Wednesday, 16 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill that I am introducing today represents an important step in the process of bringing the futures industry within the ambit of the co-operative companies and securities scheme. 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 has introduced legislation to apply Commonwealth companies and securities legislation in the Territory. The parties to the formal agreement have agreed that the co-operative scheme should be extended to cover the regulation of the futures industry and franchising. The necessary amendments to the formal agreement have been approved by each participating government and the amending agreement is presently in the process of being signed by each of the parties. In accordance with that amending agreement, the proposed futures legislation has been agreed to unanimously by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. In the coming months, the other parties to the formal agreement will be introducing legislation that will apply the Commonwealth legislation throughout Australia. Background Futures trading basically involved entering into agreements on a futures exchange to deliver or make delivery of a commodity at an agreed price at some time in the future. Futures trading in Australia has developed from a specialised market of interest, mainly to wool producers, into a market in which producers, consumers and participants in the financial system seek to redistribute economic risks or secure a speculative profit. In the last decade, the major growth area in the futures industry has been in financial futures markets. Financial futures enable business risks, such as changing exchange rates, interest rates and share prices, to be protected. The need to have a uniform regulatory system governing the futures industry in Australia was recognised by the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and has been endorsed by the Sydney Futures Exchange. The Campbell Committee stated that `there should be a national approach to the regulation of futures exchanges' and that the same co-regulatory approach that is adopted in relation to stock exchanges should apply to futures exchanges. At present the only legislation in Australia that specifically deals with the futures industry is the New South Wales Futures Markets Act. Experience with the administration of this Act, the manner in which some non-members of the Sydney Futures Exchange have promoted and conducted their business and the failure of a number of futures brokers have clearly indicated the need for Australia-wide legislation in this area. Exposure drafts of the proposed legislation dealing with the futures industry were released for public comment on two occasions, in October 1984 and November 1985. This consultative process has been invaluable in shaping the legislation to the needs of the industry and the protection of the public who invest in the futures markets. Outline of Proposals The Futures Industry Bill will establish a framework applying prudential controls to participants in the futures industry. Briefly, the Bill will require futures brokers and advisers to be licensed; establish a system for the approval of futures exchanges and clearing houses; require futures exchanges and futures associations to establish a fidelity fund for the protection of clients; provide criminal sanctions for manipulative and fraudulent practices; and require futures brokers to maintain adequate records and separate client funds from their own funds. Much of the public debate about the Bill has concerned the definition of futures contracts and hence the reach of the legislation. I would draw honourable members' attention to paragraphs 29 to 34 of the explanatory memorandum. The definition aims at ensuring that it is sufficiently wide to include all contracts generally considered to be futures contracts, whether traded on or off market, so as to overcome any avoidance techniques, denying clients the benefits of the protections in the Bill. At the same time, the definition provides for the exclusion of legitimate commercial arrangements that clearly should not be subject to the legislation. Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum sets out the regime that will apply in relation to the futures industry and the securities industry. At this stage, it is not proposed that the futures industry legislation should cover deliverable commodity options that are not traded on a futures exchange. If it becomes apparent that these or related arrangements are being used to circumvent the purpose and spirit of the legislation, the Ministerial Council will consider extending the scope of the legislation. Financial and Regulatory Impact Statement These proposals will involve the Commonwealth in funding half the cost of several additional staff for the National Companies and Securities Commission. The Futures Industry Bill will impose costs on people involved in the futures industry. Licensing, record-keeping and segregation of client funds are examples of prudential requirements that will increase costs. This must be compared with the cost that many clients of failed futures brokers have had to bear in recent years. Although the cost to participants-that is, brokers, exchanges and clearing houses-is not possible to quantify, the Government believes that the legislation is justifiable. It will ensure confidence in the futures markets and will assist futures exchanges in this country to compete successfully in attracting international business. I commend this Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum which covers this and the two succeeding Bills. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Futures Industry (Fees) Bill is the second Bill in the legislative package dealing with the futures industry. I am introducing this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled and circulated. The Futures Industry (Fees) Bill provides for fees payable under the Futures Industry Bill. The fees payable under this Bill impose costs on participants in the industry that relate to administrative matters-for example, lodgement of documents-handled by State and Territory Corporate Affairs Commissions. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill is the third Bill in the legislative package dealing with the futures industry. I am introducing this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. A description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. The Bill contains several consequential amendments to companies and securities legislation. The only one that I would specifically draw to the attention of honourable members is that providing that a dealing in a futures contract will not be a dealing in securities for the purpose of the Securities Industry Act. This will ensure there is no unnecessary regulatory overlap between the futures and securities industry legislation. The financial and regulatory impact of the package of bills dealing with the futures industry is discussed in my second reading speech on the Futures Industry Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, this Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. None of the amendments made by the Bill has any significant financial impact. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more noteworthy changes included in this Bill. Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 The amendment will clarify the Commonwealth's ability to impose charges to recover costs incurred in providing maintenance and development grants for aerodromes owned by local authorities under the aerodrome local ownership program. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 The Act implements the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora agreed amongst the States as parties to the Antarctic Treaty. The Act enables permits to be granted, subject to certain conditions, for scientific activities to be carried out in areas designated as specially protected areas. As the Act now stands, a permit cannot be granted for the use of aircraft in specially protected areas. This restriction on the use of aircraft places an unnecessary restraint on the research which can be undertaken. It has also created considerable logistical difficulties and hazards for scientists engaged in field studies in specially protected areas, particularly where the area is an island. These problems could be obviated by limited and carefully controlled use of helicopters. The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Act is to enable this to occur. The landing or driving of aircraft in specially protected areas is consistent with the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. It is intended that permits granted for the use of aircraft will be subject to whatever conditions are necessary for the responsible management of the specially protected areas in accordance with the spirit of the Agreed Measures. Wherever possible the conditions applied would be based on existing specially protected area management plans. Archives Act 1983 The amendment ensures that one of the original intentions of the Archives Act is achieved. This intention, in line with a long established convention prior to the proclamation of the Act, is to provide privileged access to Commonwealth records not otherwise available for public access, including records not in the open access period. Regulations made pursuant to this amendment will prescribe the classes of persons to whom such access, called `special access', may be granted. They will also prescribe the classes of records which, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Prime Minister, may be made available. At present only the purposes for which Commonwealth records may be made available to a person under special access arrangements may be prescribed by regulation. Audit Act 1901 The purpose of these amendments is to facilitate the legislative reforms necessary to effect the initiatives of the Government with respect to the auditing of statutory marketing authorities (SMAs). Under these reforms, statutory marketing authorities are being provided with the option, through their enabling legislation, of appointing a private sector auditor to undertake the audit of their accounts. However, where a company auditor is appointed, the Auditor-General is to retain a discretionary power to conduct any of his usual functions under the Act having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of audits. Australian National Airlines Act 1945 Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983 Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956 The borrowing provisions of these Acts have been amended to allow borrowing or raising of money to be undertaken consistent with terms and conditions in the Treasurer's approval. This is designed to enable these bodies to undertake borrowings on terms and conditions which are no less favourable than those in the approval and thereby to respond more easily to changes in the financial market conditions. To further allow these bodies to respond to financial markets and to ease administrative burdens, the amendments also allow the Treasurer to delegate his power to approve and guarantee a borrowing or raising of money other than from the Commonwealth to an officer of the Department of the Treasury. Such delegation will be used only for routine borrowing approvals within approved borrowing programs. Matters involving questions of policy will continue to be dealt with by the Treasurer. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 Norfolk Island Act 1979 Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 Pipeline Authority Act 1973 Postal Services Act 1975 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 Telecommunications Act 1975 The borrowing provisions of all these Acts have been repealed and replaced with more modern provisions which are consistent with the previous borrowing powers of the authorities but which clarify the power of the authorities to borrow or raise money, with the Treasurer's approval, by the range of modern borrowing techniques available. In addition, the new provisions allow for a borrowing or raising of money to take place on terms and conditions that are no less favourable than and consistent with those of the approval. Except for the amendments to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, the provision will allow the Treasurer to delegate his power to approve and guarantee borrowing or raising of money to an officer of the Department of the Treasury. Such delegation will be used only for routine borrowing approvals within approved borrowing programs. Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 National Measurement Act 1960 These Acts both require that money shall not be expended otherwise than in accordance with estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister. The Acts also require particulars of proposed expenditure for each financial year commencing on the following first day of July to be furnished to the Minister and that further particulars be furnished at any time specified by the Minister. At present these requirements extend to moneys received under schemes such as the special youth employment training scheme and the Commonwealth employment scheme. The requirements, however, are not suited to such moneys because the receipt of funds under these programs at irregular times during the course of a financial year makes it necessary to seek ministerial approval a number of times each year. Also, because most grants and subsidies are approved at short notice, they cannot accurately be included in estimates. This means that each time a grant or subsidy is approved, estimates must be revised and resubmitted to the Minister for approval. The amendments will limit the requirements for ministerial approval of financial estimates to such moneys as are appropriated from time to time by Parliament for the purposes of the Acts. There is of course a need for the Minister to be informed of other moneys received by the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the National Standards Commission, and regulations will be drafted under the Acts to provide suitable reporting and approval requirements for those moneys. The Australian Institute of Marine Science Act is also being amended to increase the financial limit of contracts which may be entered into by the Institute without ministerial approval from $50,000, set in 1972, to $100,000. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 At present, no power exists for the Treasurer to delegate his powers dealing with applications for transmission of stock. The amendments will enable the Treasurer to delegate those functions, which are purely administrative, to officers of the Treasury or the Reserve Bank. The Act also does not enable the Registrar of Inscribed Stock to rely upon a power of attorney if the principal has become mentally incapable after executing the power of attorney. In some States and Territories, certain powers of attorney may remain in force notwithstanding the incapability of the principal. The amendment will enable the Registrar to rely on powers of attorney in those circumstances if they are effective in the relevant State or Territory. Crimes Act 1914 Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 One of the amendments to the Crimes Act will exclude offences committed against the laws of the Australian Capital Territory from the application of the provisions dealing with police powers to arrest without warrant. New, more comprehensive provisions are to be incorporated in the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900 in its application to the Australian Capital Territory along the lines of a recommendation by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its 1986 report on domestic violence. The amendment will be proclaimed only when the Territory provisions are brought into effect. The Crimes Act creates the offences, amongst others, of fraud on the Commonwealth and conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth. The level of penalty for such conspiracies is to be increased, following judicial criticism of the inadequate penalty level, to a level that reflects the seriousness of the offence. The penalty reflects the Government's concern that persons convicted of large scale conspiracies to defraud the Commonwealth may be appropriately dealt with by the courts. The amendment of the Crimes Act concerning fraud, and the amendment of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980, which deals with sales tax offences, provide an adequate level of penalty for the offences concerned. Family Law Act A section is to be inserted in the Act to enable Australia to withdraw the reservation attached to its accession to the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations. Australia acceded to this Convention on 24 September 1985, but with a reservation as to its application to the external territories. This reservation can be removed when the new section is in operation. The other provisions relate to the Institute of Family Studies and arise out of recommendations made by the Review of Research Bodies in the Attorney-General's portfolio which reported in December 1985. The name of the Institute is changed to the Australian Institute of Family Studies to recognise and promote its national and international reputation and to bring it into line with other national research bodies such as the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Other amendments arise out of the recommendation in the review report that the Attorney-General should be able to refer particular research issues to the Institute and to assign some priority to those referred issues. Amendments to financial provisions concerning the Institute bring them into line with those governing other national research bodies. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 The amendment will enable the Chief Judge to direct that a matter coming before the Federal Court of Australia in its original jurisdiction be adjudicated by a full court, if he or she considers the matter to be of sufficient importance to justify such a direction. Judges' Pensions Act 1968 On occasions, judges are requested by the Government to perform tasks which are not within the normal scope of judicial duties such as, for example, to serve as a royal commissioner. Also, there may be occasions where a judge may not be available to perform judicial duties because of an extended period of absence due to illness or for recreational purposes. The purpose of the Act in providing for pensions for judges and for other office holders who have been brought within its scope would be frustrated if a judge were to put his pension entitlement at risk by accepting tasks not within the ordinary range of his or her duties. This would certainly be so where, at the request of or by appointment by the Government, the judge served on a royal commission or some other inquiry. Nor would the purpose of the Act be served by making the minimum judicial service for qualifying for a pension dependent upon factors not under the control of the person, for example, if absence through prolonged illness did not count towards that service. The amendment provides therefore that any period of authorised leave of absence by a judge or former judge counts as part of the period of service as a judge for the purpose of his or her pension entitlement. Radiocommunications Act 1983 The amendments will enable inspectors to take appropriate action in emergencies to protect radiocommunications that are essential to the safety of human life. Where a transmitter on unoccupied land or premises or in an unoccupied vessel, vehicle or aircraft is interfering with radiocommunications that are essential to the safety of human life, an inspector may, where necessary, enter without warrant and adjust the operation of the transmitter to prevent the interference continuing. These powers may be used only in defined emergencies and must be exercised as sparingly as possible in each situation. All reasonable steps must be taken to notify the owner as quickly as possible of the action that is being taken in respect of a transmitter so that the owner may take whatever steps are necessary to minimise any resultant inconvenience or detriment. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 The amendments remove the nexus between the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and the Public Service Board in relation to terms and conditions of employment for Corporation staff. They will enable the Corporation to move into line with consulting engineering industry norms and to provide its staff with similar conditions to those which its competitors apply in the market place. At the time the link is broken with the Public Service Board. The existing terms and conditions of existing staff will be preserved. States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1985 These amendments remove administrative impediments to the operation of the rural adjustment scheme. Administrative problems have been raised by the States with the operation of the scheme and certain unintended anomalies resulting from the administrative arrangements have been pointed out. The amendments correct these anomalies. Repeal of Spent and Inoperative Acts No comment is necessary about most of the Acts being repealed. As 1986 is the International year of Peace, it is appropriate that I briefly mention the background to the repeal of the various treaties of peace Acts. They were passed after the Second World War to give Parliament the opportunity of discussing the treaties with ex-enemy states and to enable the then Government to make regulations to give effect to the treaties. As it turned out, it was not necessary to make any regulations and the Acts can be repealed without affecting the operation of the treaties themselves. I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Debate resumed from 15 April, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which Mr Carlton had moved by way of amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) draws attention to the failure of the Government to fulfil its promises- (a) to reduce interest rates; (b) to bring the rate of inflation down below 5%; (c) to hold taxation down at least to the level of the 1984-85 financial year as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product; (d) not to introduce a capital gains tax; (e) not to raise the interest rate ceiling on housing loans, and (f) to bring about sustained reductions in unemployment particularly youth unemployment; (2) notes the deterioration in the Australian economy as evidenced by the continuing balance of payments crisis, an inflation rate twice that of our trading partners, excessively high interest rates, rising unemployment, lagging private investment in new productive capacity and the severe downturn in the housing and motor industries, and (3) calls on the Government to arrest the alarming deterioration in the balance of payments, the threat of a further fall in the value of the Australian dollar and severe hardship for Australian families by taking urgent steps to- (a) introduce a mini-budget in May to reduce Government expenditures to take effect from the beginning of the 1986-87 financial year, and thereby reduce government borrowing; (b) make an application to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to defer the productivity wage case and to discount fully the indexation of wages for the effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar; (c) withdraw the anti-business and anti-rural elements of the tax package of 19 September 1985 that has the effect of inhibiting investment and depressing economic activity, and (d) significantly relax foreign investment controls to encourage job-creating equity investment in Australia'- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1985-86 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1985-86. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.27) —I commence my contribution in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1985-86 and cognate Bills by reminding the House of the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech on 13 November 1984, just 16 months ago. He said: ...never in the last decade-and more-has there been anything like the combination of favourable economic prospects that now exist; consumer confidence at record levels; business confidence and business investment restored and growing by the month; the housing industry buoyant; manufacturing production rising; industrial disputes dramatically down; interest rates declining; employment up; inflation down. With a record like that, is it any wonder that Paul Keating has been nominated as the world's best Treasurer? Many of these words have come back to haunt the Prime Minister and the Hawke Labor Government. Just 16 months later I emphasise the points that he made-that interest rates were declining, inflation down and the housing industry buoyant. Let us look at what Mr Hawke and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had to say in addition to that during that election campaign. Mr Keating said: I accept the view of most market commentators that we have a further interest fall ahead of us. That was reported in the Age of 5 November 1984. Of course, we all know the story of what happened shortly after that. By April 1985 interest rates had risen quite dramatically; yet at that time Mr Hawke indicated a further fall. He said: We can expect through the period of this year that there will be . . . a lowering of the level of interest rates. That was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 April 1985. If we look at real interest rates at present we find that Australia has a figure of 10 per cent, the United States of America 4.3 per cent, West Germany 2.9 per cent, the United Kingdom 6.9 per cent, Japan 4.5 per cent and New Zealand 7.5 per cent. The Prime Minister said on 13 November, specifically referring to inflation: We have more than halved inflation. Building on our achievement of the lowest inflation for 13 years, inflation over the next year will be less that 5 per cent. We aim to keep it below 5 per cent. The Government has an inflation rate of 8 per cent, which is twice that of our major trading partners. On a comparative basis, Australia's rate is 8.2 per cent, that of the United Kingdom 5.5 per cent, Japan 1.9 per cent, the United States of America 3.6 per cent, Canada 4 per cent, Germany 1.8 per cent and France 4.8 per cent. The rates of our major trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average out at 4.1 per cent and the total for OECD countries is 4.5 per cent. Let us look at what the world's greatest Treasurer has done. Paul Keating comes into this House and pours buckets of abuse, scorn and insults on the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and indeed the Opposition in general. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have failed. They are guilty of deceiving the Australian people because they have never emphasised our deteriorating position, with our overseas debt and our current account deficit. I think all Australians ought to be aware of the position regarding those two issues. Our overseas debt, or external debt as it is known, puts Australia in the category of a Third World country. We are going broke. Our overseas debt is running at almost $70 billion at the moment. It has risen from 21.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or $35.6 billion, in June 1983-and that was just a few months after the Hawke Government came to power-to a current level of $69.7 billion or 32.2 per cent of gross domestic product. Our national indebtedness to overseas financiers now stands at $4,500 for every man, woman and child in this country. The average man understands what money he gets in his hand each week and how much it purchases for him. The average man understands that inflation erodes the value of his take home pay. The average man knows that high interest rates increase his home loan repayments or, if he is borrowing for a business, that it increases his overheads and decreases what is left for him on the bottom line. It is time the Hawke Government came clean and revealed all of these facts to the Australian people. I would like to see the average man and woman in the street advised of the true situation and this Government make some adjustments to its policies to ensure that we do not go further down the track taken by some Third World countries. Let me look at the current account deficit because the following figures are cited by the world's best Treasurer. He stated in the Budget last year that the current account deficit would stand at $10.7 billion. That was the Budget estimate about nine months ago. He revised it upwards to $11.25 billion. In February this year Treasury's Bernie Fraser revised the figure upwards to $12.25 billion; it could reach as high as $13.7 billion, a monthly average of more than $1 billion. That is 30 per cent higher than the world's greatest Treasurer predicted nine months ago. Two years ago the current account deficit stood at about $600m a month or $7 billion annually. The world's greatest Treasurer has failed again. We are still waiting for the J curve effect heard so much about to take place. Major devaluation of the Australian dollar took place about 12 months ago when it dropped from over 80c to about 65c. This made our imports more expensive and our exports cheaper or more competitive. Month after month we have been waiting for the J curve effect. It is like waiting for the rains; it is to no avail. Paul Keating is still crystal ball gazing or looking for some divine guidance and Prime Minister Hawke does not know and he does not want to know. He is too busy keeping Mr 60 per cent at 60 per cent. He is involved in so much self-promotion through the Priority One: Young Australia advertising campaign and through attending sporting events, and he is always entertaining dignitaries and travelling overseas, where he is at the moment, while the nation is in such trouble. Of course his latest attempt is to promote himself a little further through the drug program. The Prime Minister's main concern seems to be to keep his face on television with self-promotion and the nice things in life. He is the soft option Prime Minister; he could not even take a hard option yesterday when it came to his announcement on the United States-Libyan conflict. He has never taken a hard option since he has been the Prime Minister of this nation. Let me examine Paul Keating's master strokes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member will refer to Ministers and the Prime Minister by their titles. Mr HODGES —I again remind the House that six months ago the Treasurer, in his statement on the Reform of the Australian Taxation System, said that there would be the quarantining of farm losses. Yesterday we heard in the statement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that the quarantining of farm losses would be abolished but some other measure would take its place. Let me look at master stroke No. 1-taxation of employers for company cars provided for employees. Employers are buying fewer cars and the car manufacturing industry is now feeling the effects. It has been estimated that up to 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the fringe benefits tax. These figures do not come from the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). They come from the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia and from the Premier of South Australia. They do not come from the Opposition. The car manufacturing industry will be in dire straits over the next six to 12 months. Unemployment will rise and the cost of providing unemployment benefits will rise with it. We were told by the Treasurer that the revenue gain was to be $515m in a full year-1987-88. The rise in the cost of unemployment benefits alone could be a conservative $250m. Let me look at Treasurer Keating's master stroke No. 2-the introduction of a capital gains tax. I remind the House-because the words are still ringing in my ears and those of all members of the Government and of every Australian-of what the Prime Minister said prior to the 1984 election: `There will be no capital gains tax'. We have a capital gains tax. It was announced in a statement six months ago. The capital gains tax will stifle investment in property and buildings, thereby affecting the business community. As a result we will see a rise in unemployment. It will cause less rental accommodation to be built and thereby will force up rents. The people who will feel this the most are the poor, about whom the Australian Labor Party is supposed to be so concerned. Let me look at master stroke No. 3-the abolition of negative gearing of rental property investments. Less rental accommodation will be available as a result of the introduction of this measure. Rents will be pushed higher and, again, the little people, the poor people, whom the Hawke Labor Government purports to look after, will be affected more than anybody else in this nation. Let me move on to master stroke No. 4-the abolition of tax free concessions for charities and for certain work of churches. The Government cannot fill the gap that will be left if churches, religious and charitable bodies are not allowed to continue their good, charitable work in the community. The denial of exemptions to legitimate non-profit charities which provide free services to support Government services and programs for the aged and disabled will mean that this Hawke Government is the first government in Australia's history to levy taxes on charities. The denial of exemptions to churches for their welfare and community service work, as opposed to their clergy work, means that this Government will be the first Government in Australia's history to levy taxes on charities. There are major dissensions and dissatisfactions within the Government ranks. We have a Government that is riddled with dissension. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), the President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, is present in this chamber. He has spoken openly against the Hawke Government. What about the gang of seven Ministers who spoke out recently: The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett)? All those Ministers have spoken out against the Hawke Government. Numerous people have expressed dissatisfaction in recent times over the Government's housing industry policy and the high interest rates this Government has produced for the Australian people. The Federal President of the Labor Party, the Premier of our most populous State, has openly criticised the Hawke Government. The honourable member for Melbourne nods in agreement. Of course there is dissension and dissastisfaction within the Hawke Labor Government. It is a government that is riddled with dissatisfaction. It is time the Government changed some of its policies to assist the unemployed, business and people who wish to get into their own homes. The Prime Minister is now noted for his broken promises. The Prime Minister has broken a promise on the assets test. He has broken a promise on lump sum taxation on superannuation. He has broken a promise on capital gains tax. He has broken a promise on interest rates. He has broken a promise on the level of the Australian dollar. He has broken a promise on petrol prices. He has broken a promise on inflation and he has broken a promise in relation to the home loan interest rate ceiling. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr LEE(Dobell)(10.40) —I would like first to address a few of the points made by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). He states that he is opposed to the Government's actions in abolishing negative gearing for people rich enough to invest in real estate. He is opposed to the tax on company cars that executives can use for private use and he is opposed to the capital gains tax because it will affect people in the upper income brackets. Mr Hollis —His mates. Mr LEE —His mates, as the honourable member suggests. The simple questions that I put to the honourable member for Petrie are: Is he opposed to the $2 billion worth of income tax cuts which we are providing to the ordinary Australian taxpayers on 1 September? Is he opposed to the second round of income tax cuts on 1 July 1987? Is he opposed to the extra $5 a week which all the pensioners in my area will receive if they earn more than $40 a week in private income? Is he opposed to the relaxation of the income test on rental assistance? Is he opposed to the extra allowance given to pensioners with children? If he is opposed to the ways in which the Government is collecting tax from people who are avoiding paying their fair share, is he also opposed to this Government redirecting those funds which are raised through the capital gains tax and the tax on company cars and giving them to the pensioners and the ordinary pay-as-you-earn taxpayers? He cannot have it both ways. I will comment on the legislation by first examining the shopping list amendment which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) moved. The honourable member suggested in his amendment that the Government should: . . . introduce a mini-Budget in May to reduce Government expenditures to take effect from the beginning of the 1986-87 financial year. That is his proposal. Mr Carlton —Yes, you should. Mr LEE —It is nice to see him in the chamber. He reaffirms that that is his belief. If the managing director of a company were approached by another businessman who sought to give him advice on how to run his company and how to arrange his affairs, it would be fair for the managing director to ask about the record of the person seeking to advise him. In the same way, when the Opposition tries to tell us how Australia should be run and how matters could be better organised, it is fair for us to ask: What is the Opposition's record on seeking to restrain government expenditure? Mr Martin —Hopeless. Mr LEE —It is a hopeless record, as the honourable member for Macarthur affirms. For the benefit of the honourable member for Mackellar I will read from a transcript of a recent interview with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, on the PM program on 17 March. Michael Dodd asked: What examples can you give of how you saved money during the Fraser Government? The Leader of the Opposition replied: I simply look to the record. We could have done better but we were better in restraining expenditure than any government in Australia's peacetime history. The rate of increase in expenditure under the Fraser Government was lower than that of any other government in Australia's peacetime history. There is a minor problem with that claim by the Leader of the Opposition, because I am afraid Honest John has made another honest mistake. I seek leave to have a table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT OUTLAYS Budget outlays* Increase on previous year Year $m Percentage1975-76... 21 787 22.4 1976-77... 24 047 10.4 1977-78... 26 690 11.0 1978-79... 28 934 8.4 1979-80... 31 470 8.8 1980-81... 36 020 14.5 1981-82... 41 206 14.4 1982-83... 48 812 18.5 1983-84... 56 460 15.7 1984-85... 63 739 12.9 1985-86 (est.)... 69 067 8.4 * 1985 Budget Paper No. 1 Mr Carlton —It is misleading but we are quite happy to have it in. Mr LEE —I thank the House. The honourable member for Mackellar obviously does not like the table, because he is already objecting to it. It shows quite simply that when the Leader of the Opposition became Treasurer, his first Budget in 1978 provided an increase in government outlays of 8.4 per cent. The following year it was 8.8 per cent; the year after, 14.5 per cent, then 14.4 per cent. In his last year as Treasurer there was an increase of 18.5 per cent. In each of those years the Leader of the Opposition massively increased government expenditure. What has been the record of Treasurer Keating? In the 1983 Budget he reined in the rate of increase in government expenditure to 15.7 per cent. In the 1984 Budget it was 12.9 per cent and last year's estimate of government outlays predicted a rise of 8.4 per cent. So in Treasurer Howard's years the rate of growth in government outlays increased from 8.4 per cent per year to 18.5 per cent. Under Treasurer Keating it has been reined in, from that peak under Treasurer Howard of 18.5 per cent to only 8.4 per cent. It is interesting to note the reaction of the Opposition to this Government's May economic statement last year. The then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), came into this House and criticised the Australian Labor Party for not cutting back expenditure far enough, yet all of the members of the Opposition went out to their electorates seeking to inflame the groups that were opposed to the mild and responsible cuts this Government introduced. That showed them to be the unprincipled members they are. At this stage I turn to local government funding. I note that the new member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) in his maiden speech in this House last night congratulated the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) on his statement last week on local government funding. I should say, as an aside, that I thought it was an excellent maiden speech, and I am sure other members would agree. The Hawke Labor Government established an inquiry, under Professor Peter Self, on 9 May 1984 to examine the Federal Government's role in providing funds to local government. Of course, the Whitlam Government blazed the trail by providing funding direct from the Federal Government to local government. I pay tribute to the Fraser Government for its decision, I think in its first term, to introduce personal income tax sharing legislation which provided for local government to receive a set share of the personal income tax receipts of the Commonwealth. The Self inquiry received a great deal of co-operation from the relevant State governments and from local government. In fact, Mr Bob Moulds, the treasurer of the Wyong Shire Council-which covers most of my electorate-came down and worked on a secondment basis for the Self inquiry for three months and Mr Jim Sibree, of the central coast branch of the Department of Environment and Planning- Mr Martin —A fine officer, too. Mr LEE —Yes; he is known to the honourable member for Macarthur. He also came down and worked on the Self inquiry. The Minister tabled the Self report in this House on 13 November. The Minister's statement in the House last week was quite historic because it gave three guarantees to local government. The first was that this Government will introduce a new program of general purpose financial assistance for local government to replace the personal income tax sharing legislation. I am pleased to see the Minister, the honourable member for Reid, in the House at the moment. The second guarantee he gave was that funding from Federal Government general purpose funds to local government would be maintained in real terms for 1986-87 and 1987-88. