interstate Road Transport Act which clearly states that such a black box is subject to regulation and obviously would not be optional. Finally, I point out that last night the honourable member went as far as to say that I would never be game to be in his electorate in Esperance again. I wish to correct him on that point also. I certainly would. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue. He will resume his seat. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to correct an error which I made during my contribution to the debate on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill in this House on 17 February. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CONNOLLY —I am indebted to Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Mr Whitlam, who phoned me at 8 a.m. on Saturday, 1 March, to point out the error of my ways. He said that while he was not interested in what Liberals said on anything-I am delighted that he made an exception in this case-nevertheless, he was concerned that my error could damage Australia's relations with Greece. In deference to our Ambassador, I doubt that his Greek colleague in Canberra would read Hansard with the same fervour as evidently he does, or that he would think my error was more than antipodean ignorance. During the debate, when commenting on the celebrated case of the Elgin Marbles which were taken from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin, I said that he was Ambassador to Greece. Of course, that was incorrect and I apologise for the error. Lord Elgin was Ambassador to Constantinople, which at the time included a very unwilling Greece within the Ottoman Empire. Despite the early hour, I am indebted to Mr Whitlam for waking me up and I enjoyed our extensive tour-de-horizon which included his visit to the Roman ruins along the Algerian coast, a quick sortie across to Rome to comment on the quality of the Vatican's post-graduate degree in archaeology and finally a pithy analysis of the First Crusade. I thought it was important to advise the House of this detailed conversation because, despite the early hour, I took the opportunity to suggest to the Ambassador that he should use his good offices to seek the return to Australia from the Vatican of the collection of Aboriginal artefacts which have been the subject of some comment both in this House and elsewhere in recent weeks. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has pointed out that there is a problem of precedent for the Vatican. Mr Whitlam, however, believes that, as Pope Paul VI found it politically useful to return to Greece the remains of its patron saint, expropriated, incidentally, by the First Crusaders and taken to Rome, surely in the context of our Bicentennial it is not unreasonable that Australia should make a similar request to the Vatican which can no longer claim that there are no precedents. Mr Whitlam assured me that he would consult with the Vatican's representative to UNESCO at my request. I suggest that the Australian Government support him in this venture, rather than looking for excuses. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Speaker, I wish to make a very brief personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —In today's edition of the normally impeccable Sydney Morning Herald, Column 8 commences: At question time yesterday ALP member for Canberra, Ros Kelly, asked the Minister for Territories, Gordon Scholes, about the delays in receiving elective surgery from hospitals in the ACT. Before Mr Scholes had a chance to reply, Tasmanian Liberal Michael Hodgman said: `Because there are more sick people'. As a former Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, and having great affection for the people of Canberra, I place on record that I did not make that interjection. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —by leave-I move: That Mr Spender be appointed a member of the Committee of Privileges to fill the vacancy now existing on the Committee. Standing order 26 relating to the Committee of Privileges states that the Committee shall consist of the Leader of the House or his nominee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and nine other members. When the Committee was formed at the start of the present Parliament, Mr Neil Brown was appointed by the House as one of the nine other members of the Committee. Since Mr Brown is now a member of the Committee in his capacity as Deputy Leader of the Opposition a vacancy therefore exists. That is the explanation for this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-Madam Speaker, I have just returned from an 11-day visit to Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and the Philippines. I have visited the Association of South East Asian Nations area three times in the past 12 months. Later this year, I shall be visiting Brunei and Thailand and returning to the Philippines. (Quorum formed) The regularity of these visits to Asian capitals, as distinct from the European centres favoured by many of my predecessors, is a clear earnest of the significance the region has for the Government of Australia. My concentrating on the South East Asian area should not be taken, of course, as diminishing the importance of other parts of the Asian region. Japan, to take an obvious example, is immensely important to us, in political and economic terms. So also are China, Korea, Indochina, the South Pacific and South Asia. There was a period when Australia presumed that in its external relations it was specially privileged and that, being so far distant from historic centres of instability, it was protected from their ramifications and that is was able to choose when to be involved. In recent years, this torpidity and complacency was shaken when the first boatload of Vietnamese landed here. With that first boatload arrived the fallout from an Australian Government's unwise intervention in Vietnam's affairs and its ill-conceived incitement of the United States to join in. Australia is not immune from instability in our region. We are a nation of human beings, not ostriches. It follows that we must have an active, positive interest in developments which nurture and maintain regional stability. The policy of this Government, therefore, is that what energy, talents and sense of co-operativeness we possess should be harnessed to encourage the progress and stability of the region. The consequences at the practical level are now clear. They rendered my discussions with Asian leaders over the past two weeks all the more positive, advantageous and friendly. It would be foolhardy to measure success or failure in our relationship with ASEAN purely in commercial terms. The economic realities are that Australia is a small market for ASEAN products; that the ASEAN countries are aiming at self-sufficiency in some of the goods which we sell; and that both sides rely heavily on commodity exports to wider global markets to sustain their trading balances. So, although ASEAN-Australian trade will continue to grow, it will not necessarily grow at the same rate as trade overall in the area. But the trade connection in a sense understates the importance of the relationship. Trade is only one aspect of this relationship, albeit an important one. It is a necessary and desirable end in itself. But it is also a means of expanding the web of interaction which Australia needs in order to sit comfortably with its neighbours, to co-operate with them and to grow with them. In other words, there are different reasons why our neighbours are important to us. The eruption in the Philippines, however brief and satisfactorily settled, should have reminded Australians of the importance to us of political issues and stability in our region. It should have registered with Australians the importance of the region as a layer between us and much of the rest of the world. This web of interaction-political, strategic and commercial-provided the reason and the agenda for the dialogue and consultation which took place during my visit. My discussions in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia were in the nature of regular calls to review our shared interests and concerns. This is as it should be. In Asia, as in Australia, getting to know neighbours requires seeing them often and, through friendly contact, identifying common interests. The fruits of this process as it applies to foreign policy were demonstrated in the friendliness of my reception and the quality of our discussions. Aside from the geopolitical dimension, an exchange of views on the economic problems confronting the area was high on the agenda. The economies of the five original ASEAN countries have developed rapidly in the past 20 years. Strong growth continued until last year, with the exception of the Philippines, but the ASEAN economies have recently run into some difficulty. The reasons largely have been the international recession, subsidy and dumping practices by major economies and reduced prices for oil and other commodities. In Indonesia, the fall in oil prices will almost inevitably lead to an overall reduction in economic activity, at least in the short term. The need to accommodate 1.8 million people in the work force each year adds a political dimension to this economic pressure. The Indonesian Government has tried to cushion the impact of falling oil prices by increasing oil production. It is considering possible reductions in public sector spending and is looking to a high level of private sector activity being maintained. The Singapore economy-quite different in structure to those of its ASEAN partners-is also experiencing recession and the possibility of zero growth this year. Singapore has been affected by slower performance by the major economies and, as a centre for regional trade, the downturn in regional economies. Its oil refining industry has felt the impact of falling world prices. The Singapore Government has recently introduced a package of measures aimed at lifting economic performance. Malaysia has been hard hit also by depressed prices for its commodities. The Malaysian Government is clearly concerned at the failure of past formulas to resolve problems of international trade in commodities. It intends to explore new ways to resolve a difficulty which I fear is near the intractable stage. Once again, the political element intrudes through the pressure which these international economic constraints place on economic and social structures. I also note the political factor or religious fundamentalism, though it must be said that the Malaysian Government has this development under control. Continued growth in the ASEAN area is obviously important for Australia; not only in terms of the economic opportunity it offers but also because of the crucial contribution it makes to political stability in our region. Reduced growth exacts substantial political cost in the sense of the pressure it imposes on domestic social and political structures. I came away from my discussions in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia with a deeper understanding of the economic difficulties being faced there. I came away strongly impressed by the basic resilience and diversity of the three economies and confident that their policies of economic management will enable them to negotiate their difficulties. Before turning to the Philippines, I shall mention briefly our special interest in Hong Kong. This interest has various manifestations, all of them of some significance; in trade and commerce, for example, and investment and immigration. My discussions in Hong Kong have enabled the Australian Government to get a reading at first hand on how the transition from British colony to Chinese control in 1997 is proceeding. The transition has been relatively smooth so far, though there are still some difficulties to be negotiated. I am hopeful that progress will continue to be made towards smooth transition, an objective of obvious political and economic significance to Australia. My stay in the Philippines, the first by any Foreign Minister since Mrs Aquino became President, was both the end point and the highpoint of my visit to Asia. The challenge ahead of the Aquino Government is enormous. The Marcos rule profoundly damaged the social fabric of the Philippines; corrupting the administration and the judiciary, suspending institutional politics, politicising the police and the military and ruining the people's faith in the system. There can be no more dramatic expression of the collapse in national confidence than the growth of the New People's Army, from about 5,000 two years ago to more than 15,000 today. The new Government made it clear to me that this is no externally-directed army. It is an indigenous marxist movement, all the more effective for being manned and supported by people who are in most cases, not necessarily ideologies but who have been persecuted for years by officials who should have been serving them. Marcos and his cronies have so distorted the economy that it has severe structural problems. The economy has in fact contracted 10 per cent in real terms over the past two years, while in the same period population has increased by 5 per cent. Merely to service a $US25 billion debt-much of which appears to have disappeared into the personal accounts of Marcos, his family and friends-eats up about 60 per cent of export revenues each year. The Philippines has an unemployment rate of 15 per cent and an underemployment rate of 45 per cent. Eight hundred thousand Filipinos have to be fitted into the work force each year. The accession to power of the Aquino Government and the promise of change and reform it has offered have created an understandable euphoria. That the transition from autocracy to democracy has been so peaceful is a tribute to the courage and restraint of the Government and people of the Philippines. But the political and economic tasks ahead are immense. I was struck in Manila by the realism and determination of President Aquino and her Government concerning the need to reform the corrupt system left behind by Marcos and to punish those responsible for its practices of repression. Her Government has the demonstrable power of the Filipino people on which to rely in this task. The church, which was so influential in the downfall of the Marcos regime, is another significant source of support. The Aquino Government is formulating concrete policies to bring about reform. An important initial step towards restoring the democratic process has been the release of political prisoners. It is going about ways to maximise the participation of the people to draw up a new and just Constitution. It has to meet other urgent needs: A parliamentary system of checks and balances, for example; budgeting accountability; and civil control of the police and military. It has pledged itself to implement agricultural reform and to end `crony capitalism', especially in the crucial sugar and coconut industries. The expectation of reform is acute and widespread; it was the dynamic of the revolution which has taken place in the Philippines. But one senior Minister said to me: `The euphoria is over. Now we have to get down to work'. The Aquino Government faces a huge, complex responsibility. It needs all the help and encouragement it can get from its friends (Quorum formed) . In my discussions with President Aquino, I reaffirmed the Australian Government's strong support for her Government and its program of social, political and economic reform. I was able to inform President Aquino that total Australian aid to the Philippines would increase by 50 per cent in 1986-87 to about $25m. The Australian Government wishes to develop the expanded program of development assistance in full