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Minister guaranteed that any real increase in general revenue grants and general purpose capital assistance grants to the States would also be passed on to local government. So local government has a guarantee that it will be treated at least the same as, perhaps better than, the States. I understand that the principal objectives of this proposed legislation are to assist the disadvantaged councils and the ratepayers and residents of those areas. In fact, I understand that my electorate has the lowest median income level of any of the 148 electorates which make up the Commonwealth of Australia. It is commonly accepted that the number of pensioners, low income earners and single parent families in the Wyong Shire and the electorate of Dobell justifies any claims by the Wyong Shire council that it is one of the most disadvantaged councils in New South Wales and Australia. Pensioners and low income earners frequently come to see me because they are often disadvantaged by having to pay quite large increases in rates. It is important that the new base for this funding to local government will no longer be calculated on the level of individual income tax receipts, as was the case with the Fraser Government's legislation. The problem is that personal income tax receipts are quite volatile and vary greatly from year to year. I again seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RECEIPTS Year Nominal* $m Current prices $m Real increase over previous year % 1975-76... 9,219 21,847 - 1976-77... 11,054 23,537 +7.7 1977-78... 12,129 23,857 +1.3 1978-79... 12,804 23,582 -1.2 1979-80... 15,040 25,135 +7.0 1980-81... 17,543 26,638 +5.6 1981-82... 21,224 28,834 +8.2 1982-83... 22,967 28,148 -2.4 1983-84... 24,710 28,109 -0.1 1984-85... 29,300 31,352 +11.5 1985-86 (est)... 32,690 32,690 +4.3 * 1985 Budget Paper No. 1 Mr LEE —This table demonstrates that there are great variations in annual increases in personal income tax receipts. Up until last year local government received 2 per cent of those personal income tax receipts. However, the increase in income tax receipts varies greatly. In 1984-85 income tax receipts increased in real terms by 11.5 per cent compared with a real decline of 2.4 per cent in the level of individual income tax receipts in 1982-83 because of the Fraser-Howard policy of screwing the Australian economy down and seeking to induce a recession. I am certainly glad, and I am sure local government in general will be pleased, that its funding will in future be tied to the level of funding for the States rather than to personal income tax receipts. In conclusion I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Keating) once again on his efforts in steering the Australian economy towards greater growth, and I endorse the comments of other speakers in opposing the shopping list of amendments put forward by the Opposition which contain nothing but contradictions. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(10.51) —Appropriation Bills, although they deal with specific items of appropriation, are most important indicators to the Parliament and the Australian community of a number of situations: First, the reliability or otherwise of Budget forecasts and the integrity of the Budget in conforming to the Estimates presented to this Parliament, and in achieving the outcomes predicted by the Government; secondly, the capacity of the Government to meet emergent exigencies such as disastrous drought confronting primary industry, the devaluation of the dollar, and the horrific effects of interest rates and monetary policy on small business, on home buyers and on sunrise industries earlier enthusiastically promoted by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones); and, thirdly, the capacity of the Government to honour its promises to reduce taxation, to rein in Government expenditure and restore lost confidence to the community. So these Bills as they come before the Parliament from time to time are signposts which we carefully read, and which enable us to make judgments on the Government's handling of the economy. As we contemplate these appropriations, together with the revelation of the horrific balance of trade deficits, we can only come to the conclusion that the Government has sadly failed every one of these examinations. It has become abundantly clear that some crucial assumptions presented to this Parliament either have not materialised or have gone sadly astray. Because of this, the integrity of the Budget collapses. Let me illustrate the proof of this contention. We were told quite specifically by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) at Budget time that the Budget forecasts depended specifically on one most important proposition. He said that the trade unions would have to accept that in national wage claims the consumer price index would need to be discounted by a factor reflecting the devaluation of the Australian dollar. It was pointed out by him that this impinged very greatly on the capacity of business to contain the costs which were crippling business and its ability to employ. Of course the Australian Council of Trade Unions immediately rejected this and pressed for full indexation, and with tongue in cheek said it would co-operate in the 1986 round of hearings. The reality is that not only is there no discounting, but also the demand has been considerably increased by the addition of an unsustainable productivity claim of the order of 3 per cent on top of the wage adjustment claim and a blatant and dishonest grab for increased salary from the employers of Australia. At Budget time there was an expectation very clearly and forcefully proclaimed by both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and indeed others, that interest rates would fall. Instead, they escalated to the highest real interest rate levels in our history. At Budget time-it was inherent in the calculations-we were told that business would prosper as the dollar fell. That of course has been tragically astray. Our trade deficit has become a nightmare and business, far from prospering, has been forced into what can only be described as a scenario of disaster. All of the projections in the area of home building have collapsed. In my own electorate we have seen long-established substantial and responsible building firms going into liquidation. Not only those firms and their employees have suffered, but also a multitude of subcontractors and their employees, a host of suppliers and their employees, and actual home buyers who have been saddled with partially completed contracts have been placed in a most desperate situation. The Government's answer is, of course, too little, too late. As these Appropriation Bills confront us, the Prime Minister avoids answering the question as to whether the commitment to cut government expenditure by $1.4 billion will be honoured. Naturally it will not be honoured. What of the Government's most solemn commitment to cut tax? The manner in which the Government sought to discharge its promise to cut fuel prices by the degree to which world parity prices fell was to increase its fuel excise, and only a fractional price fall ever reached the pumps. With a record such as that, we can be certain that cuts in income tax-and we have yet to see them-will merely be replaced by other forms of taxation. We can be certain that the Australian citizen would be naive to believe that he will pay any less taxation. As we contemplate these Appropriation Bills, and remember the Budget pronouncements, we know that legislation foreshadowed in the Budget is still unpresented, we know we face capital gains tax, but business and primary industry are finding it absolutely impossible to quantify the cost, to ascertain the methods, to understand how it will apply; legislation is delayed, speculation and rumour proliferate; conflicting statements are rife. Business cannot plan, it cannot contemplate expansion, it cannot consider employment and operational policies, because the Government just will not answer or indicate its intentions. By every measuring rod and by every judgment, the Budget and the forecasts of this Government have been not merely a failure, but a disaster. And still the Government has no blueprint for the future. We still are being told that indicators are promising-that interest rates will come down and that inflation will fall; that apprenticeships will be provided; that unemployment will fall; that our balance of payments deficit will decrease, and so on. There is no reason, no plan, no policy and no commitment. Just blind hope that something will turn up is the Bethlehem star of this Government, and all the indicators are that in every one of these speculations, things are going in exactly the opposite direction. Let us look at some of the specific detail of some of the appropriations now before us. They show the Government's strange priorities and its complete inability to discern fantasy from reality. I invite honourable members to look at Appropriation Bill (No. 4). We do not see the Government facing up to such crises as the desperate situation of the primary industry and the sugar industry, but we see the handsome sum of $1.9m for establishment of a national identification system relating to the Australia Card. The Government's justification for such a card has been completely refuted. The claim that it will catch tax dodgers cannot be sustained. With all the legislative weapons already available, with such extensive discretionary powers in the hands of the Commissioner, with the prescribed payments tax, we lack no capacity to meet this situation. The Australia Card will be at such a cost that, even with the extravagant claim as to the revenue it will net, its costs will exceed revenue, it will create one of the greatest intrusions into privacy and will add nothing to our armoury. It is not justifiable either under the spurious claim that it will save money by catching social security cheats. If the Department of Social Security would get its own house in order, tremendous savings could be made. The frequency with which, because of the Department's own errors, payments are made and then it has to demand repayments, is horrifying. Hardly a week goes past without a constituent coming to my office with a letter from Social Security with that very situation. To promote an Australia Card while such inefficiency causes such revenue losses is a complete furphy. Additionally, a Joint Select Committee is looking at the justification for such a card and we await its report. Yet here in this Bill $1.9m is appropriated for such a measure whilst businesses and primary producers go to the wall. With the crises all around us, we have the indefensible appropriation of funds to bring in an Australia Card, setting up affirmative action commissions, and enlarging the already bloated statutory authority and bureaucratic monster. Here in this appropriation we see such priorities. There are other interesting items, such as a sum of $13,000 for damage to a Picasso painting and $200,000 for the Australian Trade Union Training Authority. Certainly the trade unions will be happy with this appropriation and their contrived handouts under various community employment program schemes. But let me assure the Government that the long suffering taxpayers of Australia have had all they can take of this sort of behaviour. How nauseating it is to hear the Prime Minister pontificating about the Government's management of the economy, when it is evident not only that under this Government the economy is sick but also with prodigal abandon the Government is mortgaging the future and future generations of taxpayers will be handed an awful legacy. When one promise is dishonoured, another is made. When one forecast is proved completely wrong, another is proposed. The time has long gone when the taxpayers of Australia will listen to the Government trying to blame and criticise its predecessors for every defect. In three years the deficit has blown out, interest rates have exploded, our public debt interest has escalated, small business is collapsing under the burden of costs and regulation, and primary producers are going to the wall. That can be laid at no one else's feet but this Treasurer's and this Prime Minister's. Questions are never answered. The Government's response to legitimate questions on its stewardship in this Parliament is a tirade of irrelevant abuse and theatricals. These Appropriation Bills, which ignore completely the crises, illustrate the illogical priorities of this Government, underline the failure of the Budget, demonstrate the nonsense of all of the projections and promises-but worse, they are defended ad nauseam by speaker after speaker from the Government benches, with the same tired old argument and the same desperate whistling-in-the-dark philosophy. Another specific appropriation under Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is entitled `$1.5m for an information campaign on reform of the Australian taxation system'. We have already witnessed an alleged summit on this topic-a farcical comedy where the only inputs considered were the Government/Australian Council of Trade Unions options. It certainly was not a forum in which reform of the taxation system was addressed. We have had commissions of inquiry over the years, we had the statement by the Treasurer in this House which, in effect, was an announcement of new taxation imposts. Now $1.5m for an information campaign figures in this appropriation. What information will it disseminate, or will it simply be the production of propaganda, justification, and alibis at taxpayer's expense? I am sure the Parliament, if given time, could very profitably discuss reform of our taxation system. I am sure the Parliament would appreciate some definitive and detailed policy statement on taxation reform. It boggles the mind. With the confused and conflicting jumble of pronouncements which this Government has presented under the pseudonym of taxation reform, how can the Government possibly justify the expenditure of $1.5m on an information campaign? Who will produce it-the Treasurer or the ACTU? Will it first have to be edited by the ACTU, which so effectively emasculated the options he recommended to the tax summit? Indeed, we are yet to see the legislation implementing his last pronouncements on so-called tax reform proposals. I wonder too whether the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) gets much joy from seeing as an item in these appropriations, `an inquiry into the taxation of gold mining' costing $125,000. These Bills are the epitaph of a government wandering aimlessly, groping and hoping. They are the evidence of a failed budget, and they are the precursor of another series of failed forecasts and broken promises. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(11.03) —At the outset of my remarks I wish to congratulate my new colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) on his fine maiden speech in the House last evening. He comes to this place in his father's footsteps and, as his father was a fine representative of the people of Scullin, I know that my colleague the new member will be, too. This debate relates to Appropriation Bill (No. 3), Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2). I have been present during the whole of this morning and have heard the usual doom and gloom from Opposition speakers about how the country is going broke and becoming a third world nation. It sometimes surprises me when I go out on the street and talk to people to see them actually smiling and happy. Perhaps my electorate in the great Illawarra region is different from the electorates of members of the National Party of Australia. But if we are to believe what we are being told by members of the National Party here today, it is surprising that the country's suicide rate is not much higher than it is. Judging by the way in which those members speak, one would think that there is no joy in the community, that disaster is about to descend upon us and that people might as well go and end it all now. But I emphasise that people are actually happy-and they are happy with this Government, strange as it may seem to the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann). I listened to the honourable member for Fairfax, a gentleman for whom I have great respect, and during his contribution he posed the question: When is the Government going to face up to the farm crisis? I do not want to be rude, but I know that some people say that some members of the National Party are a little slow on the uptake. I thought the Australian Labor Party had made a contribution to this subject in the chamber yesterday. Obviously the honourable member for Fairfax either did not hear the statement from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), did not listen, or did not understand it. I thought his speech was a step along the path of coming to terms with some of the problems that are besetting some-not all-of the rural community. We are dealing with the Appropriation Bills, and it is interesting that in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) we are asked to approve over $16m to the Department of Community Services to implement revised subsidy arrangements for child care services. I must say that I, along with a lot of members of this House, I suppose, have had the usual protests in my office. In fact, my office has been occupied a couple of times during protests about child care facilities and the lack of them. It surprises me very much that the people in the community who are very vocal about what this Government is supposed not to be doing, about our omissions in welfare services, are remarkably quiet about those dark, dark years when the present Opposition occupied the Treasury benches. I ask: Why is this? I believe that the community gets nothing from the Opposition and expects nothing. Of course, when we came to power, the community expected us immediately to redress the imbalance. Let us have a look at a few figures. In June 1982 there were 37,580 full time day care places. In June 1985 that figure had risen to 59,480. This represents an increase of 21,900 places or, in percentage terms, 58 per cent. In 1982-83, $98m was spent on children's services and the estimated figure for 1984-85 was $157m, which represents an increase of $59m, or 60 per cent, in two years. I believe that the Government's record in child care is good. We have no need to apologise for what we are doing and we will not apologise. In attempting to reach an equit- able distribution of funds in the social welfare field, I believe that certain guidelines have to be set and in most cases adhered to, but I would ask for some flexibility in their implementation in the Illawarra region, which was greatly disadvantaged by the downturn in the coal and steel industry. That problem has now been somewhat redressed because of the Hawke Labor Government's steel regions plan, but no section was harder hit than the Municipality of Shellharbour, which I represent. In that area the Mount Warrigal Board is attempting to have built a 50-bed addition to the Mount Warrigal Nursing Home, and in that regard I ask the Minister to implement the guidelines with a certain degree of flexibility. Turning to Appropriation Bill (No. 4), I note with pleasure that $8m is provided as a first instalment on a payment of $30m to New South Wales for construction, on behalf of the Commonwealth, of stage 1 of the National Maritime Museum. This museum is part of our heritage and it will preserve a part of our heritage. In this regard I commend to honourable members the Government's committee of inquiry into the folklife of Australia. That committee will be reporting in January next year and is currently taking evidence about all aspects of folklife in Australia. I might say that Australia has inherited a rich and diverse body of folk tradition. Many individuals in our society have collected aspects of this folk heritage over many years, but these collections are often scattered and not documented. It is hoped that such an inquiry not only will reveal the diversity of what is known about our folk heritage, but also will lead to its recording and preservation for future generations. Folk heritage, like culture, is ever evolving. I think the National Maritime Museum, for which Parliament is asked to approve the first instalment, will contribute greatly to the recording of the folk heritage of Australia. In the couple of minutes remaining to me I would like to refer briefly to something that will be mentioned a lot more this year, and that is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. There is no doubt that this year Australia will come under increasing pressure to withdraw from UNESCO. The United States has already withdrawn and Great Britain has given notice of its intention to withdraw. UNESCO contributes greatly to the cultural, scientific and educational life of our society. Its objects are to promote peace and security through international collaboration in education, culture, science and communications. Let us face it, events over the past few days have shown most certainly the need for this. Over the past couple of years there has been substantial reform to UNESCO, especially to the administration. I put to those critics of UNESCO that surely there must be a better way of changing an organisation than by seeking to secede from it. It is really a pity that much time and effort will be devoted this year to the survival of UNESCO. In reality the argument will be about the concept of universality. Does Australia retract, retreat or withdraw if we do not get our own way, or do we accept the concept of universality in an international system which is committed to the preservation of world peace? I make no secret of or apology for my support of UNESCO. As far as I am concerned, the simple test is this: Is the world a better place for having an organisation such as UNESCO, or is it a worse place? Mr Humphreys —It is a better place. Mr HOLLIS —As the Government Whip says, of course it is a better place. We will get a lot of protests this year and there will be a lot of people urging the Government to withdraw Australia from UNESCO. I see that my allotted time is up. I ask members of the Opposition to lift their game and to stop all this doom and gloom nonsense. The country is in good hands; it is going well and will continue to go well under the Hawke Labor Government. I commend the Bill to the House. Naturally, I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.13) —I do not know where the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) has been to have the view that Australia is in great hands, that this country of ours is going well. Mr Hollis —In my electorate. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It must be a very isolated electorate. I want to take the opportunity of the Appropriation Bills to refer to the facts of life in terms of how people are suffering because of high interest rates. A constituent came to me last weekend and brought photocopies of his bank statements over the past few years. In 1983 he took out a loan on his home, which is in my electorate in Brisbane. At the time that Malcolm Fraser was booted out of office because of the high level of interest rates, that man, with a normal savings bank type of loan on his home, owed the bank $50,000. The interest he was charged in that month, the month of March that year, was $517. Under the great administration to which the honourable member for Throsby refers, he now owes $45,000 and the interest being applied is only $7 less than that which he was being charged when he owed $50,000. No wonder people in the community are screwing up their faces and wondering where they are going to end up. Another constituent of mine was somewhat less fortunate in that the bank would not lend him money under the lower interest rate scheme and he had to borrow money from other bank sources. He had a more expensive home than that of the first constituent I mentioned. He borrowed $70,000 and the interest that he was charged in March 1984 was $812. The last bank statement he received shows that his loan had gone from $70,000 down to $64,000 and the interest that he was charged was $948 a month. The interest rate payment has gone from $812 to $948 a month. Yet honourable members opposite tell me that people in the community are happy, they are laughing and they are relaxed about the performance of the Australian Labor Party Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the so-called world's greatest Treasurer (Mr Keating). No wonder people are distressed and concerned. Some few weeks ago in my electorate I put a great deal of effort into doing a survey of business. I just did not believe everything that was being said about business. If one listens to the Government one gains the impression that every small businessman is thriving. Indeed, only about three weeks ago in this House the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) actually challenged the Opposition to come forward with some form of proof that small business could not afford the 3 per cent superannuation payments. I think one of the great problems of this Government is that it uses a wide, all-embracing brush every time it refers to anything. If it sees one bright spot on the horizon it says that there is no rain anywhere in the world. It generalises to a degree that is shameful and dishonest. I mix with members of the business community. It is a reality that the business community provides employment for people in this country and if the business community is not doing well the people are not doing well. In fact, the level of unemployment in this country is still up near what it was when Malcolm Fraser was unceremoniously turfed from office because honourable members opposite promised to reverse the situation. Six hundred thousand Australians are still out of work. In only four months out of the total period of the Fraser Administration was there a higher level of unemployment than that which currently exists in this country, yet honourable members opposite are beating their chests and trying to ram down everyone's throat what a great job they are doing. As I was saying, if the business community is not doing well the people are not doing well. Having 600,000 people still out of work highlights the fact that there is a lot of unhappiness in the community and a lot of people are not doing well. It is a pity that the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) and the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) are not in the chamber at the moment. I wrote to 800-odd businesses in the electorates of Bowman, Moreton and Griffith when I carried out a business survey. About 300 businesses went to the trouble of providing a lot of very personal and private information on how they perform. Those 300 businesses employ 7,000 Australians, so it is a wide cross-section of business. I have spoken to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) about incorporating in Hansard-as I did last time I did a similar survey-the results of that survey. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- 1986 CAMERON BUSINESS SURVEY Results Question Overall result Retail sector Manufac- turing/ wholesale Motor trade Real Estate/ Building Profess. groups % % % % % %1. Type of Business... 100 36.1 24.0 9.9 23.5 6.5 2. Turnover last 12 months: Up... 60.6 56.4 66.7 63.6 57.7 75.0 Down... 21.7 16.7 17.6 31.8 30.8 - Same... 26.9 15.7 15.7 4.6 11.5 25.0 3. Profits last 12 months: Up... 35.9 33.3 45.1 18.2 34.6 58.3 Down... 43.6 41.0 37.3 72.7 46.2 8.3 Same... 20.5 25.7 17.6 9.1 19.2 33.3 4. Factors most important in improvement/decline. An enormous range of factors was mentioned. As a rule, those businesses doing well attributed their success to better marketing, tighter cost control, more advertising, and so forth. Those doing poorly felt that higher wages and costs were to blame, along with high interest rates, intense competition, etc. 5. Forecast next 12 months for turnover: Up... 48.6 56.5 56.9 40.9 25.0 75.0 Down... 25.0 13.2 15.7 22.7 57.7 8.3 Same... 26.4 30.3 27.4 36.4 36.6 16.6 Forecast next 12 months for profits: Up... 36.2 42.1 39.2 13.6 25.0 75.0 Down... 35.7 27.6 25.5 50.0 59.6 16.6 Same... 28.1 30.3 35.3 36.4 15.4 8.3 6. No. of employees... 6,890 2,850 2,279 355 1,354 52 Change over last 12 months: No. of staff recruited... 373 126 89 36 113 9 No. of staff dismissed... 218 53 56 20 88 1 7. Employment forecast next 12 months: More staff... 13.0 6.4 27.5 - 15.4 16.7 Less staff... 27.0 27.0 21.5 31.8 44.2 - Same... 58.0 66.6 51.0 68.2 40.4 83.3 8. Capital/Leasing expenditure forecast next 12 months: More... 25.8 27.3 33.3 18.2 19.2 25.0 Less... 25.8 22.1 25.5 31.8 36.6 16.7 Same... 48.4 50.6 41.2 50.0 44.2 58.3 9. Did abolition of the investment allowance affect investment levels? Yes... 59.3 52.0 58.8 50.0 75.0 50.0 No... 40.7 48.0 41.2 50.0 25.0 50.0 10. Carry customer accounts? Yes... 80.0 67.0 100.0 100.0 67.3 8.3 No... 20.0 33.0 - - 32.7 91.7 11. How long are customers taking to pay vs 12 months ago? Longer... 71.7 63.5 70.6 72.8 82.8 62.5 Same time... 25.4 36.5 25.5 22.7 14.3 25.0 Less time... 2.9 - 3.9 4.5 2.9 12.5 12. Hours of work by self-employed people: Less than 40 per week... 4.0 3.8 7.8 - - 8.3 Between 40 and 50... 19.0 17.9 35.3 9.0 13.7 16.6 Between 50 and 60... 38.0 37.2 29.4 31.8 51.0 33.3 Between 60 and 70... 27.0 29.6 15.7 50.0 25.5 25.0 Between 70 and 80... 7.0 3.8 9.8 4.6 5.9 8.3 More than 80... 5.0 7.7 2.0 4.6 3.9 8.3 13. Effect of high interest rates on business viability: No borrowings... 15.2 19.5 13.7 9.1 11.8 25.0 No effect... 8.6 9.1 11.8 9.1 3.9 8.3 Little effect... 19.4 14.3 21.6 18.2 23.5 25.0 Moderate effect... 21.7 26.0 23.5 4.5 17.6 25.0 Considerable effect... 35.0 31.2 29.4 59.1 43.2 16.7 14. Effect of industrial action over last 12 months: None... 24.2 28.2 13.7 18.3 29.4 33.4 Little... 45.7 50.0 47.1 59.0 29.4 50.0 Moderate... 23.7 14.1 29.4 22.7 37.3 8.3 Substantial... 6.4 7.7 9.8 - 3.9 8.3 15. Export overseas... 13.5 9.0 29.4 4.5 5.9 - Mr DONALD CAMERON —I thank the House and I thank the Minister who, in his own way, often is quite fair. The survey covered the following five sectors: The retail sector, the manufacturing and wholesale sector, motor trade, real estate and building, and professional groups. When we look at some of the figures we see that what the Government has been saying about turnover is absolutely true: Turnover was up last year. This survey was done in February and March. Turnover is surely up. Sixty per cent of these responding businesses have informed me that their turnover in the past 12 months is up. The turnover of 21 per cent of those businesses has gone down and the turnover of 27 per cent of them was exactly the same as it was the year before. But only 36 per cent of those businesses had an actual increase in profits. The difference is that, whilst 60 per cent had an increase in turnover, only 36 per cent had an increase in profits. That profitability is being eroded by higher costs and by other factors resulting either directly from impositions by this Government or indirectly from things such as industrial strife. We all know that, across Australia, the hours and days lost in strikes are down, but there is no disputing the fact that today an industrial strike is more effective in harming the employer than it has ever been. Industrial strikes are selective these days. They hurt industries to the point of paralysing them. A shut-down can cost millions of dollars a day. The unions have the employers by the throat. The employers know that they cannot stand firm for long and that they have to give in. All that aside, of great concern is that only 48 per cent of businesses are forecasting a continued improvement in turnover for the next 12 months and, in terms of profits, only 36 per cent of businesses are predicting an increase in profits-about the same percentage as those which experienced increased profits in the past 12 months. Honourable members opposite have been saying how marvellously well this country is doing, yet 36 per cent of businesses-exactly the same figure as that for businesses predicting an upturn-are predicting a downturn in profits and about 30 per cent are predicting that profits will remain the same. The figures reflecting employment opportunities worry me greatly. The increase in the staff of these 300 businesses last year amounted to only 373 persons, yet 218 people had to be dismissed or laid off. The forecast for employment for the next 12 months is that only 13 per cent of the businesses anticipate increasing staff and 27 per cent-more than twice that number-predict that they will have to lay off staff. Fifty-eight per cent of businesses are saying that there will be no change in the number of people they employ. This survey covers small businesses and not-so-small businesses, that is, those that are nowhere near the size of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd companies of this world. The table which the Minister has kindly allowed me to incorporate in Hansard makes more than just interesting reading. When the Hansard is produced tomorrow, I plead with every Government member, in the quietness of his or her own office, to look at the table. I return to the point I raised when I started my speech-interest rates. The honourable member for Throsby stated that the business world has no problems, that nobody has problems. This is what the 300 small businesses say about interest rates. Fifteen per cent of them do not have any borrowings at all so the level of interest rates does not affect them. Of all the businesses, 8.6 per cent say that the level of interest rates has had absolutely no effect on their businesses; 20 per cent, in round figures, say that interest rates are having only a little effect; 21 per cent say that it is having a moderate effect upon them and a massive 35 per cent say that it is having a considerable effect. These are the realities. If honourable members opposite believe that Australians are happy with what is going on in the community, as the honourable member for Throsby has suggested, they are completely out of touch. If the honourable member's view is typical of the view which exists on the Government side, heaven help this country of ours. The honourable member is unrealistic, because out there people are being hurt by the Government's policies. Never in the history of this nation have we had farmers day after day blocking airports and the entrance to Parliament House just to draw attention to themselves so that someone would listen. The Government yesterday brought down its statement of some 40 pages. When it is all boiled down there is a heap of rhetoric but very little in it for the farmers. Had that paper been brought down last week, those farmers would have been through the doors and into King's Hall shouting their disdain and contempt for the performance of this Government. After that moderate contribution this morning, I again thank the Minister at the table for allowing me to incorporate the table that I had prepared; it involved several weeks hard work and effort, but I really believe that when it comes to having my finger on the pulse of the business in my electorate and nearby electorates it puts me about 500 per cent ahead of the honourable member for Throsby. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(11.26) —I would like to make a few comments to the House in relation to the concept of international garden festivals. As the House would be aware, since about 1945 there has been a strong tradition, in Europe particularly, of holding international garden festivals, and they have proved over time to be not only extraordinarily popular but also quite profitable ventures, particularly in the context of attracting tourism. By way of example, in 1983 the International Garden Festival was held in Munich. It was established on a 68-hectare site and the project cost in the vicinity of $60m. It attracted in excess of 10 million visitors and has left behind an infrastructure that will be of long lasting benefit to the community. It think many honourable members would have heard of the Liverpool International Garden Festival. I believe it is now objectively described as one of the United Kingdom's major non-London based tourist attractions. It, for example, attracted some 3.2 million visitors in a period of months when it was established. Again, it has left a significant infrastructure and the local pressure now is to continue the project because it has been so successful and so profit- able and, in the final analysis, it required very little by way of government funding because of that inherent profitability. Mr Downer —It has been privatised. Mr GRIFFITHS —In fact it was not a private enterprise initiative. It was precisely the sort of area in which governments ought to get involved to kick the thing over and then to the greatest extent possible, if that is appropriate in the circumstances, to allow private involvement; and that is certainly not inconsistent with any views that this Government has ever put. If one were to rely on private initiative in these areas these things simply would not happen. I thank my honourable colleague opposite for contributing to the debate in support of the concept of government initiative in some of these areas. The concept essentially is based on urban renewal, although that can be varied depending on what particular environment one is looking at. For example, from memory, the Liverpool gardens were in an old derelict dockland area. It was renewed and now there is a great community asset there. In other parts of Europe, particularly in Germany, there is a trend that essentially is based on renewing underutilised land and not necessarily derelict land. In any event, what happens is that at the end of the day modern community amenities and attractive urban parkland and a new environment and infrastructure for other uses are left when the festival is concluded. The International Garden Festival will be held in Japan in 1990, and I would dearly like to see Australia obtain the International Garden Festival for 1991. If the Japanese one is successful, as is predicted, I think our having one in 1991 will result in a significant increase in the number of Japanese tourists to this country and that alone will contribute significantly to the cost of establishing such a festival. I have had discussions over a very long time now with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). He is very excited about this possibility. In fact, we came to a view about an international garden festival for Australia from two quite discrete sources, but inevitably because he had ministerial responsibility we got together on the matter. Prior to speaking to the Minister I had a survey and a submission completed for a particular locale-and this will surprise no one-in the electorate of Maribyrnong. Mr Hollis —What about one at Bowral? Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Throsby indicates that he would be interested in having one in his electorate at Bowral, but he will not be surprised to hear me say that on this occasion I will not be supporting his views with any great degree of vigour. In the electorate of Maribyrnong there is a disused quarry. It was formerly a bluestone quarry and it is owned by the Boral company. For many years it was an obnoxious industry for local residents in that there were continual explosions used in the extraction of bluestone. The roads and residential areas around the quarry were always suffering from cracks, and so on, after explosions and also heavy trucks were used with all the subsequent noise pollution and so on that inevitably results. The quarry now has been disused for some years and it is currently under application by Whelan the Wrecker Pty Ltd for use as a hard rubbish dump. A number of community organisations are seeking to stop that proposal, and I believe that the Department of Aviation has an interest in the matter, given that a dump will inevitably attract birds such as seagulls that presents a danger for aircraft travelling to or from Essendon and Tullamarine airports. I do not think that proposal will go ahead. My suggestion to the Boral company-which I understand has not yet shown any corporate bicentennial spirit; it has not yet contributed to any major Bicentenary project-for use of this essentially derelict land is to give it by way of gift to the Commonwealth for use as a site for an International Garden Festival. Mr Hollis —That is an excellent suggestion. Mr GRIFFITHS —As my colleague has indicated, that is an excellent suggestion and one that I am sure most members of this House, indeed probably all members of this House, will concur with. I am glad that my colleagues here, implicitly at least, are supporting the concept that Boral ought to contribute. The topic of privatisation was raised earlier, and of course with private business there are also responsibilities and I would like to see all Australian companies involving themselves in bicentennial projects. This is a classic opportunity for Boral and I will be seeking from that company an initiative in just this area. The International Garden Festivals attract major national and international attention. I think it would be particularly appropriate for Victoria, the garden State, to be the beneficiary of such a festival. I think it is worth commenting briefly in the time that is left on why the disused Niddrie quarry would be an appropriate venue for such a garden festival. It is, for example, very close to the first site on the Maribyrnong River where white settlers landed in Victoria. Contrary to popular belief, it was not the Yarra River that saw the first landing of white settlers but in fact the Maribyrnong River, and indeed not far from the Niddrie quarry. The quarry adjoins, via a small creek called Steele's Creek, the Maribyrnong River. As honourable members will be aware, there has been a significant injection of funds into the Maribyrnong River redevelopment. In my view it is now one of Australia's foremost urban waterways. Certainly, by the time the various projects around the Maribyrnong River valley are completed, that should be an obvious fact. Mr Hollis —You wouldn't be biased. Mr GRIFFITHS —As the honourable member for Throsby indicated, I am not biased. The site is in fact only 10 kilometres from the General Post Office in Melbourne. There is no other site with such a large area of land-113 hectares I am told-in such close proximity to the central business district. Of course, that has significant implications for access by not only the people in Victoria but also those from interstate and overseas. It is very close to Tullamarine Airport and is linked directly by major freeways. It almost straddles the major access routes into Melbourne from both Adelaide and Sydney and is also close to the Essendon Airport. It should be seen as part of the whole Maribyrnong River valley redevelopment project. I should make a couple of points about the site itself. It has a huge natural lake serviced by its own aquaifer which means that it has its own independent underground source of water. It is a huge lake and would be suitable for boating and so on. But the geography of the place is the most significant factor about it. It has very sheer cliffs and a very exciting topography. It is certainly one that with a bit of imagination could be utilised in a very dramatic way for an international garden festival. For example, I refer honourable members to the Butchart Gardens in Canada as one example of a disused quarry being used in an international garden context. I make the point that overseas examples contain water parks, miniature railways and of course the international garden component. We would be asking all countries of the world to make a donation to have, for example, a Greek garden, an English garden and an Italian garden. Where better could this happen in Australia than in the heartland of our great ethnic communities, in the western region of Melbourne where traditionally the great beginnings of our Greek, Italian, Yugoslav, Maltese and other ethnic communities were. This would be a significant acknowledgment not only of the multiculturalism that is obviously a part of that area but also of the significant contribution those communities have made to Australia. In winding up, as I know my time is just about to expire, I call upon the State Minister for Planning and Environment in Victoria to issue an interim development order to ensure that this fabulous site with all its potential is not lost, particularly in the context of any anti-social and obnoxious industries such as dumping of hard refuse, with all the dangers to air traffic that that involves. I thank the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment for his interest in this matter. It is my hope that this project will be developed sooner rather than later and I very fervently hope that people will see the Niddrie quarry area as the most obvious and beneficial site for such a project. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.39) —We have just heard a very interesting speech about international garden festivals. I suppose it is another example of pork barrelling in the Federal Parliament. I can see a very good reason-I had not thought of it before-for having an international garden festival in my own electorate where we already have some of the most beautiful gardens, indeed, the most beautiful gardens, in the whole of Australia in the Adelaide hills. What a marvellous idea! It is something that I must certainly take up with the local community and I am sure that we will not come crawling to the Federal Government for vast subsidies to make our international garden festival a reality. I thank the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) for the idea because it is a very good one. Of course, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1985-86 and cognate Bills are not about international garden festivals, surprisingly enough, although people may think so after listening to the debate for the last 10 minutes. These Bills are about Government expenditure and they give the Government the capacity to spend yet another $1 billion. These Bills give the House the opportunity to examine the whole issue of Government spending and to look at what it is doing to the Australian economy and, related to that, how that money is specifically being spent. It is true to say that increased Government expenditure-ever increasing Government expenditure-is at the kernel of the Government's economic strategy and is one of the causes of Australia's growing economic problems, the other cause being the complete and abject failure of the Australian economy to compete in the international market-place. I will just talk a little at this stage about expenditure. It is interesting to compare the expenditure record of this Government with that of its predecessors and to look at the consequences of this Government's massive increase in spending. In the 1982-83 Budget, a Budget brought down by the Fraser Government, that Government did allow for an increase in Government expenditure. It did that for very good reasons. It did that because at that time private investment had fallen off substantially in Australia as a result of the recession and the then Government took the view that there should be an increase in expenditure in order to compensate for the downturn in the Australian economy. It is true to say that the strategy of the Fraser Government at that time, the Budget, the introduction of the wages pause and the drought relief measures, were all factors that contributed very substantially to the improvement in the Australian economy in the year that followed. So, that increase in expenditure was an increase at a time of recession. What has happened since then is that the present Government since taking over the reins of office in March 1983 has not reined in expenditure as it should have done as the economy recovered. It has continued to expand public expenditure and, in doing that, has created very real problems for the Australian community-problems that will take us many years to overcome and will involve many years of difficult decision making by governments. If we look at the statistics, the results of this Government's record of expenditure are really quite horrifying. Government expenditure increased by 7 per cent per annum in real terms in the first two Budgets of this Government. Let us remember that they were Budgets that were introduced at a time of economic growth, of an upturn in the trade cycle-not at a time of recession as was the case during the last year of the Fraser Government. If we take the three Budgets that the Hawke Government has introduced, we see that on average in real terms Government expenditure has grown by 4.9 per cent per annum. If we look at the outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product, they are now up to 29.8 per cent this year. With the expected blowout in the Budget in 1985-86, it looks as though that figure will in fact exceed 30 per cent. Never in Australia's history have outlays been such a high proportion of our GDP. The same applies with tax receipts. Tax receipts are now running at about 25 per cent of GDP. The question that has to be answered by the Government is: What will happen when the trade cycle turns down, as it is beginning to do now? The Government is left with no leeway to increase expenditure to cope with the downturn in the economy. The Government has already overspent. As the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), pointed out earlier, the Government has raided the larder and left nothing in it so that, when the Government needs to change its economic strategy to cope with the recession, it will have no way of doing so. In other words, the consequences of the Government's spending are very serious and will be lived with by the Australian community for many years to come. One has only to look at the size of Australia's foreign debt to see the magnitude of the problem. Since the Hawke Government has been in power, that foreign debt has doubled from about $35 billion to a little over $70 billion. Honourable members on the other side often argue that much of that debt is private sector debt. But the Government's debt, the public sector debt, has also doubled; so we have a very major problem for the future. The legacy of this Government's spending record will be a legacy which will take many years to live with and to pay off. It is true to say that it is also adding to pressure for high interest rates in the Australian economy, although the Government's monetary strategy, designed to prop up the dollar, has been the principal cause of high interest rates. But certainly the blowout in Government expenditure has made a contribution. There are some people in the Treasury who understand this as a problem. The people in the Treasury have convinced the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to go into the Cabinet and to argue for cuts of $1.4 billion. That was emblazoned across the national Press some weeks ago. But what has happened since then is that Ministers such as the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is sitting opposite this morning, have refused to proceed with these cuts and consequently the Government will not get anything like cuts of $1.4 billion, if it gets any cuts at all. Perhaps it will get cuts of $200m or $300m, but if that is to happen then by the Government's own admission its economic strategy will be in tatters. In other words, the Government is beginning to abandon responsible economic strategy as a result of pressure from its left wing and from the Centre Left. It is worth recalling that recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in a Cabinet meeting called on the Government to abandon the trilogy. I understand that his call for the abandonment of the trilogy, no doubt warmly supported by the Minister for Social Security, was greeted with a stony stare by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Nevertheless, clearly there are very major problems within the Cabinet on the whole issue of government expenditure. The wastage in government spending is absolutely enormous, and that is why the Federal Opposition has established the Waste Watch Committee. Obviously, when in opposition it is very difficult to get all the information or details one needs to establish where money is being wasted, but it has been quite remarkable how members of the community have come forward, telephoned and written to members of the Waste Watch Committee and given examples of gross government profligacy. The Opposition can give the Government a long, long list on top of the few Press releases it has already put out to demonstrate the enormous degree of government waste there already is in this economy. Only a couple of days ago the Waste Watch Committee pointed to an enormous degree of profligacy in the payment of workers compensation to public servants. There have been examples of enormous profligacy in the community employment program. For example, a new swimming pool in the suburb of Elizabeth in Adelaide will cost something in the region of $4m, on top of the $2.4m already spent on upgrading a swimming pool in Footscray. Another example is the Department of Social Security spending some $7,000-a small sum perhaps-on installing a musak system in the Department, and this year it has budgeted for another $16,000, presumably to extend the musak system still further. Money was spent on the Builders Labourers Federation so that it could employ a muralist in residence. Money was spent on the United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia so that it could have a story teller in residence. Goodness knows, one would think that the Trades and Labor Council could tell enough stories without having to bring in a professional story teller. It has also been funded by the Commonwealth Government to put on 13 concerts. The waste of expenditure even in relation to the offices of members of parliament is something that, as a new member, has made my hair stand on end. Let me own up straight away about my office, which is a newly created one, because this is a new seat and I am a new member. The Government has installed an air-conditioning system at a cost of $12,000. Just the other day a new door was installed-there was certainly a need for a new door and facilities so that people in wheelchairs could get in, and hopefully out, of the office-at a cost of $5,000. Apparently the Department spent $858 just on putting my name and `member for Mayo' on the door of my office. It is quite staggering that departments should be spending money in that extravagant way rather than finding much cheaper ways of doing these things, in the way private people would do. There are very major problems with expenditure, and the Waste Watch Committee will continue to examine in great detail all examples of waste which are brought to its attention. Doubtless there will be many more in the next year or so, in the dying years of this Government. Clearly, the consequences of massive government expenditure will be very great in the longer term. In the couple of minutes left to me I want to refer to the failure on the Government's part to encourage a greater degree of competitiveness in our economy. I do not think honourable members need to be reminded any longer of the symptom of that failure to compete, that is, the enormous blowout in our balance of payments deficit, which has now exceeded the Budget predictions by something in the vicinity of 20 per cent. We cannot compete while we have the highest interest rates in the world; we cannot compete while we have an inflation rate which is around double that of our major trading partners; we cannot compete while we have an inflexible wage fixing system, which will bring with it a productivity deal in the next month or so, again adding to costs and the lack of competitiveness in our economy. It is a very serious problem and it has all been summed up very clearly by one of the most distinguished magazines produced in the financial world-the International Currency Review. Some time ago we heard the Government quoting ad nauseam this sort of magazine because one called Euromoney had apparently described the Treasurer as the best treasurer in the world. International Currency Review sums up the Government's strategy very well and it is a magazine which has at least the same standing as Euromoney. In its latest edition it states: The combination of extremely high interest rates and excessive foreign borrowing to finance huge current account shortfalls, is not a viable long-term policy . . . On the contrary, these are short-term support mechanisms, which merely aggravate the deficits. I think this is a very serious problem. It also talks in terms of Australia having to turn to the International Monetary Fund for support. It states: . . . the day when Australia calls in the Fund is rapidly approaching. I see that my time has nearly run out, but the last word must come from the International Currency Review and not from me. It states: . . . there are growing doubts about the competence, and even relevance, of the Hawke Government . . . I could not have put it better myself. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(11.51) —I want to address some remarks in the debate on the Appropriation Bills to the appropriation for the Department of Education, initially in the context of some of the issues raised in paper No. 15 of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. This EPAC paper, issued in February and entitled `Human Capital and Productivity Growth', identifies significant deficiencies in Australia's skill base, deficiencies that have contributed to our loss of competitiveness, to which the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) referred, and of course to the relatively slow improvement in our living standards. The paper goes on to suggest approaches to remedy these deficiencies. The extent of the skills gap can be illustrated in a variety of ways. For example, it is a matter of concern that the percentage of Australians aged between 16 and 24 participating in education in 1981 was only 36 per cent, well below the United States figure of 73 per cent, Japan at 54 per cent, Germany at 45 per cent, and it is even below the United Kingdom at 40 per cent. It is a matter of concern that the percentage of our labour force with first degrees-it is only 8 per cent-is well behind the United States figure of 19 per cent and behind Japan, where 13 per cent of its labour force has first degrees. It is equally a matter of concern that our figure of 300 higher education engineering qualifications per million of the population compares poorly with 780 for Japan, 560 for the United Kingdom and 370 for Germany. Also of concern is our relatively poor participation in the technology disciplines. In 1980 only 7 per cent of new university entrants and only 5.8 per cent of first degrees were taken up by technology disciplines. The paper points out that this skill gap produces a productivity gap which has led to a loss of competitiveness and hence to a relative fall in Australian living standards. At least some of the remedies are available through the education system. The school system can contribute via improvements in the quality and quantity of education. The quality of education has been addressed by this Government since it achieved office a little over three years ago. Two important reports have been published-the report of the Quality of Education Review Committee in 1985 and more recently the Commonwealth Schools Commission Quality and Equality report. I am glad to say that in the area of quality we have moved away from those silly debates about whether standards are declining to more productive areas, to doing some work on defining national objectives in education, to sharpening the focus of our existing programs, to building into programs procedures to test the extent to which they meet their set objectives, and through resource agreements to ensure that all partners in the funding of schools act in harmony to contribute towards the achievement of these set objectives. On the other hand, quantity improvements mean lifting retention rates. National action to improve retention beyond the compulsory years of schooling has in the last five years included the school to work transition program, its successor the participation and equity program of 1984, and certain elements of the Government's Priority One: Young Australia program, particularly the improved allowances for education which were introduced this year. The problem of low retention rates in Australia may be beginning to fix itself. In 1983, 35 per cent of school entrants completed full secondary education. Two years later, in 1985, that figure has risen to 45 per cent. All of this happened at a time when youth unemployment was dropping. It is tempting to give credit for this quite dramatic improvement to the participation and equity program. It is rather difficult, however, to give full credit to PEP because of the timing of the introduction of the program. Retention rates were already improving before PEP was introduced. Nevertheless, preliminary surveys which have been carried out and which compare PEP targeted schools with schools which had not been targeted under the program suggest that improvement has been greater in targeted schools. The conclusion, albeit tentative, that one must be attracted to is that PEP certainly has been working and at least has been a factor in lifting retention rates in Australian schools and in assisting increasing numbers of young Australians to make their way over the first hurdle, that of completing a full secondary education. That is a very important hurdle indeed, as the report entitled `Learning and Earning' pointed out. Once a full secondary education has been achieved, entry to higher education tends not to depend on a student's socio-economic background. The area of post-secondary education can also make a significant contribution. The Economic Planning Advisory Council paper has proposed a number of options. Among them was, first, the tight targeting of funds for the technical and further education sector to increase participation in vocational, trade and occupational courses and to achieve improvements in the quality of these courses; secondly, according some priority in Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reviews to technology and business courses and, in those reviews, taking into account the views of industry and the community as well as of the academic community; and, thirdly, taking action to increase participation in higher education. I particularly want to address the last option of increasing participation in higher education in relation to western Sydney, part of which region I represent. The western Sydney region is a very large region with a very young population. The population accounts for one-third of the total of Sydney's population or, looking at it another way, the region is home to one in 15 Australians. The secondary retention rate, which is low across the country, is chronically low in western Sydney. As the working party of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission reported in November 1983, retention rates in western Sydney schools can fall to 10 per cent or even lower. This region-I remind honourable members that it is home to one in 15 Australians-has no university places and systematically has been starved of higher education, that is, university and college of advanced education places. Whilst the rest of Sydney has 29.1 higher education places per thousand of population and the rest of New South Wales has 15.3, the western Sydney region has only 4.4 places. I remind the House that this is happening in the State with the lowest higher education participation rate of any mainland Australian State. A recent attempt to address this problem occurred in February in the form of the release of the report of the State Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney, the Parry report. The report recommended, among other things, the establishment of a new, autonomous, multi-campus university in western Sydney to be named the University of Western Sydney. It also recommended the incorporation of the two existing colleges of advanced education in the region into the new structure and the development of a new central campus. The response to the Parry proposal by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission was released on Monday. Since then it has attracted some media comment in the newspapers of yesterday and today. Whilst the Commission's response does not endorse the Parry approach, it is important to recognise that there is a very great deal of common ground in the two documents, in the original Parry report and the CTEC response. There are five important areas where I see a great deal of agreement. I think it is most important that these areas clearly be identified. First, both documents recognise the clear and pressing need for the greater provision of tertiary places in the region. CTEC quite rightly notes the Government's excellent record in increasing the provision in this regard. Secondly, both documents recognise the problem the area faces in terms of its poor record in secondary retention rates. Thirdly, both documents recognise the importance of cross-sectoral arrangements, particularly with the technical and further education sector. Fourthly, there is a fair degree of agreement in both documents on the courses which ought to be accorded high and low priority. There is fair agreement, for example, that priority ought to be given to courses with a vocational orientation, such as courses in business, engineering, the applied sciences and the technologies. Equally, there is agreement that it is unlikely that courses in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science would be given a high priority. There is a degree of agreement about the need for co-ordination. That points to the possibility, at the very least, of the combination of two colleges of advanced education in the region, the Nepean College of Advanced Education and the Hawkesbury Agricultural College. Overall, there is a good degree of agreement that there is a need for a university presence in some form or another in the region. If the discussion is going to be about the form of that presence-for example, whether it should take the form of an autonomous or an affiliated institution-I believe that the proposal for a university college has a number of clear advantages. If one accepts that the need of the region is for a high quality, high status teaching university and, given that the research component of universities funding accounts for about 20 per cent of costs, I believe that there is a good case for the establishment of a college affiliated with an established university which would still offer access to research facilities at a parent institution at low cost and the option of the development of regionally focused research over time. But I repeat: The main priority, that of the provision of a teaching university, may well be best addressed through an affiliated institution. The second advantage of adopting the CTEC proposal is that the provision of a college facility will leave the way open to include the south-west region, the region that was neglected in the Parry report and where the need is just as great. Thirdly, a college arrangement would allow a closer relationship with the parent institution. This would facilitate transfer arrangements in the courses I mentioned earlier which would be unlikely to be provided in the region. Courses such as medicine, dentistry, and veterinary science could, nevertheless, be provided by a parent institution through a transfer arrangement with the college. The fourth advantage of the college arrangement centres around the status of the institution and, therefore, the status of the degrees it would award. The college arrangement would avoid the danger of the second rate status that perhaps a new autonomous institution may invite. Finally, the college pattern of development historically has been successful in New South Wales. The college path was the path along which the University of New England developed. It began as a college of the University of Sydney. The universities of Wollongong and Newcastle developed in the same way. They both began as colleges of the University of New South Wales. So the path has been well developed. I believe that negotiations and discussions on this whole matter need to be continued. I agree that it will take time to reach a conclusion. I hope that it is a shorter rather than a longer time. I close simply by encouraging the parties to those discussions to continue to concentrate on the common ground that has emerged from those two reports and to produce a consensus that will benefit a region which has been disadvantaged, as the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) said in the Senate yesterday, for too long. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.06) —I congratulate the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) for his statements regarding a university for western Sydney. This is a bipartisan matter. There is no difference between the parties on this issue. The only trouble is that we have a Minister who does not agree and we have to persuade the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Federal bureaucracy. We must stick together on this matter. The real needs of the area have been demonstrated. They have been seen by the bureaucrats in New South Wales and we have a selling job to do in Canberra. Mr Uren —I do not think that it is the Minister. I think it is the bureaucracy. Mr CADMAN —I take the counsel of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services in this regard. He would have greater knowledge of that than I but I know that on previous occasions we have waited on the Minister. All members representing western Sydney have presented to her a strong case for a university there. There is no doubt that the facts outlined by the honourable member for Lindsay are irrefutable. There is a low retention rate. There is a massive population in the west. The young people there need the opportunity, with which they must be provided, to take up and improve their employment prospects, their personal skills and their capacity to provide an in depth intellectual level in the west. I know that that can be done. The parties are at one, but I must take some credit for my own Party because we were the first party to say at an official level that this would be our policy and objective. That was done over 12 months ago by the State division of the Liberal Party of Australia. The matter was decided at a State conference. I am delighted that the parties are successfully working together. It is a great disappointment to the people of western Sydney that the university will not be provided. The people of the west should join together, not to deal in politics or to try through their political parties to lobby particular individuals or groups but to persuade all parties and decision makers of the urgency of this situation. There is no problem in proceeding with a small allocation of funds for the planning and detailed assessment we need. I do not believe that anybody at this stage is talking about a massive allocation of funds to have the university commenced tomorrow or even next year. Planning must be done carefully with existing institutions-with the three colleges of advanced education in the area and the universities in New South Wales. Only this week a further higher education institution for Victoria was announced. By any objective judgment, Victoria is well blessed with tertiary institutions. Numerous reports indicate that there is a surplus of tertiary education opportunities in that State compared with New South Wales. It is a matter of concern and disappointment that Victoria has gained the benefit of opportunities for its school leavers which have been rejected for New South Wales and strong action must be taken by us all. I turn now to the economy and the way in which many government decisions impact upon people who are self-employed or in small business. I draw the attention of the House to some of the rulings and decisions on income tax ruling 2121 which seeks to lay down guidelines for the basis on which persons are said to be conducting their own business. What was thought by the Commissioner of Taxation to be an opportunity to gather in tax that had been avoided has now become a draconian measure which will limit opportunities for people to start their own business or be considered to be self-employed. This applies to so many areas of self-endeavour and self-improvement. It applies to consultants seeking to give advice on computer programs, draftsmen, the building industry, bricklayers, truckies and owner drivers in the trucking industry. The ruling was upheld recently by all but one judge of the High Court of Australia. Whilst I will not reflect on the judges who agreed with the ruling I will reflect on the judge who wrote a dissenting report by saying that I believe that Mr Justice Deane upheld the principles for which he stood when this matter came before the High Court earlier and has been completely consistent in his approach to this matter. I pay tribute to the clarity of his thought and his intention to have a reasonable framework of tax law for those who are self-employed. This ruling is but one factor that has affected the self-employed. A superannuation arrangement is in train which is supposed to be part of a productivity deal between the unions and the Government. This superannuation arrangement will rope in all self-employed persons. They will be considered to be employees. They will be caught by the superannuation arrangements which are being negotiated and some of which are in place. A further cost will be imposed on the self-employed. There will be a further dilution of their freedom and capacity to act as individuals. Once more we will see the breaking down by big unions, big business and big government of the opportunities and freedoms that Australians must have to endeavour, to try, to wish to achieve, to move by their own skills and creativities into areas in which they can gain rewards for their efforts. Those two factors are of concern-the superannuation deal and the tax ruling. Affirmative action proposals passed through this House last week. I do not go to the core of affirmative action but to the fact that within that legislation is the proposal that all self-employed individuals will be considered to be employees for affirmative action purposes. So the net is spread further. It is a consistent approach by the Government to put down small business and opportunities for people who have made a major contribution to the growth of our economy. That is from where the recovery will come. That is where the expertise lies. That is where the skills are and where the knowledge is. That is from where the real drive to carry this nation forward will come. In three recent decisions those people who have the capacity to do these things have been told by the Government that they are not wanted. They are set aside and rolled into an amorphous mass of people whom the Government calls employees. One has only to assess the tax package brought down last year to further understand the way in which the Government has no regard for the people who are the main productivity feature of our nation. We have seen the proposed fringe benefits tax and, fleetingly, the quarantining of farm incomes raised and then dispensed with. Some of my colleagues have said that that is a good decision for farmers. I do not think that it is a good decision to cause people to speculate and be concerned about their future and income and then to remove that concern and say that something has been done for them. There is no way that a proposal of a government which is a new impost that is then withdrawn can be presented as a benefit to people. In fact, by moving away from the quarantining of farm income the Government is relieving the worry and concern for farmers-many of them forced out of their places of business, off their farms, to work for councils, to work in country towns, in order to cover their living costs. What will happen to the rest of the tax package? I take the House back to the magnificent Tax Summit, where the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was somewhat lost because one night the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went down to one of the local Canberra hotels where the leaders of the Australian Council of Trade Unions were staying and did a deal with them that left his Treasurer stranded. Having done that back room deal with the ACTU to move away from the quite sensible proposal of the Treasurer, the Prime Minister was then stuck with a tax package which has been criticised by everybody with a concern for the future productivity and growth of Australia. There is still some of that tax package left-capital gains taxes, fringe benefits taxes and others. I do not know how much of it this country will eventually see. I do not believe that the Government has the will or the understanding necessary to get this country moving. Anybody can float along on high times such as we had when the Government came to office. Previous decisions and the breaking of the drought saw to that. However, does the Government have the will or the knowledge to allow this country to grow and develop as it should? I do not believe it has. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(12.17) —In less than two years the Parliament will move from this building to the new Parliament House. Very little thought would seem to have been given by honourable members to the effect this move will have on this institution, and I think it is important while discussing the appropriations for the parliamentary departments that we give some thought to it. Others have. Terry Fewtrell, the director of external relations for the Parliament House Construction Authority, had this to say in the Australian Journal of Public Administration: The physical design and location of the existing Parliament House has influenced the evolution of Australia's parliamentary system. The new Parliament House will exert a new set of influences. The Executive will assume an entrenched position within its own enclave and Ministers will be physically more remote from backbenchers. The physical arrangements of the Executive entrance and the Prime Minister's suite will encourage a presidential-style status in the office. But the architecture also emphasises the public's access to Parliament in the spirit of Burley Griffin's original conception. There is likely to be a strong ``congressional'' impetus arising from the prominence given to committee room space and backbencher facilities. Tensions between the executive and Parliament will be exacerbated. Changes to procedures and to parliamentary administration are also likely to flow from the new layout and facilities. The new building will provide an impetus for widespread parliamentary reform. He said in that same article, in conclusion: In 1979 former Speaker Snedden identified a `large backlog of issues . . . at the heart of the parliamentary institution . . . for which reform is now overdue'. His list included, `the role of committees, research and administrative support for members, the organisation and functions of the parliamentary departments, a parliamentary budget. . . .' and many more. There has been small evidence of significant development on such issues. The boundaries of a new building are likely to offer the best opportunity yet for real reform. So the question we as members of the Parliament ought to address ourselves to is this: Is Fewtrell correct? I believe he is. The thrust of Fewtrell's argument raises the question about whether this Parliament is a Westminster style Parliament at all. It once may have been, but not now. This Parliament is now uniquely Australian. The Westminster myth exists only in the minds of some. However, I believe that this myth has stifled reform of this House by championing the supremacy of the chamber. One of the major roles of parliament is to scrutinise the Executive. The chamber has failed as a vehicle of scrutiny. Question Time is no longer a method of reasoned inquiry and reasoned response; it is more a killing ground. I believe that committees are a more appropriate mechanism for scrutiny, and that was recognised even by those great parliamentary reformers, the Parliament House Construction Authority. Mr Fewtrell went on to say in his article: In the new building the committee function of the Parliament is clearly established, with eighteen lesser committee rooms arranged around a major space which assumes almost the size and significance of a Chamber. In building terms committee areas, including secretariats, represent approximately twelve per cent of the parliamentary and working space, providing an identifiable zone of the building for what has become a significant aspect of parliamentary practice. So it would seem that we as members of parliament have not paid much attention to parliamentary reform, and parliamentary reform is being accomplished by the builders, by the architects, and by the Parliament House Construction Authority. As Fewtrell has said in his article-I think all of us would agree-we are moving to a system where parliamentary committees need to be taken more account of than they are at present. I believe, however, that the present committee system of this House may not be able to meet that challenge. It is a rather ad hoc system; it is a system which has entrenched some committees, leftovers of select and standing committees that may have needed to be put to death some time ago. It is a committee system that includes a number of joint statutory committees, established with the Senate. The Senate recognised quite some time ago that a strong committee system was the direction in which it should move, and this House has found itself lacking. However, I do believe that the committee office in this House is the largest and most dynamic unit of the Department of the House of Representatives, and I think a few tables from the Department's annual reports for 1984-85 and 1983-84 would justify that statement. I seek leave to incorporate tables Nos. 4 and 5 out of the 1983-84 report and table No. 1 out of the 1984-85 report. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 4 NUMBER OF MEETINGS OF HOUSE AND JOINT INVESTIGATORY COMMITTEES1 (1981-82 TO 1983-84) 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Private meetings2... 