consultation with the new Administration. Accordingly, I suggested that a senior planning mission should go to the Philippines as soon as the new Administration was ready to discuss how our assistance could be put to best use. The Australian Government has agreed that a revolving trade credit of $50m, which was due to expire tomorrow, will be continued following negotiations with the Government of the Philippines. The Australian-Philippines Trade Commission will arrange a meeting at some time in the near future in Manila to discuss mutual trade issues. I will announce fuller details of our assistance program for the Philippines once they are arranged. In this context, I am confident that the House will share my regret at the crudely motivated criticism directed recently at our aid to the Philippines. It is unfortunate that the reasons for this aid have to be spelled out. The humanitarian reason for our aid needs no justification. A second reason concerns the self-interest of this nation. Something like 70 per cent of all funds for aid programs are spent in Australia on products and consultancy and other services. A third reason concerns Australia's need for regional stability. If Marcos had clung to power in the circumstances, several developments would have ensued which would have had serious implications for our security: Disturbance to both super-power and regional arrangements and perhaps a power vacuum developing being contested by at least regional powers is one example; an uncertain environment as a result for trade routes which we consider critical; social pressure arising here and in the region from an increase in the number of refugees from the Philippines. Until now, there has been bipartisan support for the Australian aid program for these and other good reasons. I look forward to the Opposition making clear that this bipartisan approach will continue. Madam Speaker, I am confident that my visit to the Philippines has consolidated Australia's already very good standing with the Aquino Government. Our two countries have important associations which go back to World War II, reinforced by trade, investment, church and people to people contact since then. What would have been a natural strong evolution towards a closer relationship was retarded by the distaste of Australians for the blatant corruption and disregard for human rights of the Marcos regime. Through the months leading up to the election and in the tense days in which the Marcos regime tried to keep the power stripped from it by the Filipino people, our Embassy in Manila maintained close contact with Mrs Aquino and other leading opposition figures. The Australian Government's concern about election fraud and our sympathy and support for Mrs Aquino as the real choice of the people were made very clear in public comment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and me, and in messages conveyed to Mrs Aquino. Australia was the second country to recognise the Aquino Government, only a few hours after Marcos's departure. I believe my visit to South East Asia has achieved its objectives of maintaining dialogue with ASEAN countries and demonstrating support for the Aquino Government. The warm reception I received during my visit demonstrated to me that the present Government's efforts to translate the rhetoric about good relations with South East Asia into concrete action have borne fruit. The Government intends to ensure that this process continues; that every effort is made to pursue Australia's relations with the countries of the region in a constructive and co-operative manner, consonant with Australia's national interests. I present the following prayer: ASEAN and the Philippines-Ministerial statement, 14 March 1986. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.22) —I was out of Australia during the recent trip of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to South East Asia and the Philippines and as such was unable to follow his visit as closely as I might have liked. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues arising out of the Australia-Philippines relationship which call for immediate comment. At the outset, let me say that the coalition supported the Government's quick decision to recognise the Aquino Government and the Minister's decision to visit the Philippines. On 26 February, I called on the Minister to use his trip to Manila to revitalise Australia's declining aid program to the Philippines and to offer any other form of assistance which might assist the Aquino Government to undertake necessary reforms. The coalition naturally welcomes the decision to lift Australia's aid contribution to that country from $16m to $25m and the resumption of our defence co-operation program. Mr Griffiths —What about the honourable member for Fisher? Mr PEACOCK —He does not speak for the coalition. However, that is where the welcoming stops for, unfortunately, little credit can be given to the Government for its policies towards the Philippines. I will come back to this in a moment. The point that should not need emphasising is that a stable, prosperous Philippines is of crucial importance to Australia and the region. It is important because successful regional co-operation and a strong Association of South East Asian Nations are vital to both regional economic growth and our own economic future. It is also a key barrier to communist pressure in South East Asia. It is important because the emergence of a government inimical to Australia's interests and that of the West would be a critical blow to stability in the entire region. A hostile Philippines would sit over our trade routes to Japan. It would seriously upset the balance of power in the Pacific and Indian Oceans at a time of a rapidly expanding Soviet Union presence. The United States of America would most likely lose their bases at Subic Bay and Clark. Nothing that has been said indicates that these could be satisfactorily replaced by bases in Guam and the Northern Marianas. Moreover, as a consequence of such developments there would be an increase in Soviet diplomatic and military pressure on Japan, Korea, China and ASEAN. Finally, it is also important because of the close geographical and historical ties between us and our long-standing friendship with the Filipino people. Mr Marcos was forced to relinquish the presidency by a popular sense of outrage and injustice at the fraudulent manner in which he conducted the recent election. The Marcos Government had orchestrated the systematic disenfranchisement of voters, had substituted ballots and reporting tallies, fraudulently reported results, often using totals far in excess of all registered voters in a district, and simply discarded Aquino votes as invalid. What started out as an exercise to re-establish the legitimacy of the Marcos Government ended in a result which stripped the Marcos regime of any legitimacy. It has meant the revitalisation of the democratic process in the Philippines. President Aquino's achievement was remarkable. She was able to mobilise the mass dissatisfaction with the existing regime, alongside the support of the moral institutions of the country, the middle class, and leading elements in the army as well as the army reform movement. No doubt there could have been a `revolution' without all these ingredients but it would not have been so swift, so decisive and so bloodless. President Aquino deserves our support. The manner in which power was achieved was a tribute to her and the people of the Philippines. Clearly, though, little credit can go to the Hawke Government for its policies towards the Philippines. Government members interjecting- Mr PEACOCK —Now the story commences. Instead of pushing for the revitalisation of democratic institutions in the Philippines and for free and fair elections, this Government buried its head in the sand. Instead of supporting the democratic process in the Philippines and sending observers to witness the elections, this Government buried its head in the sand. What had been the catalyst for President Aquino's successful revolution was the holding of these elections and the general perception that they had been unfair. Yet, the Labor Government had refused to join international pressure on Mr Marcos to hold a free and fair election, and it had refused to send observers to help monitor that election. On numerous occasions I called on the Government to send such a group to monitor the 7 February Presidential election. I called on the Government to support the work of the Citizen's Election Monitoring Association, NAMFREL, and to show in a concrete way that we saw the right to a free vote as important. I was not alone in making this call. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Senator Sibraa, also proposed that Australia send observers to monitor the conduct of the elections, as indeed the Committee itself did. The Minister wrote back on January 3 saying no. He said no for two reasons, both of which were completely spurious. He said that the Philippines had not invited the Australian Government to provide observers. However, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, had indicated on the Foreign Minister's behalf in the Senate on 6 December that President Marcos was willing to accept foreign observers at the election. The facts are that President Marcos had accepted foreign observers to witness the election. Secondly, the Minister said: . . . that the presence of foreign observers would be susceptible to interpretation by some as unwarranted interference in the affairs of another State, especially if either the Philippine government or opposition sought to make capital of their presence, or if there were controversy about electoral procedures. This statement is laughable in the light of events and the Government's own statements during the final moments of the Marcos regime. In contrast, for the coalition's part, we were pleased to be able to send Senator Robert Hill to the election as part of a team of international observers-`controversy' or no `controversy'. The work of the observer team and of Senator Hill was a contribution to the work of NAMFREL and to exposing the Philippines election for what it was. The point is that we should have quietly involved ourselves, by sending observers, by supporting NAMFREL and supporting democratic institutions. The fact is that this Government did not do so. Instead, what we got from this Government was meaningless rage and fury at Mr Marcos-but after it was all over. Once again this Government stands condemned for its isolationist policies and its refusal to stand up for things that matter. The Aquino Government faces a formidable task in addressing the myriad of problems confronting the Philippines-economic and financial problems, political problems and security problems. The economic statistics speak for themselves. Per capita, gross national product has now fallen by more than 16 per cent since 1982. Last year also witnessed the collapse of the sugar economy in the West Central Philippines region. The consequence of this economic decline has been an increase in poverty and social disruption. The country suffers an external debt of about $US26 billion, capital flight, a general deterioration in terms of trade and a highly protected and inward-looking manufacturing sector. To compound this, the Aquino Government is faced with structural problems flowing from the establishment of personal monopolies over key sections of the economy, and the pillaging of the economy by a few economic barons-cronies of the former President. The key to economic recovery is the establishment of political stability and the adoption of policies that build confidence and will bring investment and savings back into the economy. There is some cause for optimism, inflation is under control and the Marcos Government had not only reached agreement in principle with the International Monetary Fund on a package of stabilisation measures in December 1984, but had broadly adhered to the package. The Philippines itself possesses considerable natural resources and the Filipino people are, as we know, enterprising. The combination of these factors plus the short term financial stabilisation program and longer term structural reforms of Government economic policies promise a renewal of sustained economic growth. The new cabinet announced by President Aquino is a pragmatic one. It should be able to draw on our support and assistance, as it certainly will from the solidarity of ASEAN. It is clear that President Aquino has a mandate to govern the Filipino people, but we can understand her concerns to establish a constitutional basis from which to do so. The Philippines have dealt with their political problems in a unique manner and they will no doubt continue to do so. It is not for Australia to say how this should be done. Finally, there are the security problems and the threat presented by the Communist New Peoples Army. It is to be hoped that the NPA can be persuaded to surrender its arms, and a peaceful resolution to the 17 year conflict obtained. Such an outcome, however, cannot be assumed. We should be under no illusion that the NPA leadership is simply a group of agrarian reformers. It is not. Whatever happens it remains vital that the professionalism and discipline of the army be fully restored. The role played by the Army Reform Group, the RAM, in the revolution was enormous. It can be expected that General Ramos and Defence Minister Enrile will do much to continue the process of reform in the armed forces, initiated by the middle ranking officers within RAM. Considerable work needs to be done to develop the capability of the Filipino army to counter the New Peoples Army and to continue the process of regaining the confidence of the Filipino people. The Minister has acknowledged the role played by the Army Reform Group and how this underscored the value of Australia's defence aid to the Philippines which largely consisted of training officers and increasing their professionalism. I agree that Australia's extremely modest military assistance to the Philippines may have been a small factor in promoting military reform and reducing the incidence of military abuse. What the Government should now do is abandon the review of the defence co-operation program, which I suspect was simply a device to cut out such aid to the Philippines, and consider increasing the size of the training program. Overall the Government has behaved in an irresponsible way towards the Philippines. There has been no such thing as quite or effective diplomacy; it has been either non-existent, when Marcos was in power, or brash and hypocritical the moment he left. There is nothing more hypocritical than the statements of Prime Minister Hawke, whom I discern was seeking to visit the Philippines on a number of occasions but once Marcos was removed he said that he had deliberately stayed away from the Philippines, so obnoxious was that regime. The Foreign Minister, to his credit, abstained from that sort of nonsense. I stated earlier why the Philippines was of substantial importance to us. Yet prior to Marcos's fall, the Government simply ignored developments there. Australia simply operated in a policy vacuum. In the end we were lucky. What happened did so without even the remotest Australian input. We were a non-player. There had been no high level contact between the Australian Government and the Filipino Government since 1984. There was no attempt, as we had called for, to work with the United States, the international financial institutions or ASEAN to encourage the Philippines towards political and economic reform. Labor was a non-play. The Government's response was to distance itself from the Philippines and ignore the problem. The Foreign Minister in his statement made the observation that we are human beings, not ostriches-but I could not think of a more appropriate symbol of Labor's foreign policy concerning the Philippines than that of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. The change of government was all that brought about the redirection of effort and, laudably, brought about the Foreign Minister's successful visit to the Philippines. It is to be hoped that the Government's revitalised interest in developments in the Philippines will not dissipate over time or in the face of the challenges that the new Government will have to surmount. I have concentrated my remarks on the Philippines because there is nothing new in the remarks of the Foreign Minister on ASEAN and Hong Kong. The usual platitudes about Australia's role in the region have been trotted out. The only novel aspect is the Foreign Minister's determination to compare Labor's current foreign policy with historical Eurocentric policies pursued by, evidently, some early generations of Australian politicians. The fact remains that the substantive aspect of Australia's relationship with ASEAN, such as trade, investment and political co-operation have shown little sign of developing under Labor. The rhetoric of close integration of ASEAN is there but the achievements are not. Economically we are losing out to competitors from within and without the region and Labor's policies have done little to advance our economic integration. Politically Labor has pursued idiosyncratic policies in the region which have been unco-ordinated with ASEAN and instead of supporting our regional friends and allies have often under-cut them. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable, The Speaker and 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 Downer,Mr Hollis,Mr Hunt and Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable, The Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from air ship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Price and Mr Staples. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House of Representatives their concern at any change to the Australian Flag without first holding a Referendum to assess the opinion of the citizens of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that no changes be made to the Australian Flag without reference to the citizens of Australia in the form of a Referendum. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should- Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1st March 1986 Not increase or extend fuel taxes, and Maintain its tax cut commitments 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 Hicks,Mr Hodges and Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the A.B.R.D. fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, perpetrates inflation, increases the cost of goods to country people, reduces the living standards of all Australians, short changes motorists as the extra funds raised are NOT spent on roads. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office Agency at South Dubbo be closed. The Post Office Agency serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect a registered letter. Many of us are pensioners and even the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain . . . citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the introduction of the Kerin Plan for the Australian Dairy industry which would destroy the livelihoods of many thousands of dairy farmers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will reject the Kerin Dairy Plan. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that proposed cuts to Federal Funding of Child Care Centres are totally unacceptable on the grounds that they will (1) lower the quality of child care to a standard which is not acceptable. (2) raise child care fees to a financially impossible level for a large proportion of families in need of the service and thus disadvantage many children. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House revoke the decision to cut funding to Child Care Centres. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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 respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and 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 the 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 assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourage 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully show that: We object to the proposed relocation of the Army Training Facilities to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales where they shall cause interference with the access, environment and resources of the Macquarie River, its tributaries and the catchment of Burrendong Dam. We respectfully request that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled, will ensure the immediate cessation of all investigations, studies and proposals in the Central Tablelands area which include the Macquarie River, its tributaries and catchment for Military purposes and that the Macquarie River, its environs, recreational resources, historical significance and access along the entire length of the river will be preserved for present and future generations. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the May expenditure savings which introduced funding cuts to children's services will cause hardship to many low and middle income earners. Families relying on these vital services will suffer, as will workers within the industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-87) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament 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: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, residents in the State of Queensland, shows: We express concern at the proposed amendments to the Child Care Act to effect the new subsidy arrangements. The industrial implications of the proposed changes are extensive and will result in deterioration in the quality and quantity of staff employed in child care centres. Any changes to the legislation should not take place until there is a full and open review. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Government conduct a thoroughgoing review of child care funding, in consultation with all concerned parties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beddall and Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws the attention of the House to the fact that proposed amendments to the Child Care Act, by reducing operational funding to centres, threaten to destroy the existing high standard of child care. Your petitioners therefore request that there be no changes to current funding arrangements until a full and proper review of the Children's Services Program takes place, which includes full community consultation and tripartite discussions between three levels of Government. by Mr Hand. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass on to motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy,and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of 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 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 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. Motion (by Mr Holding) negatived: That the House do now adjourn. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The urgent need for new economic policies to prevent a further deterioration of Australia's unemployment situation. 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 N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.43) —This matter of public importance is: The urgent need for new economic policies to prevent a further deterioration of Australia's employment situation. If ever there were a matter upon which this House should be united it must surely be that. On the basis of the evidence we have seen so far, particularly in the last few weeks, there is an urgent need for new economic policies before the employment situation of this country deteriorates even further. I say that because the Government has deceived the Australian people about the state of employment and unemployment in this country and it has attempted deliberately to deceive the Australian people as to the effectiveness of the remedies it is proposing to adopt for unemployment. That record of the Government stands to condemn it both for its deception about the state of employment and unemployment in this country and the effectiveness of those measures which it maintains will improve the employment situation. It is not simply as though the Government has deceived the Australian people recently or that it has deceived the Australian people with an occasional throw-away remark. The Government has deceived the Australian people on these matters in its prepared and deliberate publications. For instance, I ask honourable members to listen to a short extract from the superman comic-the `ACCORD The first 2 years'-that was produced at the taxpayers' expense to herald the great achievements of the accord under the present Government. Beside the smiling photograph of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is an astounding proposition, and I ask all honourable members to reflect on these words. We are told by the Minister that with the accord the improvement in our economic performance has been remarkable. We are told by the Minister that we have seen record growth, falling inflation-that is what he maintains-and dramatically rising employment. If we have seen anything in this country in recent times we have seen increasing inflation, dramatically increasing unemployment and falling employment. The Opposition says that it has been established beyond any doubt whatsoever that the employment situation in this country is in a very parlous state indeed and unless the Government embarks immediately on different economic policies we will see a further deterioration of our employment situation. Let us get it straight right from the outset as to exactly what our current employment and unemployment situation is. Over the last few months we have seen in this country-I give the bald simple facts-that the rate of unemployment has been stagnant. It got stuck around 7.8 per cent and 7.9 per cent. We have seen from the figures that came out yesterday that the rate of unemployment in this country is now going up. We have a rate of unemployment of 8 per cent. On this occasion the Government cannot use the excuse that it sometimes resorts to be saying: `Of course, the participation rate has gone up'. The participation rate remains exactly the same as it was in the previous month and yet unemployment has increased. It is not just that unemployment has increased on the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, which are, of course, normally accepted as being an accurate guide. If we look at the raw figures with which the Bureau had to deal we find an astounding situation which occurred in this country in one month. Last month there was an increase on the raw, original figures of 40,000 unemployed people in this country. That is a disastrous situation which the Government would be well advised to take heed of. It is not simply as though our rate of unemployment increased because at the same time our level of employment went down. We should understand clearly at the start of this debate that there was, under present policies, not only an increase in unemployment but also a reduction in the number of people employed in this country. Of course the Government resorts, as it often does, to saying: `If you are faced with increasing unemployment and reduced employment we have at least done better than what the Fraser Government did'. For a start let us get rid of this canard and this myth before we go any further, because the employment record of the Fraser Government is one of which it was proud and can be proud. During virtually the whole seven years of that Government we had a far lower rate of unemployment than the present Government has been able to achieve. It should be understood that for the whole period of the Fraser Government, with the exception of the last few months, we regularly had rates of unemployment of around 4, 5 and, on occasions, 6 per cent. We had growth in employment. We condemn the Government for trying to mislead the Australian people about the previous Government's performance in employment growth. The former Government had a three-year period when there was the generation of about half a million jobs-the magic half a million jobs which is the touchstone of success according to the Government. Not only did we have that employment growth but the most important thing to understand is that we had that employment growth without government spending going through the roof. We had that employment growth without high and increasing deficits which are sending this country into bankruptcy. We had that employment growth without borrowing overseas to the enormous extent that the present Government in engaged in, to the extent that, per capita, we are in a worse borrowing situation and a worse debt situation than any country with the exception of Venezuela. That is our record; we are better than Venezuela. That is the proud record of this Government. We say that we had a proud record on employment growth during the Fraser Government. We achieved this without those disastrous economic decisions and without those disastrous economic results which the present Government is foisting upon the country. The present unemployment situation is disastrous not only as far as the number of unemployed people is concerned but also from the point of view of the individual unemployed person. The period of unemployment from which the individual unemployed person is now suffering is getting longer and longer. The proud record of members of this Government, who sit here today harping about the Government's employment success, can be set against this measure: When the Labor Government came into office the average duration of unemployment of an unemployed person was 39 weeks. As a result of its brilliant economic performance it has now increased to 52 weeks. That is the length of unemployment that an unemployed person in this country now has to suffer as a result of the decisions and economic policies of the Government. Under this Government there is no hope for the long term unemployed and there is all the evidence to suggest that unemployment will get worse unless the Government abandons its economic policies. I am glad to see the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) sitting in the far corner of the chamber and smiling his approval. The honourable member for Calwell, the new Messiah of the Australian Labor Party, is smiling and nodding his benign approval at my proposition that we need new economic policies if we are not going to see unemployment getting worse in this country. I ask the new Messiah to take a bow. It is not as if only the Australian Bureau of Statistics has proven our case for us. Let us remember that when members of this Government were in opposition they were continually coming up to us and saying: `There are the Commonwealth Employment Service figures. They are an accurate record of the number of people really unemployed'. If they were an accurate record of unemployment then, they are an accurate record of unemployment now. What do we find when we look at the Commonwealth Employment Service figures? We do not find that there are 600,000 unemployed; we find that there are over 800,000 unemployed. We find that in the last quarter of last year there was an increase of 100,000 in the number of people unemployed in this country. That is this Government's record. That is its achievement. It is a disastrous record. Employment is going down in this country and unemployment is going up. If this Government continues with its present economic policies matters will get worse. We are entitled to ask: Why is it that our employment rate is now shrinking? Why is it that our unemployment rate is going up? We say that it is clearly because of the Government's interest rate policy, which is making it much harder every day for employers to expand and to employ people. We say it is because of the insane system which this Government promotes to fix wages in this country so that we have a regular institutionalisation of inflation in this country. We have seen the results which themselves contribute to unemployment. The trade deficit for this country is such that we can no longer make in this country and sell overseas things which the rest of the world is prepared to buy at prices it can afford. That is the result of this Government's economic policies. We have seen the Government determined to put more and more burdens on employers in this country to make it even harder for them to employ people. We have seen the productivity case. We know from what was said in Question Time today that the Government had advice that this matter should not go before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission until it has come back to this Parliament for debate. That is what the Government should do. We have seen disastrous rural policies, to the extent that no prospect of employment growth is now being generated in rural communities or rural industries. It is our proposition that the Government's present policies are contributing substantially and are causing the clear increase in unemployment in this country and the decline in employment. We have only to look at what the honourable member for Calwell said the other day when he put forward his solutions to the problems facing this country. He said that the Labor Left has other plans for the economy. There certainly should be other plans for the economy and I wish the honourable member well in his campaign. We then have this extraordinary demonstration of an almost unbelievable difference of opinion as to what will happen in this country about employment and unemployment. We had the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the genius, the world's best Treasurer and the world's best predictor of unemployment and employment rates, going on television as recently as 2 March and saying: I don't believe unemployment will rise again. He went on to say: I think employment growth will slow but I don't . . . see unemployment rising . . . He did not have to wait long to see the result of his economic policies. Two weeks later we find that his prediction is absolutely baseless and we see unemployment increasing. I give the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations credit for having enough nous to be aware of the trap that his colleague was setting up for him. The Minister, after waffling around the subject the other day, was not prepared to endorse what the Treasurer said. We say to the Government two things: First, it should get its act together and get a consistent story going. Secondly, it should adopt more sensible economic policies or it will see unemployment go through the roof in this country. What are the Government's solutions? Its solutions are absolutely hopeless. It adopted economic policies which can but lead to increased unemployment. Then it devised a series of phoney schemes to enable it to pretend to people that it is engaging in a wholesale campaign to provide jobs for people, particularly young people. Let us not forget that the rate of youth unemployment is now steadily going up; it is now at a level of 25 per cent in this country. What did this Government do? It devised its youth traineeship scheme. I do not know when we will ever get to the bottom of whether there is a single person in this country on a youth traineeship scheme, let alone the 10,000 that were promised. We cannot do any better than to ask the Minister himself to tell us in his reply precisely how many young people are under traineeship schemes. We have had the publicity. We have had all the propaganda. We have had the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promoting himself like a divinity, and that is the way in which he promotes himself. This is what the Government states on its propaganda sheet: . . . it seems there's always someone `up there' who knows better. What is the answer to the question the Government poses? The Government tells us the answer and the honourable member for Calwell might be well advised to listen to this advice. The Government states: Any ideas about the future of Australia. Any new programs you'd like to see, any new policies or any changes to the old ones? The Government asks whether there is anything like that. In the answer we are told: He'll- he'll with a capital `H'- be on radio stations around the country to take your calls. I urge the honourable member for Calwell to adopt the very policy that is recommended. He should get on the telephone and give his advice to the Prime Minister before it is too late. This Government's record in traineeships is as bad as its record in community employment programs. Believe it or not, this Government makes grants for the training of clowns in Melbourne, for drummers, for South American dance troops, for a swimming pool in the Minister's electorate, for peace buses, and for painting anti-nuclear slogans on the bus shelters in the Blue Mountains. That is this Government's solution. It is hopeless and it should abandon its present policy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.59) —We have just heard another rave from one of the failed men of the past, one of the men who presided over this economy under the previous Government and who proved conclusively to the Australian people that that Government had no capacity to run this country and proved conclusively that, in particular, it had no capacity to create employment and reduce unemployment. Nowhere was this proved more conclusively than by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), who was Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in this country for 13 months-from April 1981 to May 1982. During that period he succeeded in increasing unemployment by 75,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. It was quite obvious that he had no capacity at all to overcome the employment and unemployment problems of this nation. He set the scene for the disaster which followed after he went out of that position. During the period of the Fraser Government we saw a growth in employment of 340,000 and a rise in unemployment from 5 per cent to over 10 per cent. That increase in employment of 340,000 has to be compared with the growth of just under 600,000 which has occurred in less than three years since this Government has been in office. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a failed Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, a man with an abysmal record as the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in this country and a man who was a Minister in a government which performed abysmally in relation to the economy and employment growth in this country, has the hide to stand up in this House and lecture us about how bad our policies are. The first thing I ask the House to note about this, apart from the hypocrisy that is involved, is how lacking in any alternatives the Opposition is. Not one positive element came from the quarter-hour speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Liberals have not got any policies and the people of Australia must understand that. Every time they have an opportunity to speak in this House, all they do is try to paint a totally false picture of what has gone on in this country and what is going on. They try to obscure the fact that they have no policies whatever to offer the Australian people as an alternative. The Opposition is hopeless, it has no policies to offer and throws up a tremendous number of falsehoods about the real situation in this country. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has earned a reputation for being pretty loose with the facts. He said several times during the course of his speech that unemployment is increasing dramatically. He based all that on the fact that in the month of February, in the figures released yesterday, the unemployment level, seasonally adjusted, went up by a little over 16,000 and the unemployment rate went up from 7.8 per cent to 8 per cent. At his Press conference yesterday he said to members of the Press assembled there that one cannot discern a trend from one month's figures. Then he comes into the House the next day and makes a quarter of an hour speech based on a repudiation of what he said yesterday-that is, that one can establish a trend from what happens in one month. The whole quarter of an hour rave was based on the fact that some unemployment trend is created on the basis of one month's figures. That is absurd. It totally contradicts his statement of yesterday and it shows how lacking in credibility he is and indeed how lacking in credibility the whole Opposition is. The Opposition has failed totally as a government and fails every day as an Opposition. Forgetting the statement of yesterday and concentrating on what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said today, it is absurd to argue some upward trend in unemployment. What we have seen in the employment figures month by month has been considerable variation in employment growth. In the last six months there is a picture of one month showing a substantial increase in employment, followed by a small decline in employment the next month. That has happened in the last six months. In the month of January there was an increase in employment of 60,000; there was a reduction in employment of 6,900 in February. So it has gone on in that lumpy sort of way-large increases, small declines-over the last six months. If it is said that some trend has been established when looking back over the last six months, presumably one would argue that there was a strong ongoing trend of employment. It is not just a matter of looking at one month's figures and looking at the past. (Quorum formed) Prior to the interruption, I was saying that we should be looking to what will happen to employment, not just look at the past but take account of future prospects. I said that one cannot look at one month's figures. I remind the renewed audience that what has been put to the House in this debate is that on the basis of one month's increase in unemployment, we have established a trend of increasing unemployment. That proposition was denied by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday, but it has been portrayed by him today. The prospects are for continuing growth in employment. We see no prospect of a slide in the economy so that we shall see a fall in employment and soaring unemployment. That is just not in prospect. Any suggestion that that is in prospect is an outrageous misrepresentation of the likely trend of the economy. As we see it, we will be looking at growth in employment over the next 12 months which will be at least in line with the growth of the work force. That means an increase of the order of 2 per cent. Growth of that order would far exceed the average rate of growth which occurred under the Fraser Government which, in its whole 7 1/4 years of government, managed an average rate of growth in employment of less than one per cent. When one talks about a reduced rate in growth of employment, one is talking about coming down from rates of growth of employment which are incredibly high-a rate of growth in 1985 of 3.8 per cent. That is a staggering increase in employment in one year-by far the fastest rate of growth in employment of any country in the Western developed world in 1985. It far exceeds anything that happened during the Fraser Government's period of office. It is not possible to expect us to continue that rate of employment growth year after year. Because of the balance of payments figures we have inherited from the previous Government, exacerbated by the severe decline in the terms of trade-which is nothing to do with this Government but relates to the decline in commodity prices dictated by what is happening in the world market-it is not possible for the economy to grow as fast in 1986 as it grew in 1985. Nevertheless, we expect to have a rate of growth of employment approximately double that of the average of all the Fraser years. That puts the matter into perspective. Following that year of consolidation, we would expect to be in a position to move into faster rates of growth once we have got the balance of payments under control. The forecast for the future is based on a very credible and commendable performance by this Government in the past. We said that we would create jobs as our number one priority. We said we would create 500,000 jobs in three years. We got there in just over 2 1/2 years. We have had a rate of employment growth of 9.5 per cent in less than three years. It is a record that no one believed could be achieved. It is not unfair to say that the media generally were rather dismissive of our suggestion that we could get that kind of increase and they have been forced to acknowledge that the Government has exceeded the promise. The Opposition, however, lives in a fantasy land. Opposition members keep telling themselves that things are terrible and that we have not achieved much. They say what halcyon years the Fraser years were. They look through the rose-coloured glasses they like to wear and say what a marvellous time that was and how terrific things were under the Fraser Government, when there were one or two years of strong employment growth which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition told us about. He forgot to tell us about the miserable performance when he was Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and he failed to look at the whole period of the Fraser Government. The average duration of unemployment was raised. That has been dealt with by me in another debate, but I shall deal with it again because it has been raised in this debate. We are told that there has been an increase in the average duration of unemployment and that this is some failure on the part of the Government. If that is evidence of some failure, it should be borne in mind that when the Fraser Government came into office the average duration of unemployment was about 14 weeks, and when that Government left office it was about 39 weeks. So there was a tremendous increase in the average duration of unemployment while that Government was in office. If that is some measure of success we should put it into some perspective. Mr N.A. Brown —What is it now? Mr WILLIS —The average duration of unemployment has risen. But that is because of the situation that we inherited from the previous Government. In the last year of office of that Government there was an increase in unemployment of a quarter of a million; and 190,000 people lost their jobs. The large number of people who lost their jobs are finding it extremely difficult to get jobs back again. We have a long term unemployment problem which was inherited from the disastrous Fraser Government years, and we have a community employment program and other programs to try to address that problem. If we did not have those programs the situation would be much worse. But what we have seen happening with the strong growth in employment which has occurred is that the people who have tended to get the jobs are the people who have been the short term unemployed. They find it the easiest to get jobs because they look better in the eyes of employers, they have more self-confidence about applying for jobs and often they are better qualified people. Those are the people who get the jobs, while the longer term unemployed go out to longer and longer terms of unemployment. That is what has been happening despite the community employment program and job-start and other programs which are designed to try to overcome that problem. If honourable members look not just at the mean-that is, the arithmetic average known as the mean-duration of unemployment but also at the median point, that is, if we got all of the unemployed in a long line and took the middle one, they would find that that figure has come down in the last couple of years from 18 weeks to 12 weeks. In other words, that is evidence of the fact that we have a large group of people who are very long term unemployed and who are continually pushing out the figure for the average duration of unemployment; it is not a representation of the fact that most people unemployed are out of work for 52 weeks. That situation needs to be addressed. The community employment program is, I think, a very good program to address the problem of long term unemployment. It is a real pity that the Opposition seeks to make cheap political points in referring to 0.15 per cent of the programs, as it did in the recent debate on the community employment program, to suggest that there is something wrong with the whole program. Opposition members named about 30-odd programs out of over 17,000 projects approved. They said that this was evidence of waste and scandal and tried to rubbish a program which has been of enormous benefit to the community and to the long term unemployed. While this Government remains in office unemployment will be our No. 1 priority, and the unemployed will do far better under this Government than ever they did under the Fraser Government or will do under any succceeding Liberal government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time for the debate has concluded. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(4.13) —Today I wish to draw the attention of this House to Australia's foreign debt crisis and how that debt situation affects the people of Corangamite. It has been said that `debt is the slavery of the free'. If that is so Australia and Australians are now being shackled. Recent estimates reveal that our nation's gross foreign debt has risen to around $78 billion. I realise that it may be difficult to grasp the significance of such an amount; and it is only when the total sum is translated into a proportionate figure for the average family that it comes clearly into focus. On that basis the figure becomes almost $20,000 for each family. If we project the figures on the basis of the population of municipalities in the electorate of Corangamite we can see that my constituents can expect to bear the following shares of our foreign debt by 30 June 1986: Bannockburn, $16.7m; Barrabool, $29.9m; Bellarine, $173m; Colac City, $49.7m; Colac Shire $32.3m; Leigh Shire, $7.5m; Otway Shire, $18.4m; South Barwon $196m; Queenscliff, $16.5m; and Winchelsea Shire, $18.4m. So the men, women and children in those 10 municipalities are bearing a collective burden of $558m. Australia is now in a very embarrassing financial position. We have been ranked seventh on the list of countries with the world's highest foreign debts. Our position is worse than that of countries as diverse as South Africa, Indonesia and Algeria. Indeed, Australia's foreign debt is fast approaching that of the Soviet Union. The escalation of this foreign debt is cause for real concern. In 1982 the total foreign debt figure was $24.1 billion but by June 1985 it had risen to $68.8 billion. Of this $68.8 billion amount, government and semi-government authorities made up 41.3 per cent of the total, while the private sector was responsible for 58.7 per cent. As Terry McCrann pointed out in the Age of 6 March: In the three years to last June-the period when our foreign debt has really taken off-public sector borrowing considerably outpaced private sector borrowing. He went on to say that the foreign debt of semi-government authorities, such as electricity commissions, leapt a staggering 361 per cent; in contrast private sector debt was up 168 per cent. Thus the proportion of the total foreign debt attributed to the public sector rose significantly-from 37.5 per cent at June 1982 to 41.3 per cent last June. Our debt has more than doubled in three years. About 60 per cent of the amount involved is owed in United States dollars. This means that when the value of the Australian dollar falls the nation's foreign debt bill rises. Last year the Australian dollar fell by 18 per cent against the United States dollar, and on a trade weighted index basis it fell by a massive 25 per cent. We have another major problem-the interest bill on our foreign debt has increased even more rapidly than the debt itself. There is also the question of debt repayments. Interest and loan repayments have to be made from export earnings. Here again, Australia is in trouble. Export earnings are being generated at a much slower rate than the growth of borrowing and interest repayments. The message is therefore clear: In the 1980s Australia is spending more than it earns. Of itself, the overall level of our debt is not important. It is our capacity to repay that debt which really matters. One commentator has suggested that Australia's economy is like an old car. It has many rusty parts, a very large foreign debt which has to be serviced, a serious balance of payments problem, a dollar which has been devalued dramatically, extraordinarily high interest rates, which are among the highest in the Western world, an inflexible wage structure and low growth in Australian exports. As we all know, one can drive a car that is in a bad condition for only so long. Then things become loose and start to fall off. Our poorly maintained car needs to be traded in on a new model suitable for Australian conditions. That means reining in government expenditure in order to reduce the government overdraft. Governments' hunger for money has driven up interest rates, thereby forcing private companies to borrow their money overseas. This in turn has exacerbated the foreign debt crisis. On top of this, the Federal Labor Government has introduced taxation disincentives, further reducing industry's capacity to invest and produce. A new model- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(4.18) —Nineteen eighty-six is the Year of Peace. I was pleased to see on the front of the National Newsletter of the Returned Services League its acknowledgment of that fact. I should like to read part of its statement: Disarmament is a natural progression in the consideration of peace and the means of achieving it. Here again disarmament, to be realistic, can only be negotiated from a position of strength. Disarmament between the superpowers which must be the forerunner for general disarmament, requires a balanced programme of arms reduction, whether nuclear or conventional, that is subjected to a thorough monitoring process to ensure that undertakings are honoured. The recent summit between the US President and Party Secretary Gorbachev, while producing little in the way of substantive progress towards disarmament, at least began the process of negotiation and discussion between the superpowers that is a pre-requisite to a realistic disarmament process. I agree with the majority of the statement. I believe that the statement made by the RSL in relation to the summit meeting was most important. This meeting could possibly be the first small step towards a reduction in the arms race. The Australian Parliamentary Disarmament Group, of which I am a member, recently affiliated with an organisation called Parliamentarians for Global Action. The organisation comprises parliamentarians from all continents and has called for negotiation on a world treaty for simultaneous, balanced, verifiable and enforceable disarmament which must include disarmament by all nations to a level of arms required for internal security; an international inspection organisation able to monitor disarmament, using both satellites and on-site inspection; a world peace force able to enforce disarmament and prevent international aggression, the members of which should be individually recruited; an effective system of world courts and arbitration tribunals and a world development fund through which a fixed proportion of the resources made available through disarmament will be devoted to development in the poorest nations. I would also like to read to the House extracts from a telegram that was recently received from Parliamentarians for Global Action. The telex stated: Six world leaders ask Reagan and Gorbachev to refrain from nuclear testing until next summit/also offer to monitor the testing suspension on superpowers' territories. A message from six world leaders has been delivered to President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev requesting that the two sides refrain from nuclear testing until the next superpower summit. In the letter, which was delivered last Friday, leaders of Argentina, Greece, India, Mexico, Sweden and Tanzania also offered to verify such a testing suspension by undertaking on-site inspection and `monitoring activities' on the superpower territories. The message represented one of the last political acts of the late Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, who signed the letter the day of his assassination, February 28. Prime Minister Palme had joined together with President Raul Alfonsin of Argentina, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India, President Miguel de la Madrid of Mexico, Julius Nyerere, former President of Tanzania, and Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou of Greece, in an ongoing effort to play a third party role to help bring an end to the nuclear arms race. The six heads of government held a special summit meeting in New Delhi in January 1985. During the year, they met individually with the leaders of all five nuclear powers to discuss disarmament . . . The six leaders urged that extensive verification arrangements be made for a testing suspension and extended an offer to Reagan and Gorbachev to help verify such a suspension through monitoring stations placed on the territories of their own countries. Gorbachev, in a letter sent to Reagan on December 5, said he was willing to accept such third party verification by the six. The five continent leaders are now proposing to establish a monitoring system on the territories of the superpowers themselves. ``It seems likely that pressure from the five continent group played a role in persuading the Soviets to move towards a more constructive position on verification of a testing moratorium . . . There are now six nations in this group. I would like to see Australia become No. 7. My maiden speech, three years ago, urged Australia to act as a middle power, to be involved in the peace process. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.23) —Like many members of this House, I am concerned about issues of justice and equity. I am concerned that all Australians should have a fair go from the Administration and from the law. I raise an issue this afternoon concerning a constituent of mine who has not had such a fair go. He is a gentleman called Mr David Price, an agricultural consultant from the very fine town of Murray Bridge. I believe that he has been treated in rather a harsh and unjust way by the Aboriginal Development Commission. By coincidence, I am glad to see that the relevant Minister, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), is in the chamber this afternoon. Mr Price prepared a report for the Aboriginal Development Commission in his capacity as an agricultural consultant on a property owned by the Ralkon agricultural company, which is near the town of Port McLeay in South Australia. He produced reports between 1981 and 1982. One should bear in mind that the reports were prepared by Mr Price as a bona fide agricultural consultant on behalf of the Aboriginal Development Commission. In the reports Mr Price made a number of observations. I admit that they were not observations that were terribly flattering about the management of that property. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the property is managed by Mr Hillock, who is not an Aboriginal person. These observations were without doubt critical and Mr Price did recommend a number of improvements. The Aboriginal Development Commission, quite rightly, supported the recommendations of Mr Price. It took on board the criticisms that were made and has done what it can since then to make the appropriate adjustments to the way in which the property is managed. Subsequent to these reports, Mr Hillock, the manager of the property, decided that he would take legal action against both the Aboriginal Development Commission and Mr Price, suing both of them for defamation. Of course, under the Standing Orders I cannot go into the details of that case, which is still before the courts. The simple fact was, however, that although both the ADC and Mr Price were being sued for defamation, the report prepared by Mr Price was a professional report. It was a bona fide piece of work. Inevitably, there were legal costs associated with this case, and very substantial legal costs, as the case has dragged on for some time. In the case of Mr Price, those legal costs are now $8,000 and no doubt the costs for the ADC are even higher. Mr Price has not been able to meet those costs. I would have thought it was inappropriate that, because of financial constraints, he had to withdraw from the case and settle out of court, thereby admitting his guilt, even though, of course, in his heart and in the opinion of the ADC he was not guilty of defamation. But I do not want to cover that. It would seem to me, to Mr Price and to all fair Australians that, bearing in mind that Mr Price was preparing this report for the ADC, the ADC should have contributed to Mr Price's costs of defence as well as the ADC's costs of defence. Mr Price, however, learned that the ADC would not do this. Subsequently he contacted me. Initially I was told by the ADC that it was not able to do this under the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980. But when I looked at the Act I saw that section 26 (a) states: Moneys of the General Fund may be applied- (a) in payment or discharge of the costs, expenses or other obligations incurred by the Commission in the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers; In other words it seemed clear that the ADC could meet that bill. But the ADC, in response to that point, stated that `it was unable to expend money on non-Aboriginals'. In other words, if Mr Price had been an Aboriginal the ADC would have paid for his defence. The fact that he was not an Aboriginal meant that it would not pay for his defence. It strikes me that that is quite inconsistent with the spirit of that legislation, it is quite inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights which the Government is trying to force through the Parliament, and it is quite inconsistent with the traditions of a fair go and equity for all Australians, regardless of their racial background or whatever other background they may have. I very much hope that the Minister will take note of this case and will instruct the ADC to reconsider its decision and not make decisions just on the basis of race, because Mr Price was acting for Aboriginal people. He was helping Aboriginal people to ensure that their property was run more efficiently and more effectively. He should be supported. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.28) —I take this opportunity this afternoon to draw to the attention of the House and, indeed, to the Government the plight of so many Australian home owners and home buyers who are languishing under the highest interest rates for 50 years. The first paragraph of an article in the Brisbane Sunday Sun recently stated: A group of housewives on a new estate on Brisbane's northside have declared war on finance company and building society home loan hikes. The people involved-Mrs Cheryl Gibson, Mrs Monika Kenneally and Mrs Gloria Ogden, who reside in my electorate-organised a rally in the Apex Park at Caboolture last Saturday. Many people came along to express their concern at the high interest rates and the way in which many people were no longer able to make payments. When we were born Australia was the lucky country. But it is a fact of life-and I quote from the Australian: The housing industry-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 14 March 1986: Census and Statistics Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 30. Defence Act-Determination-1986-No. 11-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. Lands Acquisition Act-Land acquired for telecommunications services-Parish of Bellarine, Vic. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 946) Mr Robert Brown asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) When did the Government receive the report of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. (2) When did the Government make the decision referred to in his press release on 17 April 1985 to establish a working group of officials to examine a number of recommendations of the Royal Commission concerning financial matters. (3) What are the terms of reference of the working group. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Final Report of the Royal Commission was received by the Government on 26 October 1984. (2) The decision to establish the working group referred to was taken on 1 April 1985. (3) The terms of reference of the working group were as outlined in my press statement of 17 April 1985, namely, to examine the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission in relation to such matters as the requirements that should apply to the opening of accounts with financial institutions, the retention period for records of financial institutions, and the remittance of funds overseas. The Government is currently considering the recommendations of the working group in association with a number of other related matters. (Question No. 2820) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) 51% (b) 46% (c) 2% (d) 1% (e) - The details provided were ascertained from figures submitted for the period commencing 1 July 1985. (Question No. 2866) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many children in the electoral division of Hughes are aged (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3 and (d) 4. (2) How many places are there in the electoral division of Hughes for (a) long day care, (b) family day care, (c) occasional care, (d) evening and weekend care and (e) pre-school kindergarten for each group. (3) For how many children is each child care centre within the electoral division of Hughes licensed to provide. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) According to the 1981 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing the total number of children aged 4 years and under in the electoral division of Hughes was 7983. Population projections by age are not available on an electorate basis. Therefore unfortunately current statistics cannot be provided. The numbers of children aged 4 and under as at 1981 have not been broken down into single age groups as this could be misleading in terms of the current situation. * (Source: 1981 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing. ABS advised that no population projections for 1985 are available for areas other than States.) (2) The number of places funded by the Commonwealth under the Children's Services Program in the Electoral Division of Hughes are: (a) long day care centres-159 places; (b) family day care-119 places; (c) occasional care-Nil places. This does not include non-Commonwealth funded child care places such as those funded by other bodies or those in the private sector. There are no mono-functional occasional care services in the electoral division of Hughes funded by the Children's Services Program, however, in New South Wales the majority of occasional care centres are funded by the State Department of Youth and Community Services. (d) There are no specific evening and weekend care services but family day care can be used for these periods. (However, in addition to the above there is a total of 90 places in outside school hours care services in the Hughes electorate). (e) Commonwealth funding for Pre-School Centres ceased on December 31, 1984. Up to that date the Commonwealth provided a block grant to State Governments and did not keep statistics on pre-school places. (3) There are 159 places in 4 child care centres in the Electoral Division of Hughes which are listed below: Child care centre Total capacity Engadine Multi Purpose Child Care Centre... 20 Moore Street Child Care Centre... 59 Bradman Rd Child Care Centre... 40 North Carringbah Child Centre... 40 159 (Question No. 3096) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the (a) Community Refugee Settlement, (b) Grant-in-Aid, (c) Migrant project Subsidy and (d) Migrant Resource Centre schemes in (i) 1982-83, (ii) 1983-84, (iii) 1984-85 and (iv) 1985-86. (2) What (a) amount and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in New South Wales. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for each scheme. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under each scheme. (5) What specific projects were funded under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under each scheme in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under these schemes in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the schemes in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Wills, (b) Reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under each scheme in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the Electoral Division of Richmond to the existence of these schemes. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under these schemes is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the Electoral Division of Richmond; if not, why not? (13) If so (a) how and (b) when, will the information be provided. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Funds allocated to Programs by year: 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ $ Community Refugee Settlement Scheme (CRSS)... 205,000 217,000 248,500 260,000 Grant-in-Aid Scheme (GIA)... 3,326,000 4,878,000 5,678,000 6,236,000 Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme (MPSS)... 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Migrant Resource Centres (MRC)... 1,321,000 1,520,000 1,895,000 2,049,000 (2) (a) Funds specifically allocated for projects undertaken in New South Wales by year and (b) proportion of national allocation. 1982-83 (a) (b) 1983-84 (a) (b) 1984-85 (a) (b) 1985-86 (est) (a) (b) $ % $ % $ % $ % CRSS... 59,600 29 71,300 33 75,000 30 75,000 29 GIA... 1,039,422 32 1,591,460 33 2,021,176 36 2,263,360 36 MPSS... 69,200 35 62,400 31 74,440 37 62,500 31 MRC... 377,125 29 429,832 28 560,507 30 644,600 31 (3) The Commonwealth has a funding agreement with MRCs as independent incorporated bodies with elected management committees. These committees administer funds at respective centres. CRSS, GIA and MPSS grants are administered by DIEA Regional Offices in each State or Territory in accordance with individual program guidelines (see Question 4 below). (4) The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs makes decisions each year on the award of GIA and MPSS grants on the basis of criteria set out in program guidelines. Allocation decisions concerning MRCs are made by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs following the assessment of budgets submitted by MRCs. Decisions are made on the basis of the level of previous expenditure, demography, localised variations to the program and the size of individual Centre's uncommitted reserves. All CRSS support groups assisting in the settlement of their second or subsequent refugee individual or group are eligible to receive a grant which is related to the number of persons settled. Funds are allocated by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs accordingly. (5 to 9) Given this Government's commitment to containing public expenditure and sensible use of resources, I am not prepared to authorise the substantial expenditure which would be required to provide answers to these particular questions. (10) Ministerial press releases announcing one round of MPSS awards are also used to publicise the Scheme and invite applications for the next round of awards. Advertisements for GIA applications are placed in national and metropolitan press; selected suburban and rural papers; ethnic press; and ethnic radio in March each year. Applications for funding under the MRC program are not received as such. Migrant Resource Centres are located in areas of high migrant populations with the highest priority needs. These locations were originally determined by the Galbally Report and subsequently by community consultation and review processes. CRSS support groups are provided with grant application forms at the time of welcoming their second or subsequent refugee individual or group. All support groups are counselled on eligibility for grant payments in the course of their training. (11) Not applicable for CRSS and MRC programs. No specific advertising was undertaken in respect of the Electoral Division of Richmond nor in any other electoral division for either of the Grant-in-Aid Scheme or the Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme. (12) Not applicable for CRSS and MRC programs. The present system of advertising and dissemination of information concerning GIA and MPSS is seen as appropriate and cost-effective. No specific information campaign is envisaged for the Electoral Division of Richmond. (13) Not applicable. (Question No. 3131) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 2291 concerning a letter to him from Mr. E. J. Azzopardi, dated 9 September 1983, were the only allegations raised in the letter related to the affairs of the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club; if not, what other matters were raised. (2) What action was taken to investigate the other allegations. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The allegations made in Mr Azzopardi's letter of 9 September 1983 related to matters arising from the affairs of the Parramatta Police Citizens Boys' Club. (Question No. 3174) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: What has or will happen to the staff employed to collect departure tax at Australia's international air terminals. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: While the new arrangements involve a saving to the Government in staff resources, staff currently employed to collect departure tax at international airports will be redeployed to vacancies within my Department. The Department will deal with each staff member on an individual basis in finding them appropriate positions which are consistent with their skills, background and experience. Relevant staff associations will be consulted in this process. (Question No. 1598) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) What was the precise role of the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) in each departmental campaign that it has (a) advised on, (b) authorised, (c) certified or (d) monitored since its inception. (2) What was the (a) date and (b) cost of each campaign. (3) Were advertising agencies employed for any campaigns; if so, for each campaign (a) what agency did ICB recommend, (b) what advertising agencies were ultimately used and (c) what amount were the advertising agencies paid. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) ICB's precise role in departmental information campaigns varies according to the requirements of the campaign or the assistance sought. Services normally offered to departments include assistance with development of campaign strategy, planning, briefing and selection of research, advertising or other communication specialists, implementation and where possible evaluation of results. ICB has co-ordinated campaigns for which departments provided funds while in others, funds were allocated to the Special Information Campaign vote for major information campaigns which concern economic or other policy issues or deal with matters involving the interests of more than one portfolio. (2) (a) (b) See the following table. (3) (a) From its creation in February 1982 to March 1984 ICB's involvement in other departments' campaigns was entirely consultative. In a number of cases, ICB, working closely with the Australian Government Advertising Service, assisted departments in the process of selecting an advertising agency, but did not make separate recommendations. From 1 March 1984, when the Australian Government Advertising Service was incorporated into ICB, the Branch assumed responsibility for providing professional advice to departments, including choice of agency. However, the process remains consultative and the Minister and department responsible for the campaign make the final choice. (b) and (c) See the following table. (1) Campaign Title Date/s (2) Cost of campaign Creative agency (3) Amount paid to agency $ $ Nature Conservation May-Aug. 1982 560,000 Creative Oasis 45,356 Health Insurance Tax Rebate June 1982 400,000 Murray Evans Advertising 10,460 Housing Assistance Grants Phase 1 & 2 March-Apr. 1982 June 82 422,420 Rodney Silver & Partners Pty Ltd 32,869 Industries Assistance Package Aug. 1982 175,000 Oglivy & Mather 7,789 National Quarantine 1981-82 546,000 Fountain Huie Fish 696 TEAS/Secondary Allowance Scheme Nov. 1982, Jan.-Feb. 1983 350,000 Stannard Patten Samuelson Advertising Agents Pty Ltd 6,795 Family Budget Nov.-Dec. 1982 2,278,486 Ogilvy & Mather 31,856 Health Care Cards March 1983 242,852 Grey & Murray Evans 878 Drought Relief Jan.-Feb. 1983 330,865 Fountain Huie Fish 10,230 Wage Pause Jan. 1983 173,000 Hyde Everet Fuller 48,126 Benefits for the Disabled Apr. 1983 318,388 Lintas 13,309 Economic Summit May 1983 330,000 Monahan Dayman Adams 69,980 Family Income Supplement July 1983 549,360 Lintas 11,023 Community Employment Program Aug.-Sept. 1983 641,524 Ogilvy & Mather Monahan Dayman Adams (Melb) 29,583 8,524 Superannuation `The Facts' July-Aug. 1983 242,985 Monahan Dayman Adams 4,624 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Sept.-Dec. 1983 8,173 Abel Barton 2,430 First Home Owners Scheme Oct. 1983 265,764 Jirgenson & Naughton 10,252 National Wage Case Nov.-Dec. 1983 154,000 Hyde Everett Fuller 19,620 Enrol to Vote Campaign Nov. 1983 2,613,907 Monahan Dayman Adams 52,273 Registration of Lobbyists Nov. 1983 15,691 Neville Jeffress Doctors v. Medicine Mar.-Apr. 1984 74,966 Forbes MacFie Hansen 6,674 Passports Apr. 1984-Jan. 1985 104,095 IHJ Advertising 9,120 Drink/Driving Campaign Apr. 1984 996,300 Foote, Cone Belding 71,438 Commonwealth Property Directorate (Sydney) May 1984 22,271 Tell Advertising 2,460 Fuel Consumption May-Aug. 1984 23,239 Harris, Robinson Courtneay 12,440 Form S Income Tax Return June-Aug. 1984 61,216 Leo Burnett Pty Ltd 3,994 Prices & Incomes Accord July-Aug. 1984 711,112 Hyde Everett Fuller 83,047 Sex Discrimination Act Aug. 1984 255,000 Monahan Dayman Adams 45,365 International Youth Year Sept. 1984 139,371 Campaign Palace Spectator marketing 31,289 64,471 Family Centres Sept.-Oct. 1984 38,436 IHJ Advertising 8,022 Participation in Education and Training Sept.-Oct. 1984 348,335 Connaghan & May Ayer 24,324 Children/Road Safety Oct. 1984- Aug. 1985 23,850 Ogilvy & Mather 9,000 Blood Donors Campaign Phase 1 and 2 November 1984 February 1985 469,303 Connaghan & May Ayer Monahan Dayman Adams 88,194 2,985 Sea Safety Jan. 1984, Jan. 1985 74,773 Meridian 27,535 1984 Electoral Boundaries Nov. 1984 133,222 Monahan Dayman Adams (Syd) 2,134 1984 Federal Election Nov.-Dec. 1984 3,140,480 Monahan Dayman Adams (Syd) 53,536 1984 Referendum Dec. 1984 22,832 Chandler Hambleton Mier 9,500 Plant Quarantine Dec. 1984- Jan. 1985 26,852 Fountain Hui Fish 13,324 Multicultural TV VHF Dec. 1984- Feb. 1985 32,129 IHJ Advertising 2,328 Drug Abuse Jan. 1985 127,862 USP Needham (Syd) n.a. Tax Regional Office (Newcastle) Apr. 1985 76,619 Grey Murray Evans 3,024 Population Census May 1985 93,701 Buchanan Bullpit & Grey 48,808 Guide to Taxation Reform-Booklet June 1985 95,195 John Clemenger (Vic.) 2,354 Tax Form Campaign June 1985 194,303 Grey Murray Evans 3,024 Commonwealth Employment and Job Creation Schemes Continuous 829,513 Burrows Doble Lawrence* IHJ Advertising Schofield Sherbon Baker 27,013 29,310 120,241 Defence Continuous 8,983,668 Rodney Silver & Partners Pty Ltd 74,350 Connaghan & May Ayer (Syd) 39,949 Creative Oasis 153,135 51,258 Connaghan & May Ayer (Melb) 39,857 Leo Burnett (Melb) 33,163 Eddelbuttel Osborne 5,229 John Clemenger 81,619 Schofield Sherbon Baker 45,805 Treasury Bonds Continuous 4,220,351 Rodney Silver & Partners Pty Ltd 265,274 * Some work was undertaken by other agencies for the state campaigns of Queensland, West Australia and South Australia and arranged on a regional basis. Figures for these are not available. (1) This listing of campaigns includes not only major campaigns, but from 1 March 1984, when ICB incorporated AGAS, all campaigns conducted through the central system. (2) In all but a few cases funding for campaigns is through the responsible department. The figures here represent what a department spent on a campaign, including support material as well as advertising, through the central advertising system and may not be the total expenditure by a department on a campaign. (3) Figures in this column represent amounts paid to creative agencies for their services in producing the advertising component of the campaign. These payments are based upon the agreed Government formula of three times the hourly rate of each staff member of the creative agencies who work on the campaign. Where a campaign had associated non-advertising support material, the cost of producing those items and the agency fees are included under the total cost of the campaign to the department (column 2). The agency fees cannot readily be separately identified. Note: Amounts paid to the master placing/charging agencies for the administrative and associated work in mounting campaigns is not included in these tables. It is not possible to itemise these amounts by campaign. (Question No. 1599) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: What is the explanation for the apparent anomalies in the costs of special information programs conducted by the Information Co-ordination Branch, which are evident in his answers to questions Nos 68 (Hansard, 16 April 1985, page 1229), 762 and 1326. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are a number of reasons for the apparent differences in the costs of information campaigns provided in the answers to questions 68, 762 and 1326. The understatement in some of the answers to questions 68 and 762 were due to an oversight. They were based on an answer to a previous parliamentary question which did not seek amounts for radio and cinema advertising. Another problem encountered when preparing figures for these answers was that figures had to be obtained from the files of the Australian Government Advertising Advisory Council, which previously controlled the payment to agencies and which was abolished on 31 December 1984 following the introduction of the revised central advertising system. An examination of the filing system revealed that some files were incomplete. To overcome this, advertising agencies had to be approached direct to supply the missing information or verify the amounts they had actually been paid. Another reason for a number of the differences was that the figures given were estimates of how much a campaign would cost-the only figures available at the time. As the full accounting process was completed, the actual cost of the campaign changed from the estimated cost to the final cost. Finally, question 1326 asked for the cost of advertising and the amount paid to advertising agencies. Such figures, in some cases, cannot be compared with the total cost of a campaign. Advertising is frequently not the sole component of an information campaign. Research, development and printing of support materials such as brochures and posters etc. could also be required. Where the specific cost of the advertising was required this was given; in other cases, the `campaign' cost was required, that is, including all component costs paid through the central system. It should be noted that in all but a few cases funding for campaigns is through the responsible department. The `campaign' cost through the central advertising system may not be the total expenditure by a department on a campaign. The answer to question 1598 provides the correct figures for campaigns conducted from the inception of ICB to 23 August 1985. These should be referred to in future instead of those in questions 68, 762 and 1326. (Question No. 2052) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, 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 Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Two amounts have been paid to the company Monahan Dayman Adams (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd in 1984-85. These were as follows: (i) $83,495.04-this covered the research and production for radio and press advertising for a special information campaign on participation in education. (ii) $1,687,731.12-this covered the preparation of advertising material for the 1984 Federal election and referendums, and placement costs for television and radio advertisements. (2) (a) to (e) nil. (Question No. 2110) Mr Milton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) Was the United Kingdom company, Aquaglen Ltd, a major beneficial owner of the Swagman and Overlander restaurants in Melbourne and of the building firm registered in Victoria as Basilthon Constructions between 1977 and 1979. (2) Was Aquaglen Ltd (UK) acting as trustee for Australian residents in respect of its major beneficial ownership of units in the Basilthon Unit Trust between 1977 and 1979; if so, did those Australian residents incur any liability as contributors to the liquidation of Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd. (3) Were any Victorian statutory funds among the ultimate beneficiaries of Aquaglen's ownership of units in the Basilthon Unit Trust. (4) Is the Foreign Investment Review Board investigating the non-registration of Aquaglen Ltd pursuant to the Foreign Takeovers Act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Advice received from the Victorian Corporate Affairs Office indicates that the owner of the Swagman Restaurant and the registered proprietor of the Basilthon Constructions Pty Ltd, as at 30 June 1978, was Basilthon Nominees Pty Ltd, acting as trustee for the Basilthon Unit Trust. As at 30 June 1978, 568,976 of the 629,376 units of that trust were held by Aquaglen Limited, a company incorporated in the UK. No further details concerning the beneficial ownership of the Swagman Restaurant, the Overlander Restaurant or of Basilthon Constructions Pty Ltd are available. (4) The Foreign Takeovers Act does not require the registration of foreign incorporated companies. It does, however, require that certain types of transactions by foreign interests involving the acquisition of the shares or assets of an Australian business be submitted to the Government for examination. As a result of investigations that have been made, and on the basis of the available information, I am able to advise the honourable member that there is no evidence to suggest a breach of the Foreign Takeovers Act or of the Government's foreign investment policy by the company in question. (Question No. 2570) Mr Burr asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: Is it a fact that under the Government's agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on 4 September 1985, the National Productivity Case 1986 will recommend to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the 3 per cent increase in productivity be paid by was of occupational superannuation benefits; if so, (a) what are the prospects for existing private company schemes, (b) what is the prospect of expansion for private superannuation schemes after July 1986 and (c) will employees, currently superannuated in private schemes that the jointly funded by employer and employee, be compelled to relinquish such schemes for union controlled superannuation schemes. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The agreement between the Government and the ACTU proposes that any increase in remuneration awarded as a result of the productivity case should be paid in the form of new or improved occupational superannuation benefits. (a), (b) and (c). The agreement proposes that superannuation should be extended and improved on an industry by industry, occupation by occupation or, in certain circumstances, company by company basis. Details of the implementation of new schemes or the improvement of existing schemes would be negotiated between unions and employers. Any changes made to existing schemes in this context would therefore be for these parties to negotiate. The ACTU has undertaken that, where it is agreed that industry schemes be established for the receipt of the 3 per cent, existing company schemes will be unaffected. This means that, in those cases, unions would not also seek improvements in vesting or other aspects of existing company schemes that would involve costs to employers. The Government believes that the choice between an industry fund or a company fund for receiving the productivity decision should reflect the views of the employees affected. (Question No. 2572) Mr Burr asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: (1) How will the Government ensure that the cost of the occupational superannuation scheme agreed to by the ACTU and the Government will be restricted to 3%. (2) Will the proposed 3% national occupational superannuation payment apply to (a) employers who introduced or upgraded funds during the previous year, (b) employers who have been required to upgrade or introduce superannuation funds by recent industrial action and (c) employers with their own established funds who are also required to contribute to union schemes on behalf of some employees. (3) Can the Government guarantee that the suggested 3% increase will cover the cost of all changes to funds and not just the employer contribution rates. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under the agreement between the Government and the ACTU, announced on 4 September 1985, the Government and the ACTU will propose to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the productivity claim brought by the ACTU and currently before the Commission result in an increase equivalent to three per cent of wages to be paid in the form of new or improved superannuation. The agreement envisages that the productivity decision will be the only general addition to employers' wages cost over its two year period apart from indexation increases. The agreement has since been endorsed by the ACTU Congress. This endorsement constitutes a re-commitment to the National Wage Principles, including no-extra claims commitments. As indicated in my joint statement with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations of 4 September 1985, the Government's support for the measures set out in the agreement is based on continuance of the no-extra claims commitments. The productivity increase would be payable either by way of a 3 per cent wage equivalent employer's contribution or by way of improved vesting or other benefits to existing schemes, provided the overall costs do not exceed a 3 per cent wage equivalent. The ACTU has undertaken that, where it is agreed that industry schemes be established for the receipt of the 3 per cent, unions will not seek improvements in vesting or other aspects of existing company schemes that would involve costs to employers. The Government has also decided that no general vesting standard would apply to employers' contributions to superannuation schemes provided only that any contributions resulting from the productivity increase should be fully vested. Vesting is a matter for negotiations between employers and unions, subject to any addition to employers' costs related to superannuation changes being limited to a 3 per cent wage equivalent during the period of the proposed productivity award. Administrative costs for fund management and the costs of any insured benefits provided by funds would be included within the productivity increase. (2) (a), (b) and (c). The Agreement provides that the Government and the ACTU will propose that an increase of 3 per cent, to be paid in the form of new or improved occupational superannuation, would apply to all employees, including those currently covered by superannuation schemes. The agreement provides that the cost impact of new or improved superannuation arrangements, except in very isolated circumstances, will not occur before 1 July 1986. (3) The 3 per cent increase is intended to cover the total cost of extensions and improvements to superannuation under the agreement. (Question No. 2573) Mr Burr asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: (1) Does the Government support the ACTU decision to bring in occupational superannuation benefits through the 1986 National Productivity Case. (2) What is the Government's attitude towards growing industrial pressure, by unions affiliated with the ACTU, to force the introduction of occupational superannuation schemes prior to July 1986. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Agreement between the Government and the ACTU announced on 4 September 1985 and its endorsement by the ACTU Congress constitutes a re-commitment to the National Wage Principles. The agreement also provides a framework within which improvements in occupational superannuation can be negotiated. The Government does not support resort to industrial action in relation to such negotiations. (Question No. 2725) Mr Hunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: How many staff were employed within the Minister's Department at: (a) 30 June 1983 (b) 30 June 1984 (c) 30 June 1985 (d) 31 October 1985 Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) The Department... 220 237 246 250 Other Organisations serviced by and associated with the Department: Remuneration Tribunal... 8 12 9 7 Commonwealth Grants Commission... 39 42 39 35 National Police Research Unit... 5 10 11 11 Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence... 9 17 16 18 Australian Police College... 15 15 17 20 Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking... 3 3 3 3 Royal Commissions and Inquiries... 114 192 55 31 Total... 413 528 396 375 The above figures have been adjusted for functions transferred to or from the Department. (Question No. 2844) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on: (a) TAA and Air Queensland (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries (c) East-West Airlines (d) Commuter aircraft and (e) Charter aircraft Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In respect of the 1984-85 financial year, the percentage of fares paid (a) to TAA and Air Queensland is 50%; (b) to Ansett and its airline subsidiaries is 49%; (c) to East-West Airlines is less than 1%; (d) for travel by commuter aircraft is less than 1%; (e) for travel by charter aircraft is less than 1%. The information provided does not include possible credits issues by the respective airlines or the effect of agency payments made by or on behalf of other departments. Air fares for other than departmental officers are not included. (Question No. 3122) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the 8 page advertisement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the National Times dated 29 November to 5 December 1985. (2) What would be the cost of an equivalent advertisement in the National Times, if placed by the Australian Government. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) $14,835 at current rates. (Question No. 3145) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to threats reported in the Wall Street Journal of 21 October 1985 by United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Director General, Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, to dismiss the remaining U.S. Civil Servants currently employed by UNESCO. (2) Does the Government support such proposals. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No such proposals have been made. In his statement to the UNESCO general conference in Sofia, the leader of the Australian delegation spoke on the position of American and British employees. The address is reported in Australian Foreign Affairs Record of October 1985. (Question No. 3146) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Have any United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation member nations presented proposals for the administrative and structural reform of the organisation; if so, (a) which nations and (b) what is the nature of the proposals. (2) Has the Australian Ambassador to UNESCO endorsed any reform proposals; if so, which ones and if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Only one member state, the Philippines, communicated a proposed amendment to the constitution of UNESCO in advance of the 23rd session (1985) of the General Conference but at the Conference this proposal was withdrawn. Most proposals for administrative and structural reform during 1984 and 1985 issued from the Executive Board and the Commissions of the Conference in the course and as a result of discussions between delegates in those bodies rather than from formal proposals made by individual delegations. In the Administrative Commission of the Conference Australia proposed a study of positive incentives to member states to pay their contributions promptly. The Commission and the Conference in plenary requested the Director-General to make such a study for the 24th session of the General Conference (1987). (2) See my answer to the honourable member's question no. 2388 (Weekly Hansard No. 18 of 25-29 November 1985). (Question No. 3147) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Are difficult questions at international conferences where Australia is formally represented by a diplomat normally referred to the Foreign Minister prior to a vote by Australian representatives. (2) Were the resolutions censuring Israel at the 23rd session of the General Conference of United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in Sofia considered to be difficult questions. (3) Were these resolutions referred to him prior to a vote being past by the Australian Ambassador; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Difficult questions at international, inter-governmental conferences where Australia is formally represented are normally referred to me for decision on how Australia should vote. Where, however, the resolution to be voted on is compatible with Government policy and when there is insufficient time or opportunity for consultations before the vote, the decision may be made by the head of the delegation. (2) and (3) The resolutions at the 23rd session of the General Conference of UNESCO referred to in the honourable member's question raised some difficult questions. Following negotiations by delegations to amend the original drafts, in which the Australian delegation played a part, the resolutions introduced in the Commissions broadly met Australian concerns and were not referred to me. Israel called for votes on two of the resolutions in the Commissions but not in the plenary session, where the resolutions were adopted by consensus. These were the only resolutions on which votes were called during the whole Conference. See also my answer to question no. 2433 (Weekly Hansard No. 18 of 25-29 November 1985. (Question No. 3149) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to statements made by Prime Minister Sir Tom Davis of the Cook Islands that because of the virtual collapse of the ANZUS Treaty, New Zealand was now unable to provide defence for his country and that New Zealand's ANZUS Treaty dispute with the United States of America made it obvious that the Cook Islands were defenceless. (2) Did he make any response to the declaration of neutrality by the Cook Islands. (3) Under what circumstances would the Government be prepared to provide military assistance to the Cook Islands. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of reports of remarks made by Cook Islands Prime Minister, Sir Tom Davis, and other Cook Islands Ministers on this subject. (2) The Cook Islands Government has not issued a declaration of neutrality. (3) The situation to which this question relates is entirely hypothetical. (Question No. 3167) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Have three French cruise services to Australia been cancelled following bans by the Firemen and Deckhands' Union of New South Wales which delayed departure from Sydney of the French liner Mermoz. (2) Is it a fact that a minimum of $10m in tourism trade would have been generated by the cruises. (3) What action is he taking to rectify the situation. (4) What impact will this have upon expected tourism for (a) the America's Cup in 1987 and (b) the Bicentenary Celebrations in 1988. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I understand that the French cruise line concerned indicated at the time of the dispute that it did not intend to proceed with further proposals for cruises to Australia. (2) It is unlikely that a sum of $10m in tourism trade would have been involved. On the basis of three cruises, and taking into account typical visitor spending patterns and levels, a more realistic estimate would be in the vicinity of $1m. This does not include any expenditure by the company on victualling whilst in Australian ports. However, to the extent that items such as accommodation, sustenance and entertainment are provided on-board, the net economic gains to Australia from visitor spending on such foreign cruise operations could be substantially less. (3) None. (4) While any cancellation of inbound cruises would be regrettable, they would not be expected to have a significant impact on the levels of tourism activity that will be generated by the America's Cup in 1987 or the Bicentenary Celebrations in 1988. (Question No. 3178) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: How many veterans from (a) World War I, (b) World War II, (c) the Korean War and (d) the Vietnam War reside in the electoral division of Richmond. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am able to provide the honourable member with details only of those veterans who are in receipt of pensions paid by my Department or who are entitled to medical treatment at departmental expense. On that basis the following estimated numbers of Veterans were residing in the Electoral Division of Richmond as at 6 January 1986: (a) World War I, 50 (b) World War II, 2,760 (c) the Korean War, 50 (d) the Vietnam conflict, 90 These figures have been based on the proportion of postcodes within the Division as at the 1984 redistribution of Federal electorates and on source data supplied by the Electoral Commission. Veterans have been classified according to the last area of service. (Question No. 3185) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: Is he able to say whether there is any evidence of adverse effects resulting from underground nuclear explosions in the last 5 years; if so, what are the details? Mr Hayden —The Minister for Science has referred this question to me. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member will be aware that the Government attaches the highest priority to the conclusion of a formal and verifiable agreement that would ban all nuclear explosions in all environments for all time. The Government regards such an agreement as a vital step in the process of nuclear disarmament and of fundamental importance to the long-term integrity of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. In so far as the question refers to adverse environmental effects resulting from underground nuclear explosions in the last five years, this would result primarily from the release into the atmosphere of radioactive material from an underground explosion (usually called venting) although there is also the risk of environmental contamination through more indirect channels. If an underground nuclear explosion vents and causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the testing state it is also a violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 (Article I, 1 (b)). The Government does not have access to authoritative information on particular instances over the last five years in which underground nuclear explosions have had adverse environmental effects, either through venting or in other ways. The following information may, however, be of interest to the Honourable Member. The United States and the Soviet Union have each on a number of occasions charged the other with violating Article I, 1 (b), of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. For example, President Reagan's report to the Congress on compliance issues in February 1985 included the finding: `The United States Government judges that the Soviet Union's underground nuclear test practices have resulted in the venting of radioactive matter and caused radioactive matter to be present outside the Soviet Union's territorial limits in violation of its legal obligation to the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The Soviet Union has failed to take the precautions necessary to minimise the contamination of man's environment by radioactive substances despite United States requests for corrective action'. In February 1984 the United States Government's response to a comparable allegation by the Soviet Union was as follows: `Both the United States and the USSR have encountered some difficulty in totally containing all their underground nuclear tests. The United States, however, has had only a few problems in the past with the venting of radioactive debris from underground tests at the Nevada Test Site. As more experience was gained with the containment of underground tests, venting from United States tests became even more rare. Over the past decade there has been only one incident of local and minor venting. The Soviets had not raised their concerns about United States venting with the United States since 1976, until the latest reference to it'. With regard to French nuclear testing on Mururoa Atoll I would draw the honourable member's attention to the following conclusions drawn by the 1983 New Zealand/Australia/Papua New Guinea scientific mission to Mururoa Atoll. `The volcanic core in which the tests take place has been severely altered in zones surrounding the detonation chambers. The balance of available data suggests that the overall integrity of the volcanics has not been impaired. There is no geological evidence of short-term leakage to date. The hydrology of limestones and volcanics, is such as to suggest that leakage could occur from the detonation chambers in a time period of 500 to 1,000 years. Venting of gaseous and volatile fission products from the underground test site does occur at the time of detonation. There is evidence that the amount is greater than would be expected simply through the back-packing of the placement bore being ``less than perfect''.' (Question No. 3214) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) What were the (a) total values and (b) types of payments for pensions and allowances effected by (i) the direct credit system and (ii) cheques throughout Australia in January 1986. (2) Are financial institutions participating in the direct credit system required to comply with specific Government requirements; if so, what are the requirements. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) During the month of January repatriation pensions (a) and (b) and allowances were payable for three pension paydays i.e. 2, 16 and 30 January 1986, split into five major benefit categories: Benefit (i) Direct Credit (ii) Cheque $ $ Disability pensions and allowances including Adequate Means of Support incapacity allowances... 51,375,987 3,059,770 War widows, orphans and other Adequate Means of Support pensions and allowances... 39,530,576 2,661,469 Service pensions and allowances... 177,828,653 7,405,819 Other Commonwealth pensions and allowances (including seamen's war pensions, Act of Grace payments, compassionate allowance and New Guinea pension and allowance)... 54,608 8,359 Education allowance... 267,335 17,521 Totals... 269,057,159 13,152,938 (2) The financial institutions participating in the direct credit system are not required to comply with any specific Government requirements outside those set down in the Banking Act. However, the Department of Social Security is currently developing a code of conduct to cover arrangements between that Department and the financial institutions. My Department will consider adoption of that code. (Question No. 3271) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports of seaweed products on sale in Sydney supermarkets and on Japanese restaurant menus having levels of arsenic well in excess of legal limits. (2) Has he investigated the allegations; if so, what was the result of the investigations. (3) What steps are taken by the Commonwealth Government to ensure that foodstuffs imported into Australia are not contaminated. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, I am aware of the situation and also that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has the matter of arsenic in seaweed products under continuing review. (2) NHMRC investigations have found a wide range of arsenic levels in seaweed products. The levels vary considerably with seaweed species and geographical origin. Although claims have been made that the particular arsenic compounds present in seaweed do not represent a hazard to health, there is insufficient toxicological data available to the NHMRC to support any increase in the maximum permitted level of total arsenic present in seaweed above that level tolerated in foods in general. This level is specified in the Council's Model Food Standards Regulations which are recommended to States and Territories for incorporation into their food legislation. (3) Under the Australian Constitution, food legislation is a State/Territory responsibility and the Commonwealth does not have the legal basis on which to undertake comprehensive inspection and control of imported foods other than for quarantine purposes.