271 184 385 Public hearings2... 124 68 168 Total... 395 252 553 Notes: 1. The 4 House committees [Aboriginal Affairs, Environment and Conservation, Expenditure and Road Safety] and the 7 joint committees [ACT, Electoral Reform (1982-83, 1983-84), Foreign Affairs & Defence, New Parliament House, Parliamentary Broadcasting, Public Accounts and Public Works] 2. Includes inspections Table 5 REPORTS FROM HOUSE AND JOINT INVESTIGATORY COMMITTEES (1979-80 to 1983-84) 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Reports presented2... 29 41 37 31 68 Notes: 1. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Works Committee were not serviced by the Department during the entire period. 2. Includes reports such as the Public Accounts Committee Finance Minute reports which are a method of informing the parliament of Government responses to other Public Accounts Committee reports. Table 1 COMPOSITION OF STAFF (AT 30 JUNE 1985) (a) Dept Head Clerks-at the-Table Research1 Procedures1 Admin Keyboard/ Clerical Support Total Speaker's Office... . . . . 2 4 6 Clerk's Office... 1 . . . . 2 3 Chamber Officers... . . 6 (b).... . 2 7 (b) Table Office... . . . . 4 1 5 Bills and Papers Office... . . 1 (c)...5 4 9 Committee Office... . . . . 37 21 58 Procedure Office... . . 1 (c)...4 1 5 Serjeant's Office... . . . . 3 47 50 Resource Management Office... . . 1 (c)...12 27 39 Parliamentary Relations Office... . . . . 4 1 5 Information Systems Office... . . . . 4 . . 4 Total... 1 5 (b)...75 110 191 Notes: (a) Includes full-time advisers, but does not include part-time advisers or secondee. (b) Clerk of the House counted as departmental head in totals. (c) Bracketed figures denote supervisory functions of Clerks-Assistant. Source: Compiled from Departmental records. Mr LEO McLEAY —I thank the House. I think change is needed at both a political and a bureaucratic level. In 1976 the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System in its report to this Parliament had a number of things to say about the committee system both of this House and of the Senate. When one looks at the people who were the members of that Committee one sees that, indeed, they were people who should have known something about the system. The Chairman of the Committee when the report was tabled was Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack, who went on to become the President of the Senate. The Deputy Chairman of the Committee when the report was tabled was Dr Jenkins, who went on to become the Speaker of this House. A former member of the Committee in the Twenty-ninth Parliament, the present Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), also went on to become a Speaker of this House. Another former member was the Hon. J. M. Berinson, who was the Chairman of Committees in this House. This was a group of people which, one would have thought, would have taken a great deal of time to consider what should happen to the parliamentary committee system. One would have thought that those people, when they applied their minds, would have realised that there were some shortcomings in the system. In fact, paragraph 139 of the Committee's report said: The House of Representatives has not fulfilled its role of financial scrutiny. In commending the report to the House in paragraph 422, the Committee said: It is commended to the Parliament-- that is, the report- with the warnings that reform is necessary and that inadequate consideration of the issues by the Parliament will leave a legacy of inefficiency and further erosion of the body which should be supreme above the Executive. The Committee was saying that in 1976. I do not think the Parliament actually got around to discussing the report, so it seems that a number of people laboured for a number of years on a report which should have been of some significance but was never discussed. I must say that if one were interested in parliamentary reform in Australia at present one would probably be better off becoming an architect or a builder because, as Mr Fewtrell has pointed out, one would then have more effect on the system than some- one who stands up here and makes speeches. For those honourable members and the Whip who consider that I might be about to change my occupation, I can say: Not quite yet. That report also went on to say some things about what should happen to the people who staff the Parliament's committee system. In recommendation 24, at paragraph 328, the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System said: The Presiding Officers should ensure that proper career structures are available within the committee secretariats of the Senate and House of Representatives Departments. These secretariats should be organised in such a way as to maximise the retention of trained experienced officers by integrating them into the general staffing structures of the parliamentary departments. That has not happened and the Committee's recommendations on how the committee system should develop have not been implemented. Why has there been no change since 1976? I believe it is because these changes would challenge the myth of the chamber; so the Committee office is banished to East Block out of sight and out of mind and no promotional structure has been developed for those who do not serve the chamber. It is time that honourable members considered the administrative orientation of the House of Representatives. Even the Senate has a Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, and who are we to criticise departments and authorities through our committee system when we do not even scrutinise ourselves as a bureaucratic entity? At a political level honourable members have to take an interest in the structure and administration of the House. Some months ago an officer of the House of Commons was in Australia, and I had a long discussion with him about the administrative arrangements in parliamentary departments. At the time he offered some comments, but he commented to some other people later that he thought an honourable member who interested himself in the administration of the Parliament was a dangerous person indeed. All I can say is that we need many more `dangerous' members and we should all hurry up and do something about the matter, or we will find that the agenda for parliamentary reform will be set not by us but by the builders on the hill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.27) —I wish to speak in this debate with reference to the Department of Transport and Australian design standards. Australian Design Rules are intended to ensure that the safety of the drivers of motor vehicles and their passengers is not compromised by the use of unsuitable designs or materials. It has been the case in recent years that many of the Australian Design Rules, known as ADRs, have had to be updated as a result of changing safety expectations, new materials, technologies, et cetera. It has been brought to my notice, as shadow Minister for Transport, that there exists at present a situation which Australian Design Rules were supposed to prevent and which has been allowed to continue for several years, with no corrective action being taken by either State or Federal governments. It has been alleged that a previously large manufacturer of motor vehicles in Australia used materials and designs in the construction of one of its models which has since been conclusively proven, on several occasions and by different independent bodies and individuals, not to meet the Australian Design Rules at the time of manufacture or those of the present day. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the company which has since taken over that manufacturer now refuses voluntarily to recall those affected vehicles and claims, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that there is in fact no safety related defect in the vehicle brought into question. To understand the implications of this, I must explain how this situation has been allowed to develop through the laxity of the present New South Wales and Federal governments in not pursuing a resolution to the problem, and how this now poses a significant threat to Australia's previously sound voluntary recall arrangements. On 20 March 1978, Sydney engineer Graham Payne and his wife were involved in an accident in their 1976 Valiant Regal sedan. The front seat tracks of their Chrysler Valiant failed, resulting in the seats pinning them in the car. In the event of a fire, which was quite possible as a fuel line had been ruptured in the crash, and as Mr Payne was unable to turn off the car's ignition, the accident could have been far more serious. Mr Payne commenced legal proceedings against Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd in 1978, as he believed that the seats did not meet ADRs 3 and 3a. Mr Payne witnessed tests of Valiant seat assemblies carried out at the University of New South Wales in 1981, which verified that they did not comply with ADRs 3 and 3a. Mitsubishi disagreed with the layout of the tests and they were aborted, although Mitsubishi would not outline its disagreement with the tests. In June 1982, after these problems were resolved, the Office of Road Safety of the Commonwealth Department of Transport reported on tests of Chrysler Valiant seat assemblies it had witnessed on 3 May 1982, at the University of New South Wales. The Office of Road Safety found that the test which was in accordance with the requirements for ADR3 caused the seat assemblies to fail well below the requirements of ADR3. In November 1983, Mr Payne obtained reports of tests carried out by the Traffic Accident Research Unit in New South Wales which fully supported the findings of the earlier research. These tests found that the seat slides in the Valiant cars tested failed at significantly less than the levels specified in the relative ADRs and that their design was `not consistent with good engineering practice'. In November 1983 Mr Payne wrote to the then Minister for Transport in New South Wales, Mr Peter Cox, advising him of the results of the tests and asking that appropriate action be taken. Mr Cox refused to take any action and eventually replied to Mr Payne by stating that the matter should be handled by the Federal Government. In April 1984, Mr Payne requested under the Freedom of Information Act all the documentation that had a bearing on his case. He was advised verbally in July 1984 that Mitsubishi had lodged an objection to his request through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and consequently the information he requested was unavailable at least until the AAT had made a decision on Mitsubishi's objection. The AAT concluded its deliberations at the end of 1985, whereupon Mitsubishi objected again to the release of information, thus further stalling any release. In August 1984, Mr Payne wrote to the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) advising him of the situation and requesting his support and action. In December 1984 Mr Payne again wrote to Mr Morris expressing concern at the undue delay in obtaining recall action, as did the Australian Automobile Association. On 17 December 1984, the Australian Transport Advisory Council-ATAC-also expressed concern at the lack of progress on the Valiant seat adjuster issue. On 31 January 1985 the Federal Department of Transport commissioned Professor Peter Joubert to investigate the possibility of a safety-related defect existing in the seat adjusters of Chrysler Valiant vehicles. On 21 August 1985 Professor Joubert reported to the Minister that he found that all seats tested, in both dynamic and static modes, showed significant failures. For the bench and heavier bucket seats Professor Joubert described some failures as `catastrophic'. On 19 September 1985, Mr Peter Morris, the Federal Minister, requested Mitsubishi to undertake a recall of affected vehicles to rectify the seat adjusters. It is worth noting that the Minister does not have the power to enforce a recall. Recalls of defective automobiles or parts is on a voluntary basis and, although this system has worked quite well in the past, which is a tribute to the responsibility of the Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry, there now appears to be grave doubt as to its effectiveness in the future. After the initial request, I understand that Mitsubishi said that it would look into the allegations. When it finally did respond to the Minister it was to inform him that, in the company's opinion, no safety related defect existed and that it would not be recalling the affected vehicles. In December 1984, the Australian Automobile Association telexed Federal and State Ministers for Transport, advising them that the organisation was concerned at Mitsubishi's failure to initiate a recall. It requested that the matter be given a maximum of publicity so that owners of the affected vehicles would at least be aware of the dangers involved. To this date, Mitsubishi has refused to recall the concerned vehicles. Not only are owners of the affected vehicles at risk, but the entire system of a manufacturer's responsibility for his or her goods is being questioned. Even though in this case the problem was inherited as part of Mitsubishi's takeover of Chrysler some years ago, the problem of the currently unenforceable code of recall is highlighted and is unacceptable. It is bad enough when manufacturers are able to opt out of a safety regulatory scheme whenever they see fit so to do. It becomes a mockery when government, Federal or State, is unable to do anything to protect those people whom it purports to represent other than to attempt to cajole a large manufacturer into recalling and fixing defective goods which could involve an estimated 200,000 vehicles and cost, at a very conservative estimate, some $20m. An obvious danger is that if Mitsubishi is allowed to dictate to the Government that a recall is unnecessary and thereby ignore evidence to the contrary presented by the Department of Transport's own Federal Office of Road Safety, the precedent is established and the possibility of the entire voluntary recall system collapsing becomes a very real one. To this date Professor Joubert's report has not been tabled in Parliament by the Minister, nor has the Minister achieved a recall of the affected vehicles. Mitsubishi has ignored him. He has made no effort to inform the public of the risks involved with the failure of the seat slides and he has made no attempt to warn the owners of the affected vehicles. One can speculate on his legal as well as moral responsibility to those thousands of Australians who will drive or travel in this type of Valiant car. All this adds up to his abrogation of his responsibility to the Australian people. I call on the Minister to inform the Australian public of the situation and to shame Mitsubishi into recalling the vehicles by public exposure. I also call on the Government to uphold its responsibilities to the Australian people and to review arrangements concerning Australian Design Rules so as to ensure that they are realistically enforceable and capable of protecting the Australian public. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Jull, D. F. Milton, P. Cowan, D. B. Keating, P. J. Nehl, G. B. Darling, E. E. Shack, P. D. Bowen, L. F. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Uren) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —As honourable members will be aware, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be absent from Australia until the 28th of this month. He will be visiting the United States and Europe for discussions primarily to deal with agriculture and international trade. During his absence, I will be acting as Prime Minister. Mr CARLTON —My question is to the Acting Treasurer. I refer the Minister to page 58 of the economic and rural policy released yesterday where the statement is made that quarantining measures were announced in September last year to address tax sheltering activity in the primary production and rental property areas. The justification given in that document for the removal of the farm quarantining measure was the current depressed state of primary production. In view of the current depressed state of the housing industry, and particularly rental housing, will the Government now abandon the ill-conceived negative gearing proposal for rental properties? Mr HURFORD —No, the Government will not be abandoning the negative gearing policy- Mr Howard —Double standards. Mr HURFORD —Once again the Leader of the Opposition starts off Question Time by interjecting. On this occasion he is breaking Standing Orders by interjecting `Double standards'. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House that no double standards whatsoever are involved. I will now outline the reasons why there are differences between quarantining and negative gearing. When seeking to put the quarantining legislation into effect, we found that a major factor in the decision to remove farm losses quarantining was that, inevitably, the measure would have had some retrospective effect on some existing primary production investments. Because of the diverse nature of farm investments it was not possible to devise a workable measure which could operate on a totally prospective basis. But this is very different when it comes to negative gearing in relation to the housing industry. Primary producers incurring losses in 1986, 1987, and later years would be potentially affected by the measure regardless of when the associated investments were commenced. On the other hand, the negative gearing measure will operate on a totally prospective basis and will generally not affect pre-17 July rental property investment. That is only the first of the points. Let me come to the second. It has become clear to us that the farm loss quarantining measure would have had unintended effects on some genuine primary production activities. This is due to the current depressed state of the industry and also to the necessarily somewhat arbitrary rules for determining how much non-farm income could be applied to the farm losses of particular taxpayers. The rental property measure, on the other hand, relates only to excess interest associated with a taxpayer's rental property investments and does not depend on the levels of the taxpayer's rental and non-rental income. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HURFORD —I have a third and fourth point to make here but it would seem that the Opposition is not interested in these very different measures, the negative gearing measure and the quarantining measure. They are seeking to make a rabble of this Question Time, as they have done so often, and if they are not interested in these other points I will merely sit down and be in touch with the Minister later. Mr HAND —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. Can the Minister tell the House whether any of the United States military installations or United States communications stations in Australia were used to assist in planning the United States attack on Libya? Were any of these establishments used to monitor the United States attacks on Libya by its air or naval forces? Were they used to assist the United States Government to communicate with these forces during the attacks on Libya? If so, does this make these installations in Australia targets for any retaliatory action by Libya or its allies? Furthermore, will the Australian Government give an undertaking to request a guarantee from the United States Government that these installations on Australian soil cease any involvement in the current conflict? Mr BEAZLEY —I remind honourable members that there are no United States military installations in Australia. There are only United States-Australia joint facilities. The difference is very important, as I am sure the honourable member for Melbourne will understand. He will recall that the Australian Labor Party's platform does not permit foreign military bases on Australian soil in peacetime. The Government has a long-standing policy, articulated by the Prime Minister in his statement on 6 June 1984, of not responding to inquiries or speculations about the operations of the joint facilities. For this reason I am sure that the honourable member will understand that I will not comment on some of the specific points raised in his question. However, I point out with respect to North West Cape that the naval communications station there is primarily concerned with VLF communications to submarines in the Indian and Pacific oceans. United States action in the Mediterranean has involved forces based on United States aircraft carriers and in Europe for which quite different communications are available. In regard to the security of the joint facilities in Australia from retaliatory action from Libya and its allies, I can say that I have specifically requested my Department to review the security of the joint facilities. They have done that and they find that security satisfactory. However, it is a matter I have asked them to keep under constant review and to reassess in the light of any upgraded assessment of threat. They have advised that at this stage no further security measures are required beyond those already in place. I do not believe that there is a need to seek any guarantees from the United States Government about the operation of the joint facilities, as they can operate only with the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. I think it is very important to reflect upon that when we assess the way in which the joint facilities may or may not be being used at any point of time. We do not rely just on the United States Government informing us about how it is using those joint facilities. It is not that we have any reasons in our experience with the United States-which is now a very substantial period-to believe that it would mislead us in that way. I have seen no evidence that the United States ever intends to mislead us in that area, but were that the case there is a substantial number of Australian officials who are intimately connected with the operations and functions of those joint facilities who would be quite capable of alerting the Australian Government to any changes in their activities. Finally on that particular point, any utilisation of the joint facilities requires not just the concurrence of some Australian officials associated with the site but also the concurrence of the Ministers who are involved in their management. I cannot go beyond that in offering the honourable gentleman any assurances. As the honourable member will recollect, on the several occasions when these sorts of matters have been raised in the House we have provided very substantial argument as to why we do not confirm or deny that the joint facilities are being used for any particular purpose. Occasionally it has been the case for a fairly jaded and cynical public, understandably so in many areas, to assume that when we neither confirm nor deny something what we are saying is yes. In relation to the joint facilities, the simple fact of the matter is that there is no justification, in the way any government has handled this, for people to make that sort of assumption. We have only ever stated flatly and clearly one thing about the collection capabilities of the joint facilities and nothing else has ever been said about them. That one thing is that the joint facilities are not used in any way to collect inside this country. That is the only area in which we have gone down the road of confirming or denying. There are very good reasons, which have been outlined before, for our not going any further down that road. I can assure the honourable gentleman that the Australian Ministers concerned take their responsibilities very seriously in this area. Mr PETER FISHER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer the Minister to his two recent statements on capital gains taxation. On 24 October 1984, while addressing a rural meeting at Horsham, he said that capital gains taxes were destroyers of family and small business enterprises. Yesterday in his rural policy speech he said: Capital gains tax is necessary for the proper taxation of all forms of income. I ask the Minister, as we watch generations of rural assets being destroyed by interest rates, the assets test, costs and taxation: Which of his two statements do we believe? Mr KERIN —The short answer is that the honourable member can believe both. What I have been at pains to point out since I have been involved in politics and rural politics is that the effect of probate on the farm sector was particularly insidious. What happened with probate was that farms were broken up and, with various capital gains tax proposals being bruited about in the community, there was a potential for the same probate effect; that is, when capital gains tax fell on farms and farm properties, the farms had to be split up to pay the tax. That is a long term insidious thing whereas probate is instant at the death of the owner. What was achieved in the tax package that the Treasurer finally brought in was virtually a complete exemption for the farm sector without creating a tax shelter. Some of the people used to say that one could give the farm sector a complete exemption from capital gains tax and still have one. That would have created the greatest tax shelter of all time. What the Treasurer put in place with the tax package was effective exemption for intergenerational transfer. The capital gains tax is one of extreme prospectivity. It applies only to real capital gains, and then it is to be averaged. Of course, what was said was that the entire stock of farm land from September 1985 was exempt except and until transfer and then, if it remained within the family, there would be no incidence of the tax. Mr Hawker —What about partnerships? Mr KERIN —I did not hear the interjection. The second part of the honourable gentleman's question refers to the general. That was in my statement yesterday. The Australian Labor Party believes that all the rest of us, all the wage plugs, all the honest people, the honest taxpayers, should not pay for those people who can avoid tax forever and a day by transferring income into capital gain. We are not in favour of tax evasion and tax avoidance. The Liberal Party of Australia was in favour of it, particularly when John Howard was Treasurer. Mr PUNCH —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware of reports that nazi war criminals may have been amongst the post-war immigration intake of Australia? Is the Minister aware of the very grave concern that this is causing amongst the Australian Jewish community? What is the Government's response on this matter? Mr HURFORD —I am aware of the reports and I am also in receipt of representations from the Jewish community, in particular from Mr Leslie Caplan who visited me in Adelaide. He is the President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Arising from the reports and from that representation, I have examined the policies of successive governments and I will continue to monitor very carefully the work done in Canada to investigate these grave concerns, not only of the Jewish community but also of all people who find abhorrent so many of the actions of those who are now being investigated. Some people doubt the importance of this work but in my view it is of benefit to us all to remind each successive generation of how appalling can be man's inhumanity to man. Investigations in this country will be carried out sensitively so as not to hurt innocent people. In this regard I am told that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program last Sunday, the first of a series, did mention one particular name. I do not know whether that was justified. All that I am told is that that person has been investigated on a number of occasions by previous governments and it was found that no further action should be taken. Let me tell the House of the facts as I know them at present. From briefings I have received so far, there is no need for us to be defensive about decisions taken by any previous government in regard to policy on allowing or restricting the entry of ex-nazis to this country. Immediately following World War II membership of the Nazi Party was sufficient grounds for rejection from entry to Australia. I have read, as I have no doubt many honourable members in this House have read, of the claim made that Mr Ernest Bevin in 1948 wrote to a number of Commonwealth countries suggesting that nazi membership should no longer be a bar to entry to those countries. I have no evidence at all that that letter was received, leave alone any evidence that the policy of this country was changed at that time. However, in 1955 the policy changed and membership of the Nazi Party was no longer a reason in itself for rejection. However, membership of other organisations that were under the umbrella of the Nazi Party, such as the SS and the Gestapo, and certain concentration camp staff, as well as those who were convicted of war crimes, remained and still remains a reason for rejection. The 1955 change was made public by the Government at that time. Mr Sinclair —Make a statement. It should be a statement; it should not be an answer to a question. You know that. Mr HURFORD —I will not detain the House much longer, but, if the Manager of Opposition Business in this House is aware of the claims made by many over time in this House, he will know that it is proper for me to take this opportunity to answer on this issue. In conclusion, it would not be prudent for me to give an unequivocal guarantee that no nazi war criminal came to Australia. The possibility of nazi criminals acquiring false papers is ever there and identities cannot be ruled out as being in Australia. If it came to the notice of the Government that a former nazi with a serious criminal record was in Australia, my Department would co-operate fully with a number of other departments of government to investigate the claims made. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is to the Minister for Trade. I ask whether the Minister will now answer the question I asked yesterday, which is: Did Emanuel Klein accompany him to the meeting in Rome on 22 October 1985? Does the Minister, as reported in the Age of 20 March, support Mr Klein's taking up the Milan post? If he will not confirm that Mr Emanuel Klein is one of the final two people under consideration, will he confirm that he is not? Mr DAWKINS —In the first instance, the subject matter of this question is in part related to a question that the honourable member asked of my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. As far as that matter is concerned, the answer to that question has now been provided and I am happy to table the response to it. As far as the other questions are concerned, let me just say, as I said in my full answers yesterday, that matters of appointment to any position within the Australian Trade Commission are not matters for me. The legislation provides for the statutory independence of the Australian Trade Commission. As my answers yesterday revealed, the Commission has gone through a very elaborate and open system of seeking applications for the position. Mr Braithwaite —Is he not an applicant then? Mr DAWKINS —I do not know who the applicants were. Mr Howard —Did you have a look at the advertisement? Did you see the advertisement? Mr DAWKINS —I repeat: I do not know who the applicants were. I saw the advertisement in the newspaper. I, in discussion with the officers, determined a means by which the position should be advertised. The then interim Commission decided to advertise it and to conduct the interviews in the way it saw fit. I do not know who the applicants are. The extent of my knowledge is revealed in the answers that I provided to the honourable member yesterday. They indicate precisely the stage that has been reached in relation to the applications and I do not think there is anything further to add to my answer. Ms JAKOBSEN —Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the distribution in Western Australia of pub mart and other alcohol advertising together with the Government's drug awareness campaign literature? Has the Minister taken any action on this matter and will he advise the House of the effect which this reprehensible practice may have had on the impact of the campaign in Western Australia or elsewhere? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of some allegations-so far they are largely anecdotal-both in Perth and in Sydney, that some promotional material for liquor retailers appeared in some Perth metropolitan area mail boxes and possibly in some boxes in Sydney at the same time as the national campaign against drug abuse Drug Offensive booklet last Sunday. As I made clear in a statement to the Perth Press, I have asked for a full report from the director of the national campaign against drug abuse, from the campaign's advertising agency and from the delivery firm that was contracted to distribute the booklets. The campaign director advises that arrangements are in place for the reporting of any misdeliveries or shortcomings in delivery. Names and addresses are being sought to follow up and check these reports as without such information it is not possible to pursue inquiries. The campaign team in turn is forwarding any reports of faults in delivery to Salmat Direct Marketing-that is the firm contracted to deliver the booklets over last weekend-and is requiring full reports from Salmat on any case brought to notice. I am advised that the contract for household delivery of the Drug Offensive booklets was made between the campaign advertising agency and Salmat Direct Marketing. Salmat was chosen because of the very competitive rates it offered, because of its sound record in direct household delivery and because of its capacity to deliver within the period 10 to 13 April-that is, largely over a weekend-so it could be associated with the rest of the material. Weekend delivery was deemed necessary to tie in with the commencement of related media advertising. I am also advised that the contract between Salmat and the advertising agency was on the basis of Solus delivery, that is, any Salmat walker would put the booklet in a letterbox on its own. Of course if it is confirmed that any deliveries were not consistent with those contractual arrangements redress will be sought under the contract. However, it would have been impossible to guard against what might have been going into boxes separately at different times over the four days of the delivery of the Drug Offensive booklet. I reiterate that it was a massive undertaking to secure delivery of the 24-page colour booklet over such a short period to 5.4 million households. I am confident from all reports that the great majority of booklets safely reached their destinations. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is again addressed to the Minister for Trade and it is not related to any question on the Notice Paper; nor was my first question. Did the Minister designate Mr Gerry Watkins to take Mr Walton's post in Milan at the end of Mr Walton's scheduled term? As late as 29 November 1985, was the Minister's Department still recommending that Gerry Watkins be appointed the Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan? Did the Minister subsequently shunt Mr Watkins off to be Senior Trade Commissioner in Los Angeles? Was this not merely an effort to secure the more senior Trade Commissioner's job in Italy for Emanuel Klein? Mr DAWKINS —The precise arrangements which relate to Mr Watkins were addressed in the answer which I tabled yesterday and I do not intend to go into its detail except to say that there was only one reason for rearranging the Trade Commission's services within Italy. It had nothing to do with any prospective applicants for any of the jobs. There was only one reason and that was the trade agreement that had been signed by my predecessor, the Acting Prime Minister-he was then, as now, also the Deputy Prime Minister-in order to secure a better contact, because Italy is the country in Europe where we do least well as far as manufactured exports are concerned. It was considered by him-I concur with my predecessor-that we ought to be able to do a great deal better in Italy as far as manufactured sales are concerned. As a result of that trade agreement things have moved very fast, with my discussions in Rome late last year and a meeting of the joint working group which, from our point of view, was headed by Sir Peter Abeles and a large number of other Australian businessmen and women-including the spouse of the honourable member for North Sydney, I might say. The reports that came to me of the meeting of the joint working group were that there were good opportunities and what we had to do was ensure that the work of the joint working group was put into effect with great dispatch and great enthusiasm by our representatives in Rome. I will always put the trade interests of Australia ahead of the personal interests of any particular individuals. When it was reported to me, as I indicated yesterday, that officers of my Department did not believe that Mr Walton had the capacity or the enthusiasm to carry through with these initiatives, we took the action we did. We advertised to ensure that the Australian Trade Commission in its own way, without any interference from me, could appoint the best person to secure Australia's interests in Italy. Mr WRIGHT —Is the Minister for Science aware of claims being made by a growing number of motorists, including some Commonwealth car drivers, who drive new vehicles using unleaded petrol, that they have experienced health problems apparently caused by engine fumes? In view of the seriousness of the claims, will he take up this issue with other relevant Ministers to have the claims investigated and necessary mechanical and technical changes considered, especially since some of those affected contend that the problems arise from fumes entering the cabin of the car through the airconditioning system? Mr BARRY JONES —This question from the honourable member for Capricornia is not within my direct responsibility and it is one that has not come to me in a formal way. Nevertheless, a number of members have probably had informal complaints raised on it. It seems to me that the departments that probably have a degree of involvement are the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, which has a distinct role, the Department of Resources and Energy because it is responsible for fuel, the Department of Health and the Department of Territories. I think the best thing I can do is to consult my colleagues to see whether we can get some kind of comprehensive answer about the extent of the problem and advise the House accordingly. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Health to the documents I tabled last week in which the Health Insurance Commission investigators are reported as claiming that ex-employees with highly confidential knowledge of computer monitoring systems in the HIC who are now in the employ of entrepreneurial doctors could be passing on such confidential information to their new employers. Under paragraphs 3.39 to 3.52 of the Public Service `Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants' are such ex-employees required to obtain ministerial permission to undertake such post-separation employment? If not, why not? If a request was made, why was it granted? Mr Jacobi —Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to Question No. 3401 on the Notice Paper. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest that the question without notice is distinct from the question the honourable member has on the Notice Paper. Dr BLEWETT —In response to the question, let me say first that one of the explanations advanced for possible information being supplied to entrepreneurial doctors was that some ex-employees of the HIC might be working for such doctors. If those persons work in areas which are bound by the secrecy provisions of the Act, they are required to observe them, not only in their own employment but also when they leave. In the one case of an employee who left to work for an entrepreneurial doctor and who came from an area of sensitivity in the HIC, she was immediately removed from that area for the remaining period of her employment by the HIC before she departed from the HIC. However, I will follow up the point that has been raised by the honourable member and give him an answer. Ms MAYER —Has the Minister for Science seen the articles in the Australian and the Hobart Mercury which claim that the Antarctic minerals regime meeting in Hobart is secretive, with parties `rushing to develop a quick and dirty minerals regime'? Is this an accurate description of the meeting? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for her question. I opened the Antarctic Minerals Regime meeting in Hobart on Monday at which representatives of 32 nations were present. It has to be recognised that among those 32 nations, 16 of which actually have bases in Antarctica now, there is no common view about minerals exploitation. If one looked at the whole range of opinion, one would find that at one extremity perhaps France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were the nations that indicated the greatest interest in potential exploitation, that the United States has taken quite an ambiguous position somewhere in the middle, and that, I suppose it would be fair to say, Australia and New Zealand are the least enthusiastic about minerals exploitation, both on philosophical and practical grounds. Mr Hunt —Why? Mr BARRY JONES —Simply on practical grounds, because the price of oil and coal would have to get approximately to the price of platinum before it became economically worth while to exploit down there. If one considers that there is 2,500 metres of ice cap which moves in rather disconcerting ways-I suggest that one might have the odd problem in drilling-the only resource that seems to be realistic for exploitation any time before, say, the year 2050 or thereabouts would be the pelagic resources. That is an area, again, where we have taken a very keen interest. Some of the criticism that has been made is misinformed because it is also very naive. The view is that if we do not do anything at all about discussing what the preconditions would be for a minerals regime, the problem will go away. The idea that, if we do not do anything, no mining will take place is just as silly as saying that if we abolished the Crimes Act there would be no crime any more. It is too ridiculous to contemplate. Australia has a special problem, claiming as we do 42 per cent of the whole area. If nations that do not recognise our territorial claim proceed to carry out some kind of exploratory work in the exposed areas of our claim it has very serious international legal implications for us. It is certainly in our interests to have some of the ground rules set down. I pay some tribute to the work of Mr Chris Beeby of New Zealand who has chaired all the sessions of previous committees and who is internationally recognised as a great expert in this field. It is true that the meetings have always been held behind closed doors, but it must be recognised that the delegations of the various nations, including Australia, have for some years included representation of non-government organisations with full rights of participation. In this case, Ms Lyn Goldsworthy of the Fund for Animals is representing all conservation groups in Australia's delegation. This subject, obviously, will be of increasing interest- Mr Goodluck —Who were the critics, Barry? Mr BARRY JONES —Greenpeace is the primary group. I am not unsympathetic to the overall aims of Greenpeace, which seem to me to be worth while, but there is the problem that high idealism is not always linked with an appropriate level of knowledge. Mr HOWARD —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that today in the other place the Minister for Finance has made the following statements? First, he said that there has been no reversal of the Government's policy on the quarantining of farm losses but that so-called `Murrumbateman hobby farmers' will be dealt with in a different way. Secondly, the figure of $65m in future revenue forgone by the Government as nominated in the Minister's statement yesterday has been questioned in the other place by the Minister for Finance as being inaccurate. Will the Minister explain these extraordinary circumstances and contradictions? Will he also indicate to the House when details of the alternative quarantining tax will be made public? Mr KERIN —I was not aware of what Senator Walsh said in the other place today. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the information. I will refer it to the Treasurer, in whose responsibility the matter lies. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Does a significant imbalance exist in tourism between Australia and the Republic of Italy? If so, what action is the Minister taking to boost tourism in Australia by visitors from Italy? Mr JOHN BROWN —Obviously, there is a great difference in the number of Italians who visit Australia and vice versa. This has been exaggerated in the last couple of years with the breakdown of the number of visiting friends and relatives, as has happened in the case of the United Kingdom. There are about 240,000 Australian visitors to Italy and only about 14,000 Italians come to Australia. We are doing something about promoting tourism from Italy to Australia. In fact, this year for the first time the Italian state-owned tourist agency Cit, which I might add is the biggest tourist agency in the world, is promoting Australia as a very favourable place for Italians on holidays. This year, for the first time, its magazine includes a special edition urging Italians to come to Australia. The numbers are quite encouraging. On top of that, the Prime Minister will announce in Italy very shortly the formation of a special committee of very prominent Italian-Australians to promote an exchange of culture, sporting identities and tourists between Australia and Italy. It is of great concern to us that we are not attracting enough tourism from Europe, particularly from Italy. Mr Young —His Holiness is coming. Mr JOHN BROWN —He is one very prominent tourist. We are taking determined steps to see that the Australian Tourist Commission will have more facilities and finance available to promote more tourism from Italy. I am sure that those Italians who come here are more than entranced with our product and fully realise why so many Italians have migrated to Australia. There is a very large contingent of Italians living within the electorate of the honourable member for Lowe. I assure him that every effort is being made to redress the imbalance. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Defence: In the light of the advice by officers of the Australian Defence Force that the Australian Army no longer requires land in the Bathurst-Orange area for a range and exercise area, will he advise the House of the Government's intentions for this land? If the Government has decided to accept Army advice, what compensation will be payable to those hundreds of landowners in the area for the hardship, family stress, expenses and moneys lost through not being able to sell or improve their properties during the inquiry? Mr BEAZLEY —I think the right honourable gentleman would wish to draw a veil over this issue as far as his activity is concerned at the time when he was Minister for Defence. In answer to the general propositions he put forward, all I say is that it is in everybody's interest to proceed to the conclusion of the environmental impact study as quickly as possible. Mr GORMAN —I ask the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services: What has been the response of local government to the Minister's statement of 10 April outlining the Government's decision on future arrangements for continuing Commonwealth general purpose financial assistance for local government? Mr UREN —There has been a positive result. We have received congratulatory statements from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales, the metropolitan Municipal Association of Victoria, and from numerous mayors and presidents of local government authorities throughout Australia. I particularly want to draw attention to a letter I received yesterday. The President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations sent me a copy of a letter he wrote to the Prime Minister. It states: Dear Prime Minister, the ACLGA wishes to place on record Local Government's appreciation of the Government's decision to accept the broad thrust of the Report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance and to provide a real terms minimum guarantee in respect of funding for the next two years. It goes on: Your decision on the funding level is especially welcome given the widespread recognition of the fact that the 1986-87 Budget is being framed in a difficult economic climate. As I said to Government members earlier, I thought that they would receive a very positive response. The Government's decision is to continue untied funding to local government, and to make sure that the funding is at least the same as that of the States. For the next two years there will be a guarantee that local government will not receive less than last year in real terms. In subsequent years, they will receive the same as the States. The only people who have failed to understand the situation are those opposite. They have failed to recognise that we have accepted the majority of the recommendations of the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. In particular the letter from the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations recognises this. The Opposition has also failed to recognise that the proposal to bring local government funding into line with the States was a key element of the Self inquiry. We have agreed to all the major recommendations. I am quite sure that when Government members make contact with their local governments they will find great support for the Government's actions. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to sub-section 8 (1) of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, I present a report on the state of the automotive industry for the year 1985. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 Chynoweth,Mr Cowan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Howe and Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 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 Cadman,Mr Fife and Mr Tuckey. 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 whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards- inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destablising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Jakobsen and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australia law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 has 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 airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned believe that the quality of reception of the Brisbane SBS UHF television station is of a very poor quality in many of the Brisbane suburbs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to erect a translator capable of providing a service comparable to that of the major cities in Australia. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We feel a deep concern about Christopher Boyce's allegations of intrusions into Australia's domestic affairs by the Central Intelligence Agency of America. We feel disturbed by the knowledge that the U.S. base at Pine Gap is a C.I.A. operation. We deplore the secrecy surrounding the functions of the U.S. bases in Australia. We therefore pray that the Australian Government will authorise a full, impartial public inquiry into all and any roles the Central Intelligence Agency of America has undertaken in Australia. We pray that this inquiry will allow the Australian public to make an informed decision about the future of the U.S. bases in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully wish to petition against the introduction of the new funding scheme for Day Care Centres, which is beginning in April. Our main objections are: (1) The increase is too high for most families. (2) It could cause a backlash with people opting out and leaving children in less ideal circumstances. This drop in numbers could then result in even higher fees having to be charged. (3) It could force us to put off experienced, trained staff in favour of lower-costing untrained staff. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. 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 African and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes are charges and damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. 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. Our alarm with the continued spiralling cost of commodities, brought about we believe, by the monopolisation of retail outlets by multi and transnational consortiums. We would ask the government legislate, effective price control and anti-monopoly measures to prevent further erosion of the living standards of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, seek your most urgent action to rectify this deep concern to the community. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the Public has no legal right to influence the setting of Standards for Television Programming, that we deplore the new Standards which came into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining Television Standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people: because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, because the new standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, because the new Standards are ambiguous, and without definition, because the new Standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to ``the storyline'' of a film screened, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the effects of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights: overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the Report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in Higher Education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled The humble Petition of certain electors of the Division of Gwydir respectfully showeth: 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 Hunt. 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: 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 Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Eden Monaro 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 Snow. 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 Sutherland Shire and New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The serious consequences for all Australians in fundamental changes to our defence capability at a time of heightened world tension, increasing terrorist threats and significant regional political events. 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 the places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.54) —When the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was appointed to his office members on this side of the House were rather hopeful that the bungling, the ineptitude and the gross incompetence of his predecessor might be changed by someone who, at least from his past record of intellectual performance, had given us hope that defence might be approached in a reasonable and rational way. Sadly, the events of this weekend and events over the last few weeks, following the first publication of what appears to be the direction of the Dibb report on force structure in the Australian Defence Force, gave the lie to that hope. We need to understand that there are quite significant consequences for this country if this Government's defence policy is allowed to continue in the direction it is now taking. It is essential that we understand the softening up process which the Minister and his minions have been pursuing, first in relation to the defence chiefs, who I fear are being lulled into feeling that they do not change the policies coming out of the force structure recommendations of the Dibb review, and because they are going to get nothing, therefore they should stay quiet. I fear that their views are being accepted. Secondly, I fear that the media are being lulled into believing all the rhetoric that the Minister and others have been pursuing, suggesting that because there is no threat we have time to sit back and allow our defence manpower to be run down and allow force structure rather than maintenance of meaningful capability to be the basis on which defence direction is set. Thirdly, I fear that the public itself is being lulled into a feeling of false complacency-that because there is no imminent threat there is no reason for Australia to worry about having an adequate defence force at this time. We need to understand that all those suggestions are behind what seems to be a subtle way of ensuring that the public will accept what appear to be the directions of the Dibb force structure amendments without question. When looking at the consequences of terrorism in the world and at the fact that Australians have already been involved and have lost their lives, we must remember the reality is that as a result of Labor's philosophic commitment, its determination to allocate higher financial priorities in other directions, State police special branches are run down. When we see, for example, the terrorist incident at the Russell Street police building in Melbourne we realise not only that terrorism is something we read about occurring in other parts of the world where travelling Australians might be involved, but that terrorism is alive and well in this country. So we need to look at our defence capability not only in relation to a readily identifiable threat but also in relation to the fact that there are circumstances in which the Australian Defence Force can be and may be called on unexpectedly, sadly, in the situation that exists in our environment today. I want to outline some alternatives. First, we need to understand that `no readily identifiable threat' is not equivalent to no threat. Secondly, we need to realise that the defence of Australia cannot be achieved by blind adherence to force structures which exclude all capability for projecting power. Thirdly, we need to realise that self-reliance does not mean we can afford to close off all significant possibilities for close and effective co-operation with our allies. Good relations with the United States does not mean the minimum co-operation needed to keep us out of the New Zealand class. Indeed, without active assistance to the United States and the Western alliance to deter an aggressive and predatory Soviet Union we do face a situation in which an unexpected and lethal threat could develop, and the force structure changes and the manpower restraints imposed by the doctrine of defence a la the present Minister could put Australia in an incredibly vulnerable position. One could properly say, given the sad deterioration in the strategic situation in our environment, that this Government has sat on its backside and watched our defence forces being torpedoed by the world's most powerful weapon, apathy, which regrettably is alive and well in this country of ours. If we look at the Minister's defence theory mark 1, I think we can say it is a narrowly interpreted approach to the defence of Australia. The emphasis is on making the ADF credible only for the defence of the Australian mainland. Reductions in naval capability mean that the Royal Australian Navy today is essentially able to operate in a hostile environment only within Australian territorial waters. We know that yesterday the Minister took over HMAS Success. Today we have one fleet replenishment vessel, which means that if the Navy seeks to sail in two oceans at once-the Indian and the Pacific oceans-it is limited strictly by the ability of that one ship to be in only one sea at the one time and by the ability of the FA18s, on which the Navy has to rely for air defence, to mount some sort of air defence from whatever land base there might be. We know that the downgrading of the Army's deployment capability outside Australia has been reflected in what seems to be the present weaknesses apparent in the ODF at Lavarack Barracks at Townsville. We know that the Minister has made comments about the armoured strength of the Army and we know the result of that is certainly to make necessary very real changes if the Australian Army is to have any ability to project power outside Australian territory. We need to remember that at the moment we do have territories significantly out of reach of Royal Australian Air Force facilities. We need to understand, too, that the general environment within this region is changing and that the Australian Defence Force has to have flexibility to adapt to those pressures. We have to understand that the reductions in the Australian Defence Force, especially in Army manpower, in order to generate funds for equipment have created a position in which the possibility of a rapid buildup of manpower in specific areas of the Defence Force is limited indeed. The Minister's approach has been for minimum regional Australian Defence Force involvement, and the withdrawal of the Australian defence detachment with the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai reflects this Government's philosophical commitment to the Left and its determination to reduce to a minimum the contribution to the United States alliance. Sure there are great words about the joint facilities; sure there is an attempt by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to say what a great nation Australia is and how different we are from New Zealand. The reality is that the Australian Defence Force capability today is not sufficient to meet the flexible strategic changes that are taking place in this region, and I am afraid that the plans that seem to be about following the introduction of the Dibb report will further reduce this ability. The Minister himself in an interview with Dr Tom Millar in 1985 said, in relation to circumstances in which the ADF would be used outside Australia: I find it very difficult to conceive those circumstances beyond peacekeeping and show-the-flag type operations. In an article in the Australian last October he said that manpower reduction: . . . reflects the Government's view that in a period where there is no immediate threat we can afford to slightly reduce manpower in order to concentrate on the purchase of long lead-time, high technology equipment. In a reported statement in Washington last September the Minister said: . . . he wanted to `send a signal' to the Australian Army that they should concentrate on becoming an `air-mobile' force. The point is that the Minister is seeking to change fundamentally the force structure of the defence forces without taking account of the responsibilities which they may be called upon to exercise, the interests of every Australian in the region in which we live and the maintenance of an adequate defence capability to offset any threat that might develop. The Minister's defence will be to refer to defence expenditure over the last three years. Let me put that argument finally to rest. Budget Statement No. 1 for the 1985-86 Budget shows that over the last three years, under the Hawke Government, the average real increase in defence spending has been 4.3 per cent. If one contrasts that with defence spending over the seven years of the Fraser-Anthony coalition, one will see that it is 4.2 per cent. There are modifications from year to year, and I have no doubt that the Minister will point to them and say `It was not high in this year or in that year'. The reality is that over seven years we were able to achieve virtually the same increase in spending. Taking into account the last year when we took no decisions following the decision by the Fraser-Anthony Government to return HMS Invincible to the United Kingdom, we had not replaced the budget priorities that followed the inevitable changes in spending that that represented. We need to understand the manpower position. Let us first look at the manpower reduction implemented by the Minister. If one takes $35,000 a year as the average cost of a serviceman or woman plus accommodation, equipment and personal care, it is apparent that, in order to have $35m available for defence spending, one has to reduce by about 1,000 personnel. If one wants a billion over six years, one has to cut by about 4,750 personnel. We know that the Navy is down by nearly 1,500 in numbers between June 1982 and June last year. We know that the Navy has already had to abandon volunteer service in the submarine arm. We know that the Royal Australian Air Force is short of fighter pilots and Orion crews. We know that the inevitable result is that the pressure will have to be borne by the Army. We know that this will have major implications, especially at the sharp end in the operational deployment force and other front line units. The Minister's answer is: `We are to make them all mobile. We are to get rid of our armoured support'. Frankly, the current resignation levels from the Services, certainly amongst senior NCOs and senior and middle level officers, bode ill for the ability of the Services to mount in a short time any rapid recruitment program. Indeed, the Government itself has undertaken a major recruitment program for the Army-we are told at a cost of about $6m since its election-yet the reserves are still very much below their assessed minimal strength. Although we are told that the decline has at last been halted, the strength of the active reserve in January was only 24,000 or a little less, 5.5 per cent less than 12 months ago, and we know that the rate of resignations continues to mount. Indeed, the level of male officer resignations for the three months ending in January are up 57 per cent on the period 12 months ago, and male officer resignations for the March quarter this year have reached 113, over half the total figure of the first three months of the last year. The reason is the Minister's priority to reduce manpower. Never mind about competitive terms and conditions of employment! We know about the tax changes of the reserves and the effect of the tax liability on the Defence Force retirement and death benefits commutation entitlement. We know that servicemen and women are not maintaining competitiveness in the level of their salaries and wages with others in the civilian corps. It is in that climate that manpower reductions are being achieved by the wrong means, the morale of the Service is being prejudiced and the ability of the Defence Force to meet any unexpected threat, sadly, is reduced as a result. The Opposition believes that the Government is taking the wrong direction. We believe that the Australian Defence Force must provide government with an adequate range of capability options. We believe that it must be capable of meeting the demands imposed by our alliances. We believe that it must be capable of meeting the demands imposed by Australia's position in the South Pacific and South and South East Asia. We believe that it must provide a credible defence of Australia. The Defence Report 1984-85 describes the region as `one of the most stable in the world' and refers to steady economic growth, the cohesion of ASEAN and Thailand's skill at managing the Cambodian border situation as factors. That analysis neglects Australia's offshore island as its resources base and assumes an intrinsic stability in the region, which sadly is lacking. One factor identified specifically, economic growth of the ASEAN nations, is showing much less encouraging trends. We all know that Singapore's growth rate has fallen rapidly since 1984, and those who heard Premier Lee Kuan Yew on his visit to Australia will understand the difficulties Singapore now faces. There has been a similar downturn in Malaysia, and there are obvious problems for the new government of the Philippines. The declining oil price is putting enormous pressure on the Indonesian economy, where the latest annual budget has cut spending by 7 per cent-a lesson which I suggest this Government could follow, but for other reasons. In addition, the Islamic resurgence in Malaysia is creating major problems particularly in eastern Malaysia. Thailand, already troubled by internal instability, is now threatened by the expansion of Vietnamese power in Indo-China, notably with the maintenance of so many Vietnamese forces in Laos and Cambodia. In other words, there is a clear potential for destabilisation of some of the main ASEAN nations, especially if economic growth rates continue to fall, and Australia cannot afford to ignore this. On top of that there is the significant build-up of the Soviet presence in Cam Ranh Bay. With access to warm water ports, we know that for the first time the Soviets have an ability to operate in all seasons in our region. We know of the negotiation of fishing treaties with Kiribati, and potentially with Vanuatu. We know that the inevitable incentive in terms of economic return to those small island states is great. We are told this morning by Peter Samuel that the mobile missile is a threat to Australia-and all because of the presence of the Soviets in Vietnam. Politically and militarily, there is little doubt that the Soviet Union is now interested in the region to a greater degree than it was before-and all this at a time when government manpower is being reduced, and when we are faced with a position of a potential threat which means that there needs to be a broader based capability than this Minister and this Government by their philosophy and their financial cuts seem to be prepared to maintain. We certainly need to make sure that this year there is at least a 4.2 or 4.3 per cent increase. There should be no further cuts in defence. We need to encourage our reserves and we need to encourage domestic production. I have not talked about procurement but the Minister's decision against the A10B trainer program was a disgrace; his decision not to proceed with Waler was equally so. We know that there certainly needs to be maintenance of current manpower levels in ODF, and the Government certainly needs to ensure that the military options are available in a climate where every other priority seems to be ignored. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(3.09) —All I can say is that, if this is to be the extent of the Opposition's attack on the Dibb report when it comes out, there will not be much of a defence debate in this country. When one goes underneath the bulk of what has been said by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), one sees that basically most of the problems he raised will be addressed. In fact, there is a fairly substantial bipartisanship on these matters in this Parliament, though occasionally the Opposition spokesman attempts to maintain that there is something other than that. I remind the right honourable member of the time when he was Minister for Defence not so long ago, when he could produce an article in the Pacific Defence Reporter which was capable of the heading `Time on our side', by Ian Sinclair. In that article, which was his response to a report by a committee of this Parliament he dealt with the question of the threat to Australia. He said: The Committee rightly observes that the large armies in our region are largely irrelevant in consideration of Australia's defence problems because they are currently unsupported by the substantial maritime and air resources that would be needed to launch and sustain a major military action against Australia as an island nation. It would be rash to conclude that major conventional attack or invasion could never occur-for, after all, it nearly did so once-but the degree of difficulty would be high, as would the cost and, by our own defence competence and preparedness, we can raise both significantly. He went on throughout that article to point out that there did not seem to be a great deal of threat to Australian security in immediate circumstances. The Leader of the National Party invited the House to contemplate an increase in defence expenditure along the lines he suggests, and I shall get on to discuss the previous Government's record a little later. He does so in an environment when the entire thrust of Opposition policy on public expenditure is to reduce it. He does so in the face of his own performance during the last election when he mounted a similar attack on this Government and had to ask the then Treasury spokesman, now the Leader of the Opposition, what he might obtain as a promise in regard to increased defence expenditure for the next year and secured a promise of $80m. It was a little unfortunate for him that the Government's increase in defence expenditure in that year subsequent to the election amounted to about $400m. I do not know whether that amounted to an intention to cut $320m off what our Government then achieved; but, whatever it was, it would not have amounted to a very substantial or effective increase in defence spending in this country. The problem which we have and which we confronted when I decided to ask Paul Dibb, as ministerial consultant, to review our force structure is that in this country that had never received any serious attention-certainly no serious attention in relation to what might be determined to be a national strategy. The reason that it received no serious attention in regard to a national strategy is that our predecessors were incapable of working one out. When one was offered to them, as it frequently was by the Department of Defence of the time, they tended to walk away from it. For most of the history of our Federation-and it must be said that most of the history of our Federation has been dominated by conservative politics at the Federal level-we have been left with a total reluctance to come to grips with the absolute obligation on this country to provide effectively for its own defence and to provide its allies with a range of diplomatic options, should they find themselves in a position where they are obliged to support Australia in a period of crisis. It really is a betrayal of our allies if we cannot defend ourselves effectively, because it imposes on them another problem that they have to contemplate when they may in fact be contemplating very serious questions of their own national survival. It is the type of view that gave us six cruisers instead of an effective air defence in the 1930s and it is the type of view that relied excessively on the capacities of the Singapore base. It is also the sort of view that enabled our predecessors to reject the 1959 Strategic Basis, a paper which we could have readily adopted when we came into office. Our predecessors persistently rejected the advice that they had to get down to business and determine what sort of force structure was appropriate to our needs as a nation and to address the glaring holes which have occurred in our defence forces by an unwillingness or inability to get to grips with that problem. The other feature of the Opposition parties' defence policy when in government has been their ability to react to the problem of the day with essentially a cosmetic response, so our defence planning has been bedevilled not only by a total absence of national strategies, but also by the fact that we have had feast and famine. The feast tends to last about three or four months and the famine lasts for the old seven long years of biblical renown. The last feast was, I think, a document which is going to certainly interest honourable members in this House as the next year or two unfold. That is the 1976 White Paper, when up came a feast of planned defence expenditure on the basis of 5 to 7 per cent real growth, followed by a very much greater deterio- ration in the real increases than were suggested by the Leader of the National Party in his speech just a short while ago. That produced something like 35 delays or cancelled projects in the course of the seven years when the Opposition was in government. There were 35 major projects delayed or cancelled during the course of the Opposition parties' period in office as they failed to address the reality imposed on them by their commitments. That was followed up in the initial stages of the Afghan crisis by a statement from the then Prime Minister, who promised that the next five- year defence program would be based on 7 per cent real growth and, in fact, within two years of that announcement we had the first real drop in defence expenditure for some considerable time-again presided over by our predecessors. I do not blame them for not achieving 7 per cent real growth. No Minister for Defence in his or her right mind in any part of the Western world could possibly hope, as the years unfold in the budgetary process, to achieve 7 per cent real growth in defence expenditure over a five-year period, so I do not blame the various Opposition Defence Ministers for not having achieved that. What I do blame them for is setting up a planning strategy based on 7 per cent real growth so the procurement policy gets based on an anticipation of achieving that figure of real growth in the face of considerable periods of economic stringency. Of course, that knocks planning into a cocked hat. I can understand a one or two percentage point difference over what they intended to achieve and what they actually achieved, but after going beyond that what did we get? We got the cancellation of 35 projects and no sense of priority. A project can be thrown into the melting pot as a useful project to proceed with because a particular item of equipment might be readily available and so can be purchased at that point of time instead of being purchased on a basis of priority with other important but not so readily available items of capital equipment. When the cut comes, that purchase dominates the other items of capital procurement. When that happens, there is total confusion in defence planning. I think that the Opposition will learn a great deal from the Dibb report and that no Opposition Minister for Defence, when he again comes back into office, will ever plan on the ridiculous perspectives placed by the then Government in the 1976 White Paper and in the 1980 response to the Afghan crisis. We might then actually arrive at a bit of common sense. But the failure of the former Government to address these problems has left some gaps which will be identified and which will have to be closed. I do not disagree with many of the things that the right honourable gentleman had to say in regard to what our responsibilities are in our region or for our off-shore islands. I have never supported a notion of fortress Australia; I think it is both selfish and likely to lead us militarily into a situation of some danger at different points of time. But there are certain elements of the requirements of our national defence not related to force projection that need to be addressed. What is the sense, in a situation where our most likely contingency is low level harassment, in not having the capability of keeping open two of our major ports from a mining threat which can be clearly and readily identified as a possibility in our region? That is our position at the moment: We launched the mine hunter project in 1974 but, because of the sorts of problems that I identified in relation to what happened when defence planning became confused by an inability to achieve guidance, 12 years later we are finally getting the first of those vessels coming into service. As honourable members opposite have seen from the activities of what may well have been the Libyans in mining the Red Sea or from mining activities that have been undertaken elsewhere, it is a cheap and easy option that is not within our capacities to deal. There is then the situation that has occurred in relation to our ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare operations against our choke points. The simple fact is that, once a vessel gets out into the open sea, it at least has a considerable opportunity to use distance to evade interdiction by submarines, again in a lower level wartime contingency. That is an option. We do not necessarily need a massive option. We do not necessarily need a massive aircraft carrier, which in fact will be most interested basically in defending itself, flung out there to convoy our goods. The vessels need a capacity in the open sea to use the open sea to evade interdiction. At the same time our opponent will concentrate his forces against the choke points around the coastline. There is more than just one of them-more than just where the aircraft carrier will be. There are many choke points around our coastline, yet we do not have the ASW capability within our frigates to deal with them. Why do we not have it? Because the Fraser Government, for the reasons that I have already outlined, did not address the requirement to put ASW helicopters on the back of frigates. The consequence of that failure is that we now have to modify, at a cost of $50m, the first of three frigates that we received. That is the cost to modify our FFGs to pick up that requirement. Of course, it is we poor patsies who have to get down to the business of being able to fit into what is now a very compressed defence program, because there are so many equipment problems that we have to address, and we have to buy those ASW helicopters right now. The speech of the Leader of the National Party then got into an area of total confusion. I would have thought that a Minister who was addressing the requirements of the air mobility of the Army would not actually be subject to any degree of sensible criticism that that was not in fact giving the Australian Army a capacity to deploy over considerable distances. I would have thought that, whether one is a believer in force projection or a believer, if you like, in fortress Australia, or a believer in defence self-reliance-no matter what position one adopts, a basic minimum requirement is the capacity of our Army to be air mobile. There is yet another area of very substantial neglect which we as a government are very immediately addressing. The right honourable gentleman spoke about the need for us to be aware of the possibility of terrorist incidents and the like. I agree with him very much on that so I will take this occasion-I neglected to do it in the Budget response-to announce a decision taken late last year by the Government to spend $20m, starting shortly, on upgrading our counter-terrorist capabilities in Western Australia. That $20m will be spent on an outdoor close-quarter battle range complex, an indoor close-quarter battle range, an outdoor sniper range, an urban observation range, an urban complex for counter-terrorist training, a sniper plunging fire range, and a Boeing 747 mock-up aircraft. I think that will substantially address the expenditure of $20m and it will substantially address the requirements of the Special Air Service to reach a high level of efficiency and achievement in the area of counter-terrorist operations. I am pleased to be able to announce that today. I conclude on the question of how we see our regional responsibilities. We acknowledge them. I was able to do that in Question Time the other day in this Parliament. We have maintained the defence co-operation program, we have increased our responsibilities in the south-west Pacific, and we have increased our activities in the south-west Pacific. There is no deterioration of performance-if anything, there is a slight increase in performance-in the way in which we as a government regard our regional responsibilities. We will be able to pursue those regional responsibilities, I think, far more effectively after we start implementing a force structure of the type Mr Dibb has recommended to the Government. It is no wonder that Caspar Weinberger was able to describe Australia last week as a superb ally and express his gratitude, if you like, for having under several consecutive governments-not only this one but also our predecessors-an excellent relationship with this country. I know that we enjoy an excellent relationship; that was certainly my advice when I was in the United States of America. It was my advice when Caspar Weinberger was in Australia and I expect that I will find it again when I go to the United States in a few weeks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. I call the honourable member for Casey. Mr Slipper —An outstanding member. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(3.24) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague for his profoundly accurate comment. The present and future security of Australia and all Australians is under enormous threat because of the deplorable, inexcusable, and short-sighted `wait and see' attitudes of the Hawke Government in regard to the defence needs and requirements of this nation. An already critical situation is deteriorating at an increasing and alarming rate, particularly in the light of current international threats and tensions and the political and economic developments in our own region. The concerns of the Opposition are about Australia's inadequate defence capacities and capabilities. They are not based on conjecture or any desire to adopt scaremongering techniques in an endeavour to score political points. Our concerns are based on facts this Government refuses to face, on realities this Government refuses to recognise. If some members of this Parliament and of the general public do not like these facts and realities or would rather not think about them because they are unpleasant and frightening, they should remember that, in this instance, the consequence of ignorance is not bliss, it is catastrophe, not for some but for all. The freedoms which every man, woman and child living in Australia enjoy, which we are sometimes tempted to take for granted but which are not automatically and permanently bestowed, must be protected. The motto of the Returned Services League says it best: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Let us neither forget, nor ignore, the absolute truth of this statement. Appropriate action must be taken, and taken now, to restore our defences to reasonable and realistic levels. Otherwise we may well find ourselves in the position of having to defend ourselves today with yesterday's equipment, and a grossly undermanned, ill-equipped, inadequately prepared force of justifiably disillusioned and disheartened personnel. Defence forces will be expected to take on the challenge and there is no doubt that they will in the full knowledge that they could not hope to deter, let alone defeat, a determined aggressor. We would have the charge of the Light Brigade revisited. Why does this situation exist? Why is it tolerated by the Government and, apparently, even by some sections of the Australian community? Because some sections of the community do not want to recognise the truth and because this Government refuses to recognise that it is pursuing an incompetent, unacceptable and potentially disastrous policy of `do nothing until nothing can be done', this government's obvious inability to face the facts will guarantee our inability to defend this country in the event of a serious threat. Its neglect of its inherent responsibility to assess the geographical, political and economic factors affecting our vulnerability, and to come to terms with them and take appropriate action accordingly, has now become unacceptable. Despite the obvious need for Australia to be actively involved in matters affecting the security of our northern neighbours, the Hawke Government determinedly and dogmatically persists in following a defence policy based on isolationism. Despite the obvious need for more manpower and more and better equipment, this Government expects our Australian defence forces to tighten further their already overtightened belts. We are being forced to retreat further into our already undefendable bunker because of ridiculous, penny-pinching restrictions on defence spending. This policy, based on ignorance, is further reinforced by the refusal of the Government to recognise even the minimum needs of defence forces personnel. Let us look at the record in regard to personnel. Conditions of service are the major factors in determining the attitude of servicemen and women of all ranks to the tasks they have to do and the sacrifices they may have to make on behalf of the rest of the nation. Let us consider the support they have received from this Government. Despite promises to the contrary, the Government has failed to restore tax exemption for reservists. A paltry saving of public money is more than outweighed by the decrease in recruiting and retaining personnel currently being experienced in the Defence Force reserves. Training facilities in both the regular and reserve forces have been drastically reduced with a resultant adverse effect on the operational effectiveness of service personnel, and this substantially increases the hazards associated with an already hazardous occupation. For example, success in air combat demands a high level of skill and the ability of air crew to push themselves and their aircraft to the maximum of their capabilities. Training is required to achieve these objectives. Our air crews are currently in the position of receiving barely sufficient training to enable them to take off and land safely. The number of training hours and the number of crews being trained have been drastically reduced. In fact, we now have more F111Cs, FA18s and P3 Orions than we have crews trained to fly them. Similar situations exist in the Army and the Royal Australian Navy. The RAN is well below strength and drastically underequipped. The amphibious warfare squadron has been disbanded. There are deficiencies in the maintenance program of vital equipment, from destroyers to helicopters. Despite efforts to encourage existing personnel to transfer to the submarine squadron, there is still an alarming shortfall in manning levels. Drafted personnel now appear in this once proud all-volunteer force. HMAS Yarra has been prematurely paid off and a replacement, although planned, has not yet been commissioned. Under this Government we are just left with a gap-a gap that could be crucial to the defence of this country. In contrast to Australia, many of the countries in our region are rapidly building up their naval capabilities and we are all aware of the increased Soviet naval presence in both the Pacific and Indian oceans. We should be increasing our relative naval strength, but instead the reverse is happening. As they get stronger we get weaker and less able to defend ourselves. The Army is no better off. Project Waler, a project designed to fill the urgent need to provide replacements for our current unsafe and out of date armoured personnel carriers, originally to be designed and built in Australia, has been cancelled. It has not been postponed or deferred, but cancelled. The lack of safety for Army personnel required to operate these vehicles has been ignored. The saving of a few dollars is more important than protecting and saving of the lives of our servicemen. The confidence and morale of the Australian defence forces is at an all time low. It has been undermined by the attitudes and actions, or rather the lack of action, by this Government. By law, service personnel cannot show their despair or displeasure except by leaving their employer-and they are leaving in droves. It is scandalous. Apparently, the Government is not very concerned about this fact. It sees it as a cost-saving measure. The problem is that reductions in expenditure achieved through reductions in numbers of personnel through resignations, retirements and reduced recruiting in the final analysis cost more than they save. There is no control over who leaves or over the ranks and specialisations in which the reductions occur. Currently, officer resignations are high, and often the people who are leaving are going from specialist areas where there are already shortages. The greatest single contributing factor to current service personnel dissatisfaction is the recent decision to increase service pay by only 5.9 per cent. This was the first real pay rise since 1981, but they got only 5.9 per cent. This decision has meant that many younger service men and women are now near or under the poverty line. The current attitude of the Government is creating much bitterness within our Australian defence forces. I speak from experience: After 25 years of service, I resigned some five years ago, but I still keep in touch with former colleagues and contemporaries who are totally frustrated by the neglect being suffered at the hands of Hawke's anti-defence oriented Government. Further, I encouraged my son to enter the services on the basis of his being able to pursue a rewarding and worthwhile career-today he leaves the Army. This will be just another statistic, but one which proves that our defence is now depending on good luck rather than good management. The frustration of our servicemen and women must be acknowledged in the light of this catastrophic turn of events. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(3.34) —It is rather interesting that the Opposition should introduce a matter of public importance on Australian defence today. One would have thought that some attention might have been devoted to the rural package that was brought down yesterday. However, the fact that this matter has been introduced into the House of Representatives today, immediately after the incident in Libya, is symptomatic of the approach of the Opposition to defence matters over the whole period that it was in government. The Liberal-National party coalition has always responded to some event in a crisis situation but it has failed to give the Australian defence forces the steady commitment, the proper planning and the appropriate leadership that is necessary to set up an effective defence force. I shall give some examples of that. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has already said that in 1976, in the only White Paper brought down by the previous Government, a commitment was made to 5 per cent real growth in defence expenditure over a five-year rolling period. The actual average real increase over the period of the Fraser Government's term of office was 2.5 per cent and 35 major projects were dropped out of that project over a period of seven years. To give the House an example of the problem that exists, the Defence Force has said this: Governments have regularly approved Defence plans for real growth in defence budgets that have failed to materialise in later years so that planning priorities are distorted as budgets fall short and cuts have to be made where they can be made quickly rather than according to long term priorities. Even the funds allocated in each year's Budget tend to suffer usually as a result of Government expenditure freezes during the year. In the three years of the Hawke Labor Government the increase in defence expenditure in real terms was 4.1 per cent in 1983-84; in 1984-85, 3.3 per cent; and for 1985-86, 3.1 per cent. That is an average increase of 3.5 per cent. One might say that that is not enough, despite the fact that it happens to be one per cent better than the record of the Fraser Government. I would like to see the Government do better, but we do live in difficult economic circumstances and we live against the background that, if we are going to develop the appropriate equipment and force-structure that we require, we need to have a steady commitment to the Defence Force. When Labor took over we were told by the then Chief of Defence Force Staff that it would be much better for us to peg a lower figure and to maintain that consistent level of commitment to the Australian Defence Force than to do what the previous Government had done, namely, to promise more and not deliver. In circumstances similar to the Libyan incursion-and it is too early to judge the real significance of that-after Afghanistan in 1980 the then Government committed itself to an increase of 7 per cent per annum in the money available to the Australian Defence Force. We all know the history of that, because there was a dramatic decrease in the money involved. In the 1985-86 Budget the allocation for defence outlays was $6,535m. That represented a 10 per cent growth in money terms over 1984-85 and underlying real growth of 3.1 per cent. That, of course, was in keeping with the commitments made by the Government. We are told that personnel numbers have been running down. In some areas, of course, that is true. In 1980 the Army Reserve stood at 22,000. In the background of Afghanistan-honourable members opposite probably have heard where it is-the previous Government increased that target to 30,000. When we came to office in 1983 the actual number of soldiers in the Army Reserve was 33,227. The long term interests of the Australian Defence Force, with the very important capital equipment programs and the other objectives of a Labor government which I will talk about very shortly, indicated that we should run the Army Reserve back to the normal target. It ran below that and a recruiting program is in place to take the Army Reserve total up to target. Mr Donald Cameron —What is the number now? Mr CROSS —It has been said that we have been running the Navy down. I am sure that even my colleague on the other side of the House would remember that it was his Government that mothballed the Melbourne. We are told that we have run the Fleet Air Arm down, but it was his Government that mothballed the Melbourne. The Fraser Government decided not to proceed with the purchase of the Invincible. It is a strange thing, because by getting rid of the aircraft carrier one is pretty much sounding the death-knell of the Fleet Air Arm. Cuts that have taken place in the Navy have been as a consequence of that decision made by the previous Government. I was disappointed to hear the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) talking about the Australian defence forces being grossly ill-equipped and undermanned and having poor morale. I am quite certain that that is not true. There are certain things which this Government has done and to which the member for Casey has alluded that will be a substantial factor in improving the situation of the Defence Force. I was absolutely shocked to hear the honourable member talk about defence service pay. In the system that existed prior to this Government coming to office, a review of defence service pay was carried out at the whim of the then Defence Minister. I well remember when the Whitlam Government was elected in 1972 that the Minister for Defence of the day, Mr Barnard, decided to have a review of defence pay. That review was undertaken and the pay increase took place in 1973. It was seven years before Mr Killen-I am not sure whether he was Sir James Killen at that time-ordered in 1980 another review of defence service pay. When that review was completed in 1981, the Government did not have any money in the till-honourable members will appreciate that that was a year of record low defence expenditure-and the defence pay adjustment was not paid until 1982. The Labor Government has established a Defence Force remuneration tribunal that will, on a continuous basis, like the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, keep defence pay under surveillance and make the appropriate adjustments speedily, but we all know that when a new body is set up it takes some time to acquire the necessary expertise. The first of those pay decisions was made last year. It was not as much as people had hoped for. We are, of course, in a position of restraint, which applies to all people in the Australian community who are on award wages one way or another. But it is part of a system that will serve the Defence Force extremely well in the future. Honourable members will recall the speed with which the cost of living adjustment was made following the Arbitration Commission's determination. I make the point again that, if we are talking about pay and conditions, we have to contrast the seven years wait under the previous Government with a system that will review Service pay on a continuing basis but not less than once every year under the Labor Government. I also wish to say something about defence housing because we are talking about poor morale. At the moment almost two-thirds of our defence housing stock is below standard. Some of it is so old and so below standard that we can do nothing about it. Mr Sinclair —We don't see much money, though. Mr CROSS —The Government has approved a $750m program over seven years, starting with the present year, that will give Australian Defence Force personnel adequate housing. I remind my colleague on the other side, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who interjected, that for three years under his Government no commitment was made for new Defence Force housing. We have inherited that situation. We are not saying that all is rosy in the garden. We cannot overcome in a short period the neglect of the Defence Force, the lack of any consistent leadership and the lack of proper planning. After all, we followed a government that was in power for seven years. Where does it bring us? In 1976 there was a White Paper. We now have the Dibb review that will enable us to make a review of Australia's commitment into the future. We are not committed to isolationism. As my time is running out, I will again reflect on the comments made by Caspar Weinberger, the American Secretary of Defense, last week in Canberra. He said: By participating fully in a joint alliance you have indicated unequivocally your commitment to maintain a way of life we both enjoy. By developing and maintaining conventional military capabilities you have provided a strong counterweight that potential aggressors must take into account. I respect the views of my colleagues opposite but I must say that the American Secretary of Defence is a person of some considerable substance. He thinks that Australia is paying its way in our alliance and in the free world. I think so too. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I realise that only two speakers from each side are allowed, but am I allowed to explain that the Reserve Force has fallen by about 20,000-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The time for the debate has expired. There is no point of order. Mr Donald Cameron —Can I do that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton knows that he cannot. If he persists, he will be warned. (Quorum formed). Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Act 1977 to provide increased flexibility for the Corporation in the exercise of its commercial and financial responsibilities. This will involve the removal of many of the present requirements for ministerial approval of what might be called the day to day operations of the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation. The amendments provided for in this Bill complement the restructuring of the statutory arrangements for the meat and livestock industry which this Government commenced during 1984 and continued in 1985. Previous changes have streamlined the operation of the industry's statutory organisations and have resulted in more appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the accountability of the AMLC through corporate planning and an annual general meeting. In accordance with policy relating to primary industry statutory marketing authorities, as set out in the recent Government policy statement, the present amendments provide for more flexibility in the AMLC's operations and place reliance on the corporate plan and annual general meeting to ensure appropriate accountability to both Parliament and industry. The amendments in this Bill are supported by the industry and follow on from my invitation to industry to identify areas where administrative procedures could be rationalised to benefit the industry. The current amendments should provide the AMLC with a more effective capacity to address the marketing challenges facing the industry now and in the future. The amendments will not impose any new cost burdens on the Commonwealth and some savings may result to the AMLC through streamlined administration and financial management procedures. The Bill provides for the removal of the requirement for specific prior ministerial approval of purchase of property over $100,000 by the AMLC, purchase and sale for export of meat and livestock, the terms and conditions for employment of staff and of consultants and the operation by the AMLC of facilities and services in connection with the marketing or sale of meat and livestock. In order to increase the flexibility of the Corporation's financial operations it is proposed to remove the requirement for ministerial approval of borrowings by the Corporation with the exception that where the AMLC wishes to borrow in excess of $5m in any financial year the approval of the Treasurer will be required. The Corporation will be empowered to lend money in connection with the performance of its functions. In accordance with the commercial principles behind these changes the Bill will remove the option currently available to the Corporation of securing a Commonwealth guarantee for its borrowings. At the same time the Corporation will be empowered to exercise its own discretion in deciding on the bank or banks with which it will maintain accounts and in deciding the nature and form of the investments in which reserves and other monies not immediately required are held. In accordance with the new statutory marketing authority guidelines, the Bill provides the Corporation with the option of using a commercial auditor in place of the Auditor-General. The appointment of a commercial auditor will require a resolution at an annual general meeting of the Corporation and can proceed only where the Auditor-General reports favourably to the Minister on the suitability of the proposed auditor. The appointment must also be agreed to by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. The Auditor-General shall retain full auditing responsibilities where no commercial auditor has been appointed. In addition the Auditor-General's power to audit independently to the Corporation and report to the Minister is to continue. The Government has considered it appropriate to provide licensed exporters of meat and livestock with the right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against decisions by the AMLC to make orders to transfer, cancel or surrender export quota allocations made under Section 16j of the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Act. As honourable members will have noted from the statutory marketing authority policy statement, it is the Government's intention that the Minister for Primary Industry have a general power of direction over the activities of all Commonwealth primary industry statutory marketing authorities. This power is seen as a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances and accordingly strict provisions regarding the publication of such directions are included in the Bill. Directions under this amendment must be given in writing and then only after consultations between the Minister and the Chairman of the AMLC. The directions must be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of issue. The Corporation will be required to report all such directions in its annual report together with a statement of their effects on AMLC operations. The opportunity is also being taken in the Bill to clarify the power of the Corporation to be involved in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale and marketing of Australian meat and livestock. In this regard the Corporation is developing facilities to take advantage of computer technology consistent with its function to promote the sale of Australian meat and livestock. The reforms incorporated in this Bill should enable the Corporation to improve further on the effectiveness of its role in the marketing of Australian meat and livestock. They will enhance the statutory structure provided for this most important industry by removing unnecessary impediments to its commercial effectiveness. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Mr Peacock —May I, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, point out-I would hate to do the wrong thing in this Parliament; I never have in all my years as a member-that the Minister has handed me a Cabinet document by mistake. It is the draft Bill which would have gone, I assume, before a legislation committee of Cabinet. With your concurrence, I inform the Minister of this while I compare the draft with the Bill that has been presented to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —It might be a good idea if the honourable member returned it to the Minister. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend several Acts relating to aspects of the wheat industry and which will further improve the ability of the Australian Wheat Board to meet the increasingly difficult world trading environment it faces. The Bill is consistent with the Government's policy statement `Reform of Commonwealth Primary Industry Statutory Marketing Authorities'-released as a White Paper on 29 January 1986. A greater level of responsibility has been placed on the members of the Australian Wheat Board both individually and collectively, but with this, the Board has been given more autonomy to act in an independent commercial way than previously; there will be less direct ministerial involvement in the Board's operations; and there will be a greater level of formal accountability by the Board to industry. The bulk of the changes relate to the Wheat Marketing Act 1984, and are contained in Part II of the Bill. This Bill provides explicit power for the Board to set up or take an equity interest in subsidiary companies if this will assist it to perform its functions more efficiently. It will be necessary for me to approve the Board exercising its powers in this regard, with or without conditions. There will be the opportunity for public scrutiny of any approvals given by the Minister as the notice of approval is to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The Board is to be given the power to trade in additional types of contracts in order to hedge the wheat crop. It already has the power to engage in a number of different hedging activities, but in order to protect returns to growers from sudden adverse movements in international wheat prices and exchange rates, the Board must be able to utilise the range of hedging instruments available to other commercial international marketing organisations. Because new instruments are continuously becoming available, I am to be given a power to approve other hedging instruments should this be necessary. The Bill provides a clearer statement of the Board's relationship with the Minister than previously. For example, the Minister's power of direction over the Board is to be amended so that it will now be able to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a conflict with major government policies. A consultative procedure is set down to ensure that the Board has had an opportunity to put its views to the Minister, and the direction will be open to public scrutiny. Another aspect of the changing relationship of the Board with the Minister, and which will ensure that the Board carries out its functions in a business-like manner, is contained in clause 27 of the Bill. This clause provides for the Board to develop corporate and operation plans. Coporate plans will be developed each year for a three, four or five year period, as appropriate, which will define the principal objectives of the Board and outline its intended strategies. In the development of the corporation plan, I would expect that the Board will consult with the industry to ensure that the industry's needs and priorities are taken into account. An annual operational plan will set out, for each successive one-year period, the particulars of the strategies to be pursued by the Board in giving effect to the corporate plan over that year. Both the corporate plans and annual operational plans are to be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry for approval. In this way, accountability arrangements focus on the strategies and longer term performance of the Board and free it from the need for constant reference to the Minister for detailed approval of each major activity. While it would be expected that key parts of the Board's corporate plans may be made widely known to industry, the Board may wish to keep certain elements confidential for commercial reasons. The Board's relationship with industry is also to change. It will become more accountable through the requirement, detailed in clause 11 of the Bill, for a meeting to be held, at least annually but more often if the Board considers it appropriate, with the members of the executive of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. This meeting is to provide the opportunity for industry representatives to receive an address by the Chairperson on the Board's most recent annual report, and on the performance of the Board during that year and for industry representatives to question Board members concerning any aspect of its activities. Because of this increased level of accountability to industry. It is not appropriate for the President or the members of the executive of the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation to be members of the Board. Clause 17 of the Bill provides accordingly. Other significant reforms which gave the Board increased authority to perform in a commercial manner, but which place a commensurate responsibility on it to do so within a properly accountable framework, are contained in clauses 26, 32 and 33 of the Bill. Clause 26 removes the requirement for the terms and conditions on which officers of the Board are appointed to be approved by the Public Service Board. This will mean that the Board will now have the total responsibility for the management of its relations with its staff. Clauses 32 and 33 will enable the Board to appoint a company auditor to audit its accounts. This is consistent with the greater level of accountability by the Board to the industry through the requirement for an annual meeting at which the annual report is formally presented. Should the Board seek to use a commercial auditor, appointment is to be by the Minister for Primary Industry, subject to the agreement of the Auditor-General that the auditor is suitable and the agreement of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to the appointment. The efficient functioning of the Australian Wheat Board as a corporate board is crucial to ensuring that wheat growers continue to get the best possible returns for their wheat. In addition to the major restructuring of the Board which the Government put into effect last year, there are several clauses of the Bill which bear directly on matters at the Board level. For example, clause 18 provides for a new position of Deputy Chairperson on the Board, to be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry after consulting with the Chairperson and the presiding member of the selection committee. The Deputy Chairperson will take over all the responsibilities of the Chairperson at any time the latter is unavailable. Also, clause 20 amends the term of office of members from a fixed three-year term to a period of up to three years. This will enable, for example, members to be appointed for staggered terms to provide for greater continuity of membership and for casual vacancies to be filled for specified terms when a three-year appointment may not be considered desirable. Because one aspect of the Tasmanian wheat freight arrangements was identified as being constitutionally vulnerable, clause 16 of the Bill provides for an amendment to the Wheat Marketing Act to remove this difficulty. Parts III and IV of the Bill make amendments to the Rural Industries Research Act 1985 and the Rural Industries Research (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985 to correct an omission that occurred when those Acts were prepared, thus including the Wheat Tax (Permit) Act 1984 in the scheme provided by those Acts for rural industries research funds. Part VI of the Bill alters the effect of the rural industries research regulations to ensure that the research component of the levy imposed by the Wheat Tax (Permit) Act 1984 is included in the Wheat Research Trust Fund. The passage of this Bill will involve no cost to the Commonwealth. On the contrary, it will enable the Australian Wheat Board to repay to the Commonwealth moneys expended during 1985 on the selection process for new grower and specialist members of the Board. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I also present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(3.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The amendments contained in this Bill are consequent upon the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1986. The Citizenship Bill, which was passed by the House on 13 March 1986, proposed amongst other things that children born in Australia to visitors, temporary residents and illegal immigrants would no longer automatically acquire citizenship by birth unless they would otherwise be stateless. I said during my second reading speech to the Citizenship Bill that in order to regularise the immigration status of these children I would introduce an amendment to the Migration Act in the near future which would have the effect of conferring upon these children the same immigration status as their parents. If their parents' immigrant status differs, the children would be given the status of the parent with the longer non-expired period of permitted stay in Australia. The amendments proposed in this Bill will give effect to that undertaking. This Bill will insert a new section 6AAA into the Migration Act which will determine the status of children born in Australia who, once the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1986 commences, will not be Australian citizens because neither of their parents is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Under the amendment these children will be deemed to be included in the entry permit or to have the same immigration status as their parents or, if the entry permits or status of the parents differs, the children will be deemed to be included in the entry permit of the parent who is authorised to stay here the longest. The amendment carries with it no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House and, at the same time, I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(4.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Departure Tax Collection Act 1978 to transfer the responsibility for the collection of departure tax to air operators. As honourable members will be aware, the Government, as part of its decision on the Bosch Committee on Aviation Cost Recovery, has decided that departure tax will be an attributable revenue for aviation cost recovery purposes from 1 July 1986. Collection of the tax by air operators will have the major advantage of the removal of departure tax collection booths from airports, with the consequent benefit of achieving more efficient passenger flows through our international terminals. In addition, the Government will be able to reduce existing expenditures of approximately $1m each year directly incurred in collecting the tax, plus associated overhead costs. In taking this step, the Government is bringing the Australian situation into line with practice in a number of other countries, including New Zealand, the United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, Fiji and the Philippines, where similar taxes are collected by the airlines. Consultations with air operators have been undertaken and are continuing. The Board of Airline Representatives of Australia, which represents the majority of carriers serving Australia, has been requested to put forward its proposals on how the new collection arrangements should operate. The amendments provide for these arrangements to be provided for in regulations to be made pursuant to the Act, and this will be done when consultations with the operators have been finalised. This approach will also ensure that any necessary changes to arrangements in the future can be made speedily. Consultations held to date with operators indicate that sale of stamps at check-in at airports will be necessary, plus some additional outlets off airports. Clause 5 of the Bill makes it a requirement for international air operators to make tax and exemption stamps available for sale and issue respectively to passengers and provides that the Government can specify by regulation how this is to be carried out. Operators responsible for making stamps available will include not only the scheduled airlines, but also operators who carry out international charter flights. Clause 5, however, exempts from this responsibility operators who undertake private flights and aerial work, as these operate few flights, often from non-major airports. The Government has also decided that it would be unreasonable to expect small charter operators, who operate infrequent flights and carry few passengers, to have to comply with the requirements of the Bill. The Minister will, therefore, be able to exempt individual charter operations, having particular regard to the scale of operations involved. The Act nevertheless requires non-exempt passengers on such private, aerial work or exempted charter flights to pay departure tax, and it is intended that existing arrangements for collection of the tax in these cases will continue. The penalties for offences of failing to make stamps available, without reasonable excuse, are to be $2,000 where the offender is a natural person, or $10,000 where the offender is a body corporate. The Bill leaves unchanged existing arrangements for the collection of departure tax from passengers who depart from Australia by sea. As regards the financial impact of the proposed legislation, I have already referred to the approximately $1m savings each year in direct costs that will accrue to the Commonwealth. Ongoing administrative costs to the Government arising from the proposal will be minimal. Costs of modifying counters at airports have yet to be quantified, and are to be determined following consultation with the airlines as to requirements. While the costs of collecting the tax currently borne by the Government will now be borne by the airlines, the Government considers this to be reasonable, against the background of its decision to make revenue from the tax attributable. Moreover, it should be noted that these are costs which the airlines are often required to bear in other countries where they operate. In conclusion, the Bill will achieve an ongoing reduction in Government expenditure on the costs of collecting departure tax, while facilitating more efficient processing of international passengers using our airports. The regulations to be made pursuant to the provisions of the Bill will also ensure that there is no loss of revenue to the Commonwealth. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The effect of this Bill will be to make permanent an interim scheme to protect the heritage of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. This will be achieved by repealing the sunset clause, section 33, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984. The amendment reflects the Government's wish to retain reserve powers in the protection of Aboriginal and Islander heritage. In June 1984, when the interim Act was introduced, I indicated that Aboriginals and Islanders had demanded of the Commonwealth a role, backed by legislation, in preserving and protecting places, areas and objects, including skeletal material, which were of particular significance to them and were under threat of injury or desecration. The Act does not interfere with the existing responsibilities of the State and Territory governments. Those governments have legislation which requires them to identify, record, research, interpret and manage Aboriginal sites. Management of sites in some cases may be undertaken by members of the Aboriginal community, although unfortunately this remains an exception. Recording the location of Aboriginal sites is simply one step towards later possible decisions as to which sites are to be protected. The basis for these decisions in the States and Territories normally have centred on issues relevant to university research on Aboriginal matters. On other occasions, such decisions appear to have been based on the aesthetic and educative value of the sites. This is especially true of rock art sites. Whilst such values may be important to the wider Australian community, Aboriginals and Islanders want a commitment that areas and objects which are particularly significant to them now would be preserved and protected. Although it is certainly true that much of Aboriginal culture has been lost, it is the aim of this Government to restore, wherever possible, that cultural identity and gain community respect for Aboriginal and Islander people and their traditions. Where an Aboriginal community closely identifies with an area which has historical, cultural or spiritual significance, the Commonwealth Act provides a means of protecting that area from actions which may destroy, injure or desecrate it. The Act cannot and will not be used where a State or Territory government has given assurances, or taken action, to protect such an area. Experience over the past two years has shown that, in most instances, these governments have been willing to take appropriate action. The Act can and will be used where these governments are not prepared to use their powers to protect significant areas. Governments may consider that other public interests are sufficiently important for protection not to be given to Aboriginal areas. The Commonwealth Government also considers such interests when deciding whether a declaration should be made under the Act. The Act, in effect, provides a means whereby Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can use the Commonwealth to review decisions by State and Territory governments. It gives the Commonwealth authority to bring affected parties together to conciliate, mediate and negotiate in order to remove a threat of injury to a significant Aboriginal area or object. Declarations are needed only where such mediation fails to resolve the problem of a threat. The Act has been used in this way during the past two years. No declarations have been necessary in respect of areas of land. One declaration in respect of significant Aboriginal objects has been necessary. The Act was used to prevent the sale of certain items by public auction. During the period of the declaration negotiations were entered into with the auctioneer by a key Aboriginal organisation, and the items were purchased for safe keeping by the Aboriginal community. This experience has clearly shown that resolution of issues can be achieved given the goodwill of parties. Applications have been genuine. Applicants have also been reasonable. State site authorities have been closely involved in reaching suitable agreements to remove or minimise damage. The value of such reserve Commonwealth power is readily apparent. A number of States have commenced revising their legislation and administration of matters such as how decisions on protection and management are taken. Aboriginal communities are considering with greater care what is to be preserved and why, and are seeking to explain these matters in ways which gain wide respect and support in our community. Two years ago the Opposition foreshadowed that this legislation would lead to thousands of applications, and that the Government would act to inhibit land development and planning. These fears have been shown to be without foundation. One of the critics of the interim legislation, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Ltd, in a letter dated 1 April 1986 to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) wrote: While APEA is opposed to the continuation of national legislation on protection of Aboriginal heritage, it acknowledges that, to date, the Federal Government has administered the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act in a fair and reasonable manner. The preservation and protection of significant Aboriginal areas and objects is now firmly recognised as a responsibility of many parts of the community and not simply that of government. This Act must remain to cater for exceptional occasions where mediation and negotiation is needed. It represents a positive instrument in raising our awareness of how important sites, areas and objects are to the integrity of a living and vital Aboriginal culture. I commend this Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.12) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (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. 3 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1986) introduce tariff alterations foreshadowed by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in a Press statement of 26 March 1986 advising further decisions taken by the Government on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. As announced, additional consideration of these issues became necessary because of the continued decline in world crude oil prices since the decision of 24 February to reduce significantly import parity prices from 1 March. Additional duty is being imposed on certain refined petroleum products to recover revenue lost to the Government by the substantial reduction in crude oil excise and royalties due to the lower import parity prices. The increased duty is payable on and from 17 April 1986, which is the same operative date as that for the new wholesale petrol prices announced today by the Prices Surveillance Authority. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 (1986) increase the excise duty on the relevant petroleum products. Excise duty on motor spirit and diesel is increased by 2.622c per litre. The increases for aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are 2.207c per litre and 2.097c per litre respectively. For other kerosene, fuel oil and heating oil the increase is 0.544c per litre. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 (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 are being circulated to honourable members. 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 18.388c per litre in respect of primary production, 16c per litre for mining operations and 14.002c 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 remains a 100 per cent rebate of the duty and the new rebate rate for eligible mining operations effectively means no increase in duty payable. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.16) —The Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill is the product of earlier legislation introduced into this House and the amendments which were not then accepted by the Government. The Bill proceeded to the other place, where the Senate in its wisdom chose to refer the Bill in its entirety to a Senate committee. It was then referred back to this House in its present form. The proposed changes which it contains are quite significant because they clearly demonstrate that, while the Parliament is united on the need to make a number of significant changes to the administration of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, otherwise known as SFIT, the Government's intention to give the Australian Council of Trade Unions considerable powers over the administration of the fund, and in particular the appointment of representatives of contributors to the Trust, caused us very serious concern. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in his second reading speech observed that apparently we had misunderstood the whole matter. He said: . . . the proposed structure of the Trust did not provide for ACTU control but rather for the ACTU to act as a channel, a conduit, through which industrial organisations representing the bulk of the contributors to the Fund could put forward persons suitable for nomination to the Trust. The Opposition finds it rather odd, to put it mildly, that only about 50 per cent of the contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust are members of trade unions, and therefore, in any sense, are affiliated with the ACTU. Yet it was proposed that the ACTU should have the dominating influence. Whether we call it a conduit, a channel, or any other appropriate word, it would continue to have the dominating influence over who represented the interests of contributors on the Trust. For that reason we raised this matter. The issue was fully debated in the Senate. The Senate accepted the need to refer the matter to a committee. The Opposition is very pleased that it has been decided that this proposal will not be proceeded with and the current structure of the Trust directorship, in the context of how its members are appointed, will therefore not be changed. It is quite consistent with the intentions of the Government, insofar as it proposes to introduce the productivity decision on the presumption, no doubt, that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will accept its case. The Opposition believes that it is not tenable that there has been a 3 per cent productivity increase throughout the Australian economy which should be passed on to employees in all sectors in the form of superannuation. The point that the Government has failed to acknowledge through most of this debate-it is a significant problem-is that the additional costs which will be incurred by the Commonwealth on behalf of the taxpayers will be absolutely colossal if this procedure is followed. There is a case to be made that employees who do not have the benefits of superannuation should be encouraged to join funds of either employees or employers, whether as individuals or as corporate members. The fact of the matter is that the Public Service has wide superannuation coverage, and in addition to its existing scheme it is proposed that a further 3 per cent employer share of salary should be paid. I issued a Press statement on this matter on 16 December last year-the day that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made his announcement. I noted then that the superannuation deal would cost the public sector alone a further $900m-an expense that has not been estimated or looked at seriously by the Government in its efforts to ensure that it had a deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which would be acceptable to its members. However it did not take into account the very real interests of all Australian taxpayers, including trade unionists, on the question of whether or not public servants should have a further increase in the employer share of their superannuation contribution which is already 20 per cent. The 3 per cent national superannuation deal struck between the Government and the unions in November as part of the accord mark II will therefore hit all employers, including the public sector, with a $30 billion salaries budget covering 1.7 million employees at Federal, State and local levels-most of whom, as I have said, already have superannuation. In the Commonwealth Public Service alone the superannuation bill is already running at $417.8m for 1985-86. The Opposition has always supported the broad concept of superannuation being universally applied in the sense of people having the right of access to superannuation, and improved vesting, preservation and portability provisions are obviously necessary if we want to introduce into both the public and the private sectors a greater degree of mobility in the labour force. However, the proposed portability arrangements will not significantly improve the ability of public servants to transfer to the private sector and vice versa. This is a very serious problem which we believe the Government has not satisfactorily addressed. Therefore, the full cost of the Government's decision to give in once again to union pressures for productivity wage increases will be felt by all taxpayers, who have to pay out a further $900m to cover additional public sector superannuation in 1986, 1987 and onwards. It is significant that, whilst these new arrangements are meant to come into effect as from 1 July this year, there are still vast gaps in public knowledge as to how the Government's so-called 3 per cent productivity-superannuation deal will be applied and how employers are expected at this late stage to be able to put in place arrangements which may not be within the context of existing superannuation schemes when they do not know the fine print and when, despite the efforts various employer organisations have made to get the Government to tell them its thinking, they have failed to get access to the degree and quality of information which is so necessary for them to get assistance from their accountants, their company advisers and, above all, from superannuation management organisations as to how best these schemes ought to be implemented. These are very serious issues and it is of great concern to the Opposition that the Government has failed so far to apply its mind to any great degree. Another matter to which I wish to refer in this second reading debate is the amendments I shall be moving to the Bill in relation to retro- spectivity. Retrospectivity is an issue about which the coalition parties have a well-known interest and the decision has been taken that retrospectivity will not be applied in legislation wherever it can possibly be avoided. For that reason we are interested in the intentions of the new amendment in the legislation-it was not in the previous Bill which came before the House-relating to what has been known as the Bewley case. As we understand it, benefit classification certificates have been issued against some 66,000 public servants in relation to their access to superannuation through the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. The certificates cover people recruited into the Public Service who may have various physical limitations. These could, for argument's sake, stretch from flat feet at one extreme to cancer at the other. On the basis of the 1984-85 invalidity payments to people who had certificates issued but who would have had them lifted had the Bewley decision been allowed to stand, we have been advised by the Government that there could be an additional capitalised value cost of some $35m. Of course that assumes that the 66,000 public servants I referred to would retire from the Public Service on invalidity grounds prior to reaching the normal retirement age. The likelihood of that taking place is extremely small; nevertheless, it is an eventuality which one has to consider. It has been estimated that in 1985 value terms a pension paid to those people which would have been invalided had the previous system not been circumvented by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in the Bewley case is therefore worthy of some consideration. Mr Bewley transferred from the Tasmanian Public Service to the Commonwealth Public Service. To the best of his knowledge his transfer had been automatically accepted, which meant that he went from the Tasmanian scheme into the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. When he arrived in Canberra he was medically tested, his access to full superannuation coverage was questioned because of a previous melanoma which was removed in 1981. The World Health Organisation health standard, which I understand normally applies to the Public Service, states that if, for five years following the time of an operation for cancer, the patient has shown no further signs of activity in that regard, it is normally accepted that the patient is cured of the disease. Mr Bewley's operation was successful and therefore it could be argued that the WHO standard should be applied. I have not the slightest doubt that had a specialist's report been requested since that time it would have shown that Mr Bewley was clear. The legislation we have before us is introducing an element of retrospectivity back to 1976, but it does explicitly exclude Mr Bewley's case in the context of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision. The Commonwealth has already, on appeal, taken that decision to the Federal Court but in the light of its intention to introduce this legislation it sought the agreement of the Court that the matter be left in abeyance. The situation is that, if this is disallowed in the Senate, as we wish it to be, the position of Mr Bewley will not be the same as it would have been in the context of the original legislation. We wish to revoke retrospectivity in the Bill, essentially to protect the rights of the other 66,000 public servants who may be subject-I emphasise `may be subject'-to being invalided out prior to normal retirement age. The effect of our amendment is to remove Mr Bewley's protection. His case could therefore go forward on appeal to the Federal Court. In the event that the Court upheld the AAT's decision, it could then be argued that Mr Bewley would lose the advantage of his present position, if the Bill were passed as the Government proposes. The Opposition, realising that Mr Bewley could therefore experience real hardship, has recommended to the Government that it should protect his position by guaranteeing him an ex gratia payment, equivalent to the pension he would have received, in the event that he is forced to retire from the Public Service prior to his normal retirement age. As I emphasised earlier, Mr Bewley or any one of the other 66,000 people in a similar position may never be invalided out of the Public Service, in which case they will receive the full retirement pension due to them. This is a sensitive issue. It is a question of principle so far as Mr Bewley is concerned; it is a matter to which the Opposition has given the deepest consideration. We believe that we also have a responsibility to safeguard the interests of the other 66,000 people for whom certificates have already been issued-that is, benefit classification certificates-and their interests must be taken into account. The Government therefore has at its disposal a fairly simple process by which it can overcome what is a unique problem-by granting to Mr Bewley an appropriate ex gratia payment which would overcome the problems which he may otherwise face in the event of our amendment being passed. The saga involving the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust has been with us for a number of years. Perhaps the greatest issue that arose in recent times was a report from the Auditor-General which drew attention to a range of issues relating to the quality of administration of the trust which caused public servants in particular very genuine concern but, strangely enough, virtual silence from the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association on the subject. The Government's reaction at that time to the Auditor-General's report which was tabled in the Parliament was to seek yet a further report from Mr J. D Monaghan, who was at that stage a commissioner of the Public Service Board. The Monaghan examination also raised a number of significant issues. He was later promoted to Auditor-General. The SFIT, subject to changes proposed in this legislation, is being given the opportunity more or less to carry on as it was. Without drawing specific attention to the matters in great detail, it has always concerned me that Mr Monaghan prior to his appointment to the Public Service Board was a very senior officer of the Department of Finance. I am informed that in that role he had, among other things, responsibility for SFIT, insofar as the Department of Finance has in some degree or another responsibility for virtually everything. I make that observation not necessarily to question the judgment of Mr Monaghan in the context of his final report, but to put on record the grave concern that I have had ever since the time of the first Auditor-General's report. But the Minister who at that stage was responsible is in the House, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), and I believed then, and still believe today, that some of the key issues raised in the original Auditor-General's report were not satisfactorily canvassed in the Monaghan report. I simply put on record the fact that Mr Monaghan in the context of his previous interest may not have been the best person to carry out that particular investigation. The fact of the matter is that the Public Service is still not entirely happy with the way in which SFIT is being managed. While it has a form of representation in terms of membership on the board, nevertheless there is a continuing concern about the level of return on the investments which it has made over the years. This has resulted in SFIT becoming the largest fund in Australia, with enormous potential to influence entrepreneurial decisions of many companies in the private sector. I have been of the view that superannuation management, even indirectly, through a so-called statutory authority, is not the province of government. I am equally concerned that the day may well come, in the context of the current takeover fever we hear so much about, that a decision will be taken by the board of SFIT which will result in the closure of some otherwise reputable Australian concern, simply by virtue of the transfer of ownership of a substantial shareholding from SFIT to somebody else-a decision that may be made with all the proper entrepreneurial judgments of the board but of which the electorate at large will say: `Because this is a statutory authority, the Government ultimately is responsible for those decisions'. The amendments which the House has before it today are an attempt to divorce government from the activities of SFIT, but any attempt must fail on the principle that the very organisation itself draws its ultimate existence from an Act of Parliament and none of us can resile from that fundamental reality. I wonder whether the time has not come when we should be giving very serious consideration to changing the structure in such a way that, while SFIT should become more closely associated with the Commissioner of Superannuation or vice versa and involve itself principally as a collection and distribution agency for superannuation benefits, the actual decision-making processes in terms of how the funds are invested are left to appropriate private sector fund managers, and the funds offered out on an annual tranche or tender basis. The decisions taken by the SFIT directors would therefore not be on the basis of individual decision as to the areas in which investment should be made, but on the equally important question of which fund manager has the best record and is thus most capable of returning to the contributors the highest possible dividend on their investment. I venture to suggest that the Public Service as a whole would accept the observation I have made that the ultimate determining factor must be to ensure that the investments made by SFIT, directly or indirectly, return to contributors the highest level of dividend possible. In regard to the examination conducted by the Auditor-General, while there has been considerable argument to and fro on whether the level of dividend presented by the SFIT board during that time was comparable with the private sector, the simple fact still remains that it is in government's long term interests not to be so closely associated with the decision-making process; individual decisions on investments should be made outside the government by properly constituted fund managers who are appointed by the SFIT board on the basis of their performance. Once that situation is in place, I believe we would have a much simpler arrangement under which there would be no risk that any government would be held responsible in a direct sense for individual investment decisions taken by SFIT which could well have a major impact on the private sector and in a manner which could thus be of great embarrassment to the government of the day. I believe these are very significant issues. They are ones which, I regret to say, have not been adequately considered by the Government. I presume the reason is that it seems more simple to have a statutory authority which will now have a staff basis which removes it from the normal line of management of the Public Service as a whole, but at the same time gives its staff the opportunity to return to general line management if it wishes to do so. I am concerned that the investment of funds of this nature is not really the responsibility of government or of public servants. I will go a step further to suggest, although this is not necessarily the policy of the Opposition at this stage, that it may well be worth considering enabling public servants to have the right to place their superannuation contributions elsewhere if they believe that they can get a better return on their money outside the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. After all, not one cent of the funds we are speaking about belongs to the government. Yet a statutory body, controlled by the Parliament and seen by the public as part of the machinery of government, is empowered to make decisions on other people's money. The structure of the board as currently proposed is no different from what it was before. It is fair to say that it has very limited opportunities for enabling contributors to feel that in any sense they have a real opportunity to influence the Fund's management. Accountability of the investment process to members, who consist of 307,869 public servants, is something which I believe the Government and the organisation itself must take very seriously indeed. While the Trust is still required to consider the import of any statement of government policy relevant to its functions which may be provided to it by the Minister, surely the very existence of that provision underlines the point I have been making-that as far as the contributors are concerned, the processes and the directions of investment can well be controlled, albeit indirectly, by a government of the day. When governments get involved in those decisions, it is more likely than not that the contributors will get a low return. I have never found anybody who wanted to thank fund management for achieving that dubious goal. On the other hand, accountability in terms of the management of those funds should remain absolute. The relationship should not be a triangular one-government, individual contributor and SFIT. The relationship should be: Individual contributor foremost; SFIT as the organiser, collector and distributor of the investment return; and finally the company, which is the manager of those funds and which has access on the basis of a competitive arrangement in the market-place to which they will contribute on the basis of their performance. The Government has now gone part of the way. The amendments before us today give the SFIT Board a much greater degree of flexibility in the context of how it wishes to make those investments. I am very pleased indeed to see that, but I remain less than convinced that, with the passage of time, the Board will not, as boards tend to do, draw unto itself virtually all decision-making powers and let out to others only a small element of its portfolio for investment. This is something we have yet to see. No honourable member of this House can say that the position will necessarily remain in situ forever; all I am saying is that the opportunity in this legislation has been missed. The opportunity was there for the Government to demonstrate its bona fides, to show that its principal concern was to ensure the investment potential of these funds. As I said before, not one cent of those funds belongs to the Commonwealth; the funds belong to the thousands of contributors who have no choice as to where their contributions will go and no choice as to whether or not they should have superannuation. The legislation and the powers of the Public Service Board are absolute. If someone wishes to join the Public Service, subject to health requirements and so forth, they must take superannuation. There is no choice to opt out or put their money into the Australian Mutual Provident Society, National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd or a private fund. Is it any wonder that, in the Public Service as a whole, there remains a slowly burning doubt that this enforced investment-that is what it is-over which they have virtually no control is not always being utilised in their best interests? Auditor-General Brigden released a report which underlined the contributors' most deep-seated concerns. The Government's reaction was to establish yet another inquiry which perhaps conveniently came out with a much more acceptable response to the concerns put forward by the Auditor-General. The contributors still doubt the outcome and they will continue to do so until they can see real evidence, which can only come from SFIT itself, that in fact the record of return on invested capital shows a significant improvement, at least comparable with that which would be expected from fund managers in the private sector. Mr Hodgman —The Belconnen Mall. Mr CONNOLLY —The Minister is well aware that the Belconnen Mall is an example of one of its investments; there are many others. The Minister is well aware that every quarter a report is released on the performance of various major funds in Australia. In that context we see SFIT, and therefore we can make a judgment as to whether or not it has in fact performed adequately. I believe that in the not too distant future we will see a range of quite serious political issues arising from the fact that fund managers tend to control between 20 and, in some cases, as much as 40 per cent of all the issued shares in virtually every major company in Australia. One of the biggest crises we as a nation face is the narrowness of our capital base. This Government persists in making it difficult for people to invest in Australia and encourages companies to go overseas to borrow funds, that in turn adds to the problems we are facing at present with our balance of payments. The key issue-I raised it some years ago and I do so again today-is that only 6 per cent of the entire Australian population actually owns equity, in a direct sense, in any of Australia's companies. For a country which claims to be free enterprise oriented, I believe that is a downright disgrace because it demonstrates that, while millions are willing to be employed by the private sector, they have faced a taxation system that has not been conducive to investment. I am pleased to see that that situation has been changed recently. We now no longer have double taxation on company dividends, and I give the Government credit for that change. It is a sad fact that probably the stock exchanges as a whole, and perhaps the entire private sector, have been somewhat dilatory in not seeking opportunities to encourage Australians to share in a direct sense the ownership of the commercial assets of this land. In the context of SFIT, therefore, public servants are involved in an indirect sense. They are locked in; they have virtually no control over decision-making processes. The amendments before us are an improvement but, as I said, that they have gone far enough. I believe that the issues I have raised in debate this afternoon are important. I am not in the least bit interested in protecting a handful of public servants who may or may not work for the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, but I am vitally interested in ensuring that public servants get the best return on their investments. I am also concerned to ensure that they get the best return on the capital they are forced to invest in the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.49) —I intend to reply to most of the bogus arguments presented by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Before I do so, I want to mention one issue upon which I want to take him to task. He expressed genuine concern in relation to Mr Monaghan and the report that was produced. He stated that there was grave concern that, because Mr Monaghan had been a senior officer in the Department of Finance concerned with this issue, when he was asked to prepare the report some of the key issues were not addressed. I am directly quoting the shadow Minister. That is a very substantial reflection on the competence of the Auditor-General of Australia. I suggest that, if the honourable member would like to repeat those remarks outside this House rather than stating them in a cowardly fashion in this way, the Auditor-General would have something to say about it. It was a deliberate reflection on the competence and objectivity of that gentleman and I do not think it is something that a member in this House ought to bring up on the basis of absolutely no evidence. That the honourable member assumes that certain issues were not addressed is not sufficient reason for him to make this reflection. To have done so is an extremely unworthy act on his part. I suggest that the Auditor-General ought to be given the opportunity to reply to these statements in the future. Perhaps then the honourable gentleman might be in a better position to come into this House and apologise to the Auditor-General of Australia. Having said that, let me turn now to some of the issues raised and some of the contradictory comments made by the honourable member. Let me say first that it appears as though the Opposition wants to have it both ways. It has been talking about the importance of investments in the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust returning the highest possible profits to those making the investments. The honourable member repeated that statement over and over. In those circumstances one needs to ask: Why did the Opposition block the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill when it first came up last year, delaying the changes in the provisions which would have enabled the Fund to make substantial profits over the last few months and to make investments in areas which were paying high interest rates, thereby certainly increasing the profitability of the Fund? The honourable member said that he was concerned about the profitability of the Fund, yet he turned around and defended the Opposition's actions in the Senate which prevented the legislation going through in the past, which has effectively meant that profitability has been reduced for a substantial number of months. In addition, we have to ask ourselves: Why did the Opposition reject the Bill in the Senate'? It rejected it because the previous Bill had within it a statement that the Trust's structure would be changed so that two persons would be nominated by the Minister and three persons would be nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. What happened? Opposition members jumped up and down in the Senate and, together with the Australian Democrats, rejected these provisions, claiming that the Fund would be dominated by the ACTU. The fact of the matter is that they did not understand, nor did they fairly judge, what was being suggested. The shadow Minister tried to claim that he was concerned about what was happening to the investments being made and that the ordinary public servants in the Fund did not have any say. The provisions that were put in at that time were intended to secure a say for people in the Public Service through the unions in the Public Service. I remind honourable members that 63 unions are represented in the Public Service. The point of the ACTU proposal is that it would act as a peak council, in consultation with those unions, and make nominations to the Minister in relation to the representatives on the Board. That was all that was being proposed. In other words, it was a system to get representation for public servants, as workers, in their own Fund. What happened? Because of the Opposition's fanaticism about anything to do with the ACTU, it rejected those clauses in the Senate and all the other positive features of the Bill were rejected and delayed. The very worthwhile investments which could have been made in the last few months have been delayed and public servants who have investments in the Superannuation Fund have suffered as a consequence. Let us not hear any more bleating from members of the Opposition that they are concerned to maximise the return for public servants. We know about their attitude to public servants. It was indicated by the Opposition's shadow Minister when he was talking about whether there should be only one Public Service fund. Was he suggesting that we privatise the Public Service fund? Is the privatisation principle coming up again? This is probably what he was suggesting. It is a further attack on the Public Service and the public sector of this country. If any public servants in this country think that if the current Opposition is re-elected they will get anything other than a reduction in their conditions of employment, a reduction in their total numbers and a general attack on the public sector, they ought to have another look at what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and many other members, including the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown), who is in the chamber, have been saying. There is no question that if the current Opposition is ever re-elected we will see the most massive attack on the Australian public sector that we have seen probably in our history since Federation. One of the things that will be attacked and certainly will not be supported is the Public Service Superannuation Fund. We know that the Opposition has not adopted a substantial policy on this but we also know about the statements that certain members have been making about so-called `fat cat' public servants and their superannuation entitlements. If this Opposition is ever re-elected we know that public servants and their entitlements under the Superannuation Fund will be subject to a disastrous attack. The speech by the shadow Minister and his pretensions of being interested in the welfare of the people contributing to the Fund are a lot of nonsense because, as I have said, he has made those points and they stick clearly in our minds. The other matter I want to refer to before I get on to the general issue of superannuation is the Bewley case. We were told that members of the Opposition do not like retrospectivity of any kind. Apparently we are not to have retrospectivity, even if it benefits people. We have a very interesting situation whereby Mr Bewley is to benefit from this retrospective legislation, if it is retrospective in the sense mentioned by the shadow Minister. This man has suffered, yet we are told that the Government should not introduce this provision but instead should make an ex gratia payment to Mr Bewley and leave it at that. Mr Smith —Why not? Dr THEOPHANOUS —There may be other people in similar circumstances who need to be treated in that way. What is wrong with the provision? We did not hear anything from the shadow Minister as to what was wrong with the provision, except that, according to him, it is retrospective. I can understand some opposition to retrospectivity when it is taking away people's rights, but what is the point of opposition to retrospectivity when it is assisting people? Obviously that is a bogus argument and I am sure that Mr Bewley will not be amused by the Opposition's attitude to this matter. I turn now to consider the more general question of why it is important for us to pass this legislation in the form in which the Government has suggested, not with the foolish amendments that have been mentioned by the shadow Minister. There has been ample opportunity for amendments and suggestions to be made in relation to this Bill. This Bill went through the Senate and it was rejected on the basis of one clause only. It was sent back to the House of Representatives, and when it is again presented here there are further amendments by the Opposition. A secondary process is taking place. It appears the Opposition is determined to use this Bill to bash public servants and their entitlements and to delay further public servants' entitlements. I shall come back to the point that I made at the very beginning. This legislation must be passed urgently so that the flexibility can be given to the boards of the funds to make investments which will give a higher yield and a higher return for those public servants who have made an investment. It is a very important situation and I do not understand why we are now facing further amendments and further possible delays in the Senate due to the irresponsible approach being taken by the Opposition. The shadow Minister claimed that there is something very wrong with the control of the Superannuation Fund being in the hands of persons who are appointed through the government process, but the Liberal Party and the Democrats have rejected the Government's proposed amendment in relation to appointees from the Public Service unions or the unions who service public servants, who would be more responsible to the people concerned. That proposition was knocked out by member's of the Opposition. So, they cannot come in here and say: `These poor public servants are contributing to a fund but they have no say in the determination of the matter'. The fact is that when the Government provided the opportunity for public servants to have a much greater say in the determination of the composition of the board, the honourable members opposite knocked it out, and they are responsible for that. The Opposition says that a group of investment advisers should be provided to give advice as to the most profitable areas in which to make investments. Of course there is nothing wrong with that suggestion. The provisions of the Bill allow the new board to actually appoint people and staff. I am sure that some of the staff to be appointed will be people who will be able to give very good advice about investment decisions. Therefore, I do not think that honourable members opposite need to worry about the performance of the Fund in future, that is, if the legislation is allowed to go through the Senate rather than being delayed in the way that has occurred. The honourable member opposite also mentioned that superannuation funds now control about 40 per cent of total investment in the private sector of Australia. This is supposed to be a very serious matter and a very bad situation, according to the honourable member. Why is it a serious matter? Why is it a bad situation for the private sector to have investments from funds which in the past have exercised their investments in a very rational and responsible way, certainly not in the way of the great take-over booms that we have seen in recent times? The superannuation funds have not behaved like the latter-day tycoons that we have seen in recent days in Australia with this extraordinary take-over activity. Would the honourable member suggest that superannuation funds not invest in the private sector? What would they do with their funds? It is clear that his comments in relation to the investments by the superannuation funds are a further attempt to create some confusion in the community in relation to the importance of public investment and also investment through funds. The point here is that the Government's new proposals on superannuation and the expansion of superannuation programs are intended to increase the participation of workers in superannuation and, in increasing the participation of workers in superannuation generally, to also allow them to participate in the private sector indirectly in the ownership of companies and to share the profitability of the private sector to the extent that that occurs. Of course, we have had enormous opposition from the Liberal and National parties to the superannuation scheme being proposed by the Government. Mr Connolly —And so you ought to. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Why has there been opposition to it? It is because the workers are going to have a say in the superannuation scheme. The shadow Minister says that we ought to have opposition. The shadow Minister has come in here and said that the workers in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme do not have a sufficient say in various matters; yet when the Government made proposals that allowed for private sector workers to participate in their schemes through their union movement, what did we get? We got total opposition from the Liberal and National parties. Their exercise is one of the most reactionary actions that we have seen from the Liberal Party in its recent reactionary and extreme right wing history. The fact is that this co-operative process-and I remind the House that it is a co-operative process between the union movement on the one hand and employers on the other, whereby joint superannuation funds will be formed-will allow for a massive expansion of superannuation in this country, which should have occurred many years ago. It is a disgrace that in this country about 50 per cent of all workers are still not covered by superannuation. The Liberal and National parties were in government for many years and they must bear the brunt of the responsibility for the fact that we are one of the most backward countries in the Western world in terms of our contributions to a generalised superannuation scheme. For the Opposition to oppose those schemes is an absurdity. The shadow Minister talked about how only 6 per cent of Australians have investment in the private sector and said that it is only through the indirect participation of superannuation funds that they have more investment. One wants to ask: What did previous Liberal and National Party governments do during their many years in government to promote a greater ownership in corporations? What did they do to promote the small shareholder? What did they do to promote workers participating in, and gaining some shares of, the corporations in which they worked? They did absolutely nothing; they brought down no legislation or incentives. They did absolutely nothing to encourage the participation of workers in the great spread of ownership of corporations in this nation. However, honourable members opposite then get up and say: `Is it not terrible that this situation has occurred? Is it not dreadful?' But who was responsible in those many years when the Australian private sector was developing, especially industrially, for the failure of this participation? Obviously it was the current Opposition, the Liberal and National parties. So, let us not hear any more humbug from them. Let me conclude by saying that this Bill is important for all public servants. It is very important that their superannuation entitlements be preserved. For that to occur, it is important that we have no more delaying tactics from the Opposition or any attempt by members of the Opposition to get up here and pretend that they are acting in the interests of public servants when we know where their philosophy lies-total opposition to the public sector and the benefit of public servants. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.09) —The Acting Treasurer and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), representing the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), advised us in his second reading speech that this Bill does not contain those provisions concerning the structure and composition of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust which were rejected by the Senate on 8 October 1985. This is without doubt an improvement, regardless of the rantings of the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). The honourable member is a bit of a black holer, a political collapsed star, because he attracts all the dogma and doctrine within millions of light years but, like that celestial phenomenon, emits no worthwhile light of his own on any subject. Despite the Minister's somewhat impassioned defence of the original proposals at page 4 of his second reading speech, it is quite clear to those of us who have looked into the matter carefully that the degree of the Australian Council of Trade Unions' influence proposed in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 was indeed excessive. Members will recall that the withdrawn Bill proposed to establish the composition of the Trust at five members. Of these, there was to be a principal member appointed by the Minister who would serve on a full time basis, another full time member to be nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in accordance with clause 7 (4) of that Bill, along with two part time members, again nominated by the ACTU, and a part time member nominated by the Minister. The broad point of concern was that three of those five proposed members would have been appointed through and subject to the influence of the ACTU. I invite the House to contrast that proposition with nearly 50 per cent or so of members of the Fund who are not members of a union. While the Minister went to some trouble to suggest that the criticism of the original Bill was misguided, his defence was far from persuasive. The Minister says that it was not control but co-ordination that was intended. He argued that the proposed structure of the Trust would see the ACTU acting as `a channel, a conduit, through which industrial organisations representing the bulk of contributions to the Fund could put forward persons suitable for nomination to the Trust'. We have already indicated that nearly half of the members of the Fund are not union members, yet over half the proposed Board members would have been nominees of the ACTU. With the greatest respect, this surely strains credibility to breaking point. There is of course the additional concern about the suitability of some of those persons likely to be put forward by industrial organisations. Quite frankly, I would not want some of the more notorious union officials in Australia to manage my petty cash, let alone my future superannuation benefits. I mention these points in some detail because, while specific elements are not in this Bill, the Minister stated that, following the joint statement by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on 16 December 1985 about guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes, one proposal is for: standards for control of new superannuation funds which envisage equal numbers of trustees nominated by members and employers, or unions and employer organisations where appropriate. So even the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations recognise that there should be at most half and half membership of trust or superannuation schemes. But, nevertheless, the Government persisted with that-- Dr Theophanous —Do you agree with that? Mr ROCHER —No, I do not agree with that. Nevertheless, the Government persisted. The Minister went on to add in his second reading speech on this Bill: It is also the Government's intention that, where the productivity award is paid into existing schemes, member-union representation should be encouraged in respect of those schemes. Until the details of the control aspect of the draft operational standards have been firmed up and there is general agreement on the most suitable structure for the controlling bodies of superannuation funds, it would not be appropriate to make any significant changes to the structure of the Trust. Accordingly, for the time being, the Trust will remain as presently constituted under the Act, that is, a full time member and two part time members-all members of the Trust being nominated by the Minister for appointment by the Governor-General. I point out to the House that the key words in that are `for the time being'. It is only for the time being that the Trust will remain as presently constituted under the Act, if this Government has its own way. The interesting change mentioned in the Minister's second reading speech is the deletion of the provision that permits the part time position of members' representative on the Trust to be held by a pensioner and which requires pensioner organisations to be involved in the nomination process. I can understand the line of argument made by the Minister when he said: Because members' accumulated contributions are paid out of the Fund on retirement, pensioners and their organisations have no further interest in the performance of the Trust and the Fund. For this reason this part time member position has, in practice, only ever been held by a contributor to the scheme and the amendment being made will ensure that this arrangement continues. I note that it is not until we turn to page 8 of the explanatory memorandum and page 6, clause 9 (d) of the Bill that we see the rewording of that clause to delete words, which show what is intended. The words proposed to be deleted are- . . . him with such organisations as he considers appropriate, being organisations the members, or a substantial proportion of the members, of which are eligible employees or pensioners- and the words to be substituted are: the Minister with such relevant individual organisations as the Minister considers appropriate. So it is that no one is to specifically represent the interests of subscribers having the qualification of being a likely beneficiary. That choice is still open to the Minister but he is not bound to choose accordingly. The Bill includes a number of other subsidiary changes to the Trust. Clause 9 (a) removes so-called sexist language by deleting reference to `the Chairman' and inserting the clumsy title `principal member'. Mr Gear —What about `Chairmember'? Mr ROCHER —One could come up with a lot of suggestions and they would all probably be better than that one. Clause 10 establishes the principal member as the executive member of the Trust. Clause 11 prevents the principal member from engaging in other work. Clause 13 makes provision for resignations. Clause 14 calls for disclosure of interest by Trust members. I have no doubt that they will probably be called upon sooner or later-perhaps they should be in this legislation, if the Government was entirely logical-to fill out a register of their pecuniary interests. Clause 15 creates a new sub-section 35 (1) which expands on the existing grounds for termination of Trust membership appointments to include inefficiency or incompetence. Clause 16 provides for acting appointments. Clause 17 sets out provisions for meetings of the Trust. Clauses 18 and 19 involve the delegation of powers and the delegation of authority by the principal member of the Trust. The Bill progresses through the other important clauses 23, 24, 25 and 27. Turning to matters of particular note, I read with interest the Minister's remarks concerning the need to define the Trust's objectives and duties, to strengthen the Trust's ability to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund in the most effective and efficient manner and to enable it to operate in competitive financial markets with a proper degree of freedom and flexibility in investment policy. To this end, clause 8 proposes the insertion into the principal Act of a new section 29a to specify the objectives and duties of the Trust. That can only be an improvement. Proposed new sub-section 29a (1) sets out the objective which enjoins the Trust to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund so as to maximise the return earned. We would all subscribe to that objective. At the same time, it states that the Trust must have regard to the need to make provision for payments out of the Fund under this Act; to ensure equity among eligible employees so that different generations of eligible employees are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by investment decisions; and the need to exercise reasonable care and prudence in order to maintain the integrity of the Fund. The Trust is required to balance potential return and inherent risk so that the corpus of the Fund is not imprudently or carelessly dissipated. They sound fairly noble objectives. But I think it imposes a great obligation. I am not sure that the definitions will make it any easier for the Trust, as it is to be constructed, to meet those objectives. I must say that it is a very difficult task and one that, if there were any litigation at some future time, would leave plenty of room for argument by lawyers. This puts the Trust managers in a potentially difficult position. Return is to be maximised, according to the Minister, within the overall requirement of prudence, but that is not all. Equity is to be an objective. Equity is defined in the legislation as ensuring that different generations of eligible employees are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by investment decisions. That is truly a remarkable requirement of a fund manager. I do not know or understand the reasons, the logic, for a manager being required to make sure, in the terms expressed in the legislation, that eligible employees are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. Surely it would be the object of any prudent manager to advantage the membership of the Fund. Clause 20 proposes to amend section 41 of the principal Act to provide a number of additional powers to the Trust to increase its flexibility in managing the Fund and investing. This would include empowering the Trust to underwrite, or sub-underwrite, any form of investment, to borrow moneys, and to limit the Trust's borrowings to no more than 10 per cent of the market value of the assets of the Fund. Also included is authority under clause 20 (6) empowering the Trust to engage investment managers. I hope they take advantage of that. On page 6 of the Minister's second reading speech he says that this Bill significantly enhances the accountability of the Trust both to contributors and, as a statutory authority, to the Parliament. I have mentioned those aspects dealing with the annual report of the Trust. I note that the Minister goes on to state in relation to the Trust: . . . will be required to inform contributors and organisations representative of contributor's interests about the management and investment of the Fund, taking into account the need to protect subjective commercial information. This is an ambiguous requirement. There are some areas of concern here particularly relating to the information to be provided to so-called representative organisations. So far I have largely addressed those issues which will enable the Trust to be on a more independent footing, with greater flexibility to manage and invest the Superannuation Fund in a more commercial manner. I have addressed those elements which are designed to enhance the accountability and the management and staffing of the Trust, and those areas which define its role and duties. This Bill also proposes amendments to the principal Act that will correct the anomalous situation that marriage may, in certain circumstances, disentitle a spouse and children from benefits that would otherwise have been payable to them had a relationship continued on a de facto basis. There are amendments clarifying the intention in relation to the test whether a benefit classification certificate should be issued to a person, or an existing certificate revoked or varied. The Commissioner for Superannuation must be of the opinion that there is or is not a real risk that the person will not continue to be a contributor until maximum retiring age because of a particular physical or mental condition. Page 2 of the explanatory memorandum indicates that there would be serious cost implications if this proposal were not followed. As to the stated likely impact if benefit classification certificates had not been issued for any of those contributors who retired on invalidity grounds in 1984-85, the capital cost of the invalidity benefits that became payable in that year would have increased by some $35m. Also included in the proposed amendments are changes to provide the Commissioner for Superannuation with the powers of a secretary to a department and changes which enable the Act to be modified by regulations relating to a contributor who transfers to another superannuation scheme without necessarily changing employment. The Minister's second reading speech also raised the issue of amendments to the cost recovery arrangements under the Superannuation Acts of 1922 and 1976. As the Minister pointed out, these amendments will enable the relevant Minister to `limit an employer's liability to the cost of the employer financed share of any benefits that accrued under the scheme to an employee'. The amendments determine that employers who, prior to 1 July 1981, were treated as if exempt from the requirement to meet the cost of superannuation benefits are formally relieved of the pre-1981 liability. Finally, the amendments require an employer to meet his liability to the Commonwealth on a pay as you go basis as if the scheme were funded rather than let the liability build up until benefits are eventually paid. My understanding is that pay as you go is an alternative to the emerging cost system. With the emerging cost basis the authority concerned reimburses the Commonwealth for the costs of benefits as they are paid. Pay as you go arrangements involve fortnightly payments to the Commonwealth of a percentage of an employee's total salary for superannuation purposes. This percentage is apparently based upon actuarial assessment of the authority's superannuation liability in each case and is intended to be sufficient to cover the employer's share of the estimated cost of future superannuation payments in respect of the authority's staff. To have a dual scheme-to have a choice of pay as you go or the emerging cost system-will present problems in due course. I wonder about the wisdom of a statutory authority being required to pay increments weekly, fortnightly or monthly, as the case may be, to the Government, for the Government to pay those sums to itself, as it were, back into Consolidated Revenue, and for the money to be lost there for all time rather than perhaps to be accounted for, if only notationally as an accrued liability in the reports of statutory authorities. We all know what happened in the past with Trans Australia Airlines and other statutory authorities where there has been no notational accrual of liabilities under superannuation schemes and as a consequence their balance sheets are meaningless when one is measuring their economic or commercial viability. Mr McVeigh —They should be giving the whole picture. Mr ROCHER —That is right, they should be giving the whole picture. There is a great argument for statutory authorities, and in particular trading authorities, being required to present their accounts in a way that is demanded of corporations by Commonwealth Government legislation. However, that is another matter. I do not have confidence that there will be any great improvement as a result of this dual system that is proposed. I might have time to mention one final matter. The Minister's second reading speech has made it rather difficult to decipher the effect on expenditure. It seems that the Government recognised the mistake in introducing the previous Bill in the Senate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.19) —This afternoon we are debating the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill, which is of great significance to the 315,000 contributors in the 80 Commonwealth Government authorities throughout our nation. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) saw fit to attack the proposal that the Australian Council of Trade Unions be involved in the appointment to the Superannuation Investment Trust Fund. After all, the honourable member represents in this House a seat which is named after one of the greatest trade unionists that Australia has ever known, a man who guided the destiny of this nation during war, when our country was in great peril. I feel that men such as Curtin, Chifley, Scullin, Watson, people who were unionists and who have made a great contribution to this nation, should not be denigrated in such a manner. It is a fact that almost 50 per cent, we are told, of contributors to the Fund are not members of unions. This is a nation in which unionism is not compulsory. All contributors derive an advantage from applications made by unions in industrial matters, such as industrial appeals and applications in relation to wages and conditions. The question arises: Who will speak on behalf of the contributors? It is not an unreasonable proposal that the unions have a say, that they have some consultation process in relation to nominations to the Trust. The honourable member for Curtin might not want a unionist to fix his fence. However, many people throughout our nation are decent, hard-working unionists. We have a Parliament which is guided by a man who made his career as a unionist and a union advocate, a man to whom the Australian people turned in 1983 to lead our nation out of a terrible economic mess. I want briefly to touch upon the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who implied that the enormous amount of $2 billion which has been garnered from public servants over the years perhaps should be left to the private sector to invest. One of the first speeches I made in this chamber in August 1982 concerned a number of old people in my electorate who had lost all their savings in the crash of Alpex Commodity Traders Ltd in Queensland. Regrettably, at the time it looked as though those people would get only 5c in the dollar for their investments. There have been, and regrettably there continues to be, crashes in companies in which retired people place their savings and investments. What we are about in the Parliament today is ensuring that the contributions of the 315,000 public servants and employees of statutory authorities are not put at risk, that they are managed by the most competent and efficient persons who are available and that they are administered by a trust. I point out that it is not the prerogative solely of the business community to be efficient, competent, honest or intelligent. This legislation is of importance. Other speakers have gone through it and pointed out that it was returned by the Senate, having been rejected by the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats because the ACTU was involved in nominating the members of the Trust. The purpose of the Bill is outlined in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford). The Minister said: These reforms are intended to define clearly the Trusts objectives and duties: to strengthen the trust's ability to manage and invest the superannuation fund in the most effective and efficient manner; to enhance its accountability both to the parliament and the contributors; and to enable it to operate in competitive financial markets with a degree of freedom and flexibility in investment no less than that afforded the larger private sector superannuation funds. Our nation believes that superannuation funds, for the most part, should have a special privileged relationship with the rest of society in that they do not pay tax on their profits. As Parliament has been told, Mr J. V. Monaghan conducted a very extensive inquiry into the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust because of allegations and concerns expressed by the Auditor-General. Mr Monaghan's report was presented to Parliament in March 1984 and subsequently legislation resulted. It is not my concern today to delay the Parliament. I was a member of the Commonwealth Public Service from 1954 to 1970 and paid an enormous amount of money into the fund. At no time did I have the right to borrow for a home loan or anything like that from the Fund. When eventually I left the Attorney-General's Department to go into a private firm all I received was my money back without a penny of interest. Fortunately, since 1976 the whole scheme has changed and now an ongoing pension may be paid in addition to the contributors' share of moneys paid in. There is the lump sum option or a pension option. The Fund now is much fairer and stronger because of the more humane approach to, in many cases, the only nest egg or asset some public servants and employees of statutory authorities have. The legislation is of great importance and concern to public servants. They are very interested in it. Other speakers for the Government have outlined the various detailed sections of the legislation, all of which go to strengthening the investment and the supervisory powers and the efficiency of the Trust. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.36) —I rise to respond to the request of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in his second reading speech on the Superannuation Legis- lation Amendment Bill 1986 for comment on the draft standards concerning the guidelines for the proposed productivity decision and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. The Minister said: The Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) issued a joint statement on 16 December 1985 concerning guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. The Government is seeking comment on the draft standards which are a framework for further discussion and development in co-operation with interested groups. I would like to confine my remarks to that part of the Minister's second reading speech because speakers from this side of the chamber quite obviously have covered the specifics of the legislation with a fine-tooth comb. I support the views that have been expressed by speakers on this side of the chamber. I take the opportunity to respond to the Minister's request as contained in his second reading speech. It is appropriate to address the underlying purpose of this Bill. Productivity claims in the guise of superannuation payouts to those in our community not presently covered by superannuation schemes are badly timed and ill-conceived. They are so badly timed and ill-conceived that a National Party of Australia colleague of mine in the other place, Senator Ron Boswell, has given notice of a private member's Bill which challenges constitutional rights. Hopefully, the Senate will pass that Bill and the Government will have the courage to bring Senator Boswell's private member's Bill to this chamber, this forum, so that we can debate what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), has said is a vitally important matter. The Australian economy obviously is not in a position to allow its small businessmen and farmers to suffer further because of additional demands on its profitability. Businesses of all sizes and types currently are straining over the demands of high interest rates and loss of markets. To add further to this pressure will lead to more uncertainty and hence to less productivity instead of more. The issues of superannuation and productivity are, in reality, two separate items. However, for some reason they have been linked, resulting in a certain amount of confusion in the community. The first fundamental issue is whether Australia, at this moment in history, can afford to add the proposed 3 per cent productivity award to its costs of employment. Our international, national and rural indicators are all in decline. The so-called J curve looks like remaining more of a U curve without any foreseeable hope of an upward extension. Government regulations affecting our private sector, especially our small business, add to the cost of running a business and, therefore, reduce any surpluses earned. It has been estimated by the Government's Business Regulation Review Unit that the paper burden cost to small businesses of government regulations is $1,090 per year in 1985 dollars. Whenever I and my colleagues visit small businesses in our electorates the people concerned always say: `Can we not get rid of the red tape? Can we not get rid of the bureaucracy? Why do we have to fill in all these different forms?'. In most instances they serve no useful purpose. They add to costs. Mr Hawker —Hear, hear! Mr McVEIGH —My colleague the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) is a practical farmer. He knows the costs that accrue when he is asked for statistics for this and that-what side of the beasts are branded, whether they are ear-marked, how much was produced on the farm last year and whether the corn cleaner that grandfather left in the corner of the paddock in 1896 is still there. It is useless, but it adds to costs. Mr Hawker —And you do not get paid for it either. Mr McVEIGH —Quite so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —The honourable member for Wannon will cease interjecting. The honourable member does not need his assistance. Mr McVEIGH —Sometimes I need assistance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —On this occasion, you are doing reasonably well, so heed the Chair. Mr McVEIGH —Based on the fact that there are about 600,000 small businesses in Australia, this extracts about $650m for the private sector each year. The bulk of these costs are associated with Commonwealth taxation provisions. I applaud the strong resistance being exerted by enterprises of all sizes in all States in opposing productivity claims and superannuation legislation-I am delighted to know that at least in one State, Queensland, the Premier, Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, has indicated quite clearly-he is a man of definite purpose and carries out his undertakings-that if by some stretch of the imagination these productivity claims are granted as superannuation he just will not pay. I understand that J. T. Lang was his model. At one stage that Labor Premier of New South Wales was not going to pay Federal taxation. I suspect that the Premier of Queensland understands what goes on. He believes that, if someone sets a good example, it is appropriate for him to follow it. I do not think that he would be very pleased if I said: `Mr Premier, the good example you are following is the lead of a Labor Premier of a State'. I suspect that if the fundamental is right and the opportunity is there, the Premier of Queensland will take notice of that good example given in the bygone era of the late 1920s, early 1930s, by a Labor Premier of New South Wales. It is unfortunate that the Hawke Government is demanding that the employer must pay even if it means that he could be driven out of business because of a reduction in profitability. There seems to be a great antagonism from those who temporarily occupy the other side of this House to profitability. They are totally opposed to it. There seems to be something wrong with profitability. There is only one thing wrong with profitability in Australia-there is not enough of it. It has been said that productivity gains have already been distributed through the 38-hour week, lower prices and the creation of new jobs. To seek to redistribute these productivity increases in the form of superannuation will add to inflationary pressures. When one considers the 3 per cent productivity increase on top of a 2.2 per cent increase for wages in the April wage case and, in addition, the 2.3 per cent increase for on-costs last financial year, our labour charges are well in excess of those of our major competitors. This increase of 2.3 per cent for on-cost expenses accounts for more than 55 per cent of our labour costs in 1984-85. Superannuation is part of these on-costs, as are leave payments, workers compensation and training expenses. A warning has come from Mr Colin Polites that these on-cost payments, especially redundancy and termination payments, will deepen and prolong any downturn in our economy. If our business houses cannot compete, no one wins. Our need to tighten our fiscal policy is well stated. However, it is important that our ordinary unionists realise this because, after all, their jobs are at stake. It is our economy and their economy which is going down. Whilst the Government is preparing the electorate to expect an adjustment in our standard of living, it is not willing to confront the ACTU on this issue. Instead of working to increase employment, it is willing to step aside and allow a further deterioration in our employment levels. By adding additional financial burdens to our business sector, it is sending a real, sustained recovery further into the future. The fundamental question remains: Will the distribution of productivity growth be made to labour to meet industrial demands or to capital to increase returns on investments? I argued previously that productivity has already been distributed to workers. Any gains should be allowed to remain with business to be ploughed back into its earning capacity. The warning bells are ringing. We need to take heed or we will see a further slide in our economic strength. I will talk for a few minutes about the composition of the office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. It is encouraging to see that the Trust Board will remain as presently constituted under this Act. I applaud the moves to make it a commercially responsible and oriented enterprise. That is good and that type of action by the Government should be encouraged. However, there is a public outcry that an ACTU controlled fund penetrated the Government's shield, which resulted in a reversal of the original Bill. Yesterday morning, I was interested to hear Mr Ian McLachlan of the National Farmers Federation talk on the radio about the rural package that was to be delivered yesterday afternoon. I recall that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) repeated meaningless words and platitudes, but there was no substance to the statement. I presume that that was the package to which Mr McLachlan referred. He said that Mr Bill Kelty of the ACTU was a government Minister. That is horrendous when leading Australian public figures say on the electronic media that this Government has a Minister from outside the elected representatives in parliament. That happens in America but it is not the norm in Australia. It is a scathing indictment of the capabilities of the Hawke-Keating-Bowen Ministry that a national leader of a rural group says that Bill Kelty is a Minister. Obviously, there are still nagging doubts about the composition of the Board of Trustees. I leave that because the previous speaker on this side of the House, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), went through those concerns. As the Bill is set out, it does not seek to alter the existing basic structure of the Trust or the existing method of selection of Trust members of the Commonwealth scheme. Yet this decision can be reversed if the occupational superannuation scheme comes into effect. Once again, we could see a larger trustee Board by a concerted ACTU push for control. I understand what the honourable member for Lowe said. I agree that not every worker is incapable of being a businessman. Like farmers and business people, workers have the ability to be commercially-oriented and to do a good job. There is no issue with this, but what is of concern is whether there is to be control by a selection of the community which, on its past history, has proved to be incapable of operating a commercial enterprise. The honourable member for Lowe passed certain comments about the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It might have been appropriate for him to paint the whole canvas, to tell us about the great commercial enterprises of the ACTU President, as he then was, such as ACTU Solo and Bourke's store. Those ventures demonstrated that the present Prime Minister-I say this kindly, without in any sense trying to create controversy-was a plain dunce as a businessman. That is the concern we have. It is not a concern that individual people are not capable, but that history has demonstrated that people we might ordinarily consider to be good administrators can prove to be dunces. Mr Kelty has stated that the ACTU is prepared to push for joint control of all schemes-not only joint control for this new occupational scheme but also joint control of all existing private employer schemes. This would include the Commonwealth employees superannuation trust which we are presently debating. Therefore the composition of the Board could once again increase to five or more members, with the ACTU nominating four of the five members. On the surface, this Bill seems to be innocent enough, a return to the status quo in the composition of the board of trustees of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. But there is one point on which I would like the Minister to comment. On page 8 of the second reading speech it is stated: The present staff attached to the Trust are officers of the Department of Finance. They will have the option of accepting offers of employment with the Trust or remaining as departmental officers. It is expected that there will be few, if any, of the present staff who decline offers of employment with the Trust. I am not sure whether that statement raises the Irish or the Scots ancestry in me, but I am on my guard. Mr Millar —It could be a bit of both. Mr McVEIGH —I understand the warmth with which the honourable member for Wide Bay interjects that it is a bit of both. He might say that it is a bad mixture when the Scots and the Irish get together. The combination does concern me a little. Why are these employees so keen to transfer to the new Trust? Is it because the conditions will be better? I seek an assurance from the Minister that these Department of Finance officers who are going to transfer to the Trust will not be transferred on conditions which are better than those they are enjoying at present. In the final analysis it needs to be realised that these trust funds are invested not for the benefit of the people who are working as members of staff but for the benefit of those who are the trust holders. I feel very strongly that there must be no golden handshake given to those officers who transfer. We must be vigilant and look beyond the Bill. The unions and the Hawke Government are determined to infiltrate the existing superannuation schemes as well as create one giant scheme of their own comprising of 50 per cent of the working population. This power grab will make our unions the richest in the world. This financial power base could be used to buy governments as well as institutions. While I do not oppose voluntary superannuation, I totally oppose forced compulsory unionism and an undermining of existing corporate superannuation schemes. Some union participation in such schemes is acceptable but complete control is dangerous. Therefore I call upon the Government to think before this issue gets totally out of hand. Our 600,000 small businesses are at risk, our living standards are at risk and, above all, our freedom and our independence are at risk. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Canning I draw the attention of honourable members to standing order 57, which is constantly breached. That standing order states that members will not move between the Chair and the member who is speaking. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.55) —In supporting the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill I would like to spend a few minutes picking up some of the points made by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). He spoke of the cost to small business of the red tape that is inherent in government interaction with small business. If he goes back through the record books he will find that most of that red tape was instituted by the conservatives. It is always a wonder to me how members of the Opposition can get all these good ideas when they are in opposition but they never do anything about them when in government. I venture to say that, were they ever fortunate enough to occupy this side of the House again, we would find the red tape still in place when they subsequently went out of office. It was also a revelation to learn from the honourable member for Groom that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen is to defy the law. It is not the first time he has done that; he did it in regard to the Medicare legislation. It is good to see that the citizens of Queensland-or 35 per cent of them, in any case-who elect Sir Joh to that esteemed position are electing a recognised law breaker and somebody who by his own admission is quite proud of it. The honourable member also went on to talk about profitability, alluding to the Government's intentions to negotiate a productivity case with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Profitability under this Government soared to levels unknown under the Government of which he was a member. So what we are in fact saying is that some of that profitability should go back to the people who helped make it possible. We are saying that it should not go back in wages but by way of a superannuation scheme, and I will come back to that a little later. You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when this Government came to power it was faced with many serious areas of neglect, many of which impinge on the Bill we are discussing today. The superannuation scheme that had evolved over 30 to 35 years of conservative rule had gaping holes in it. The first thing this Government did was plug some of those holes. The lump sum superannuation provisions under which next to no taxation was paid was fixed up. We now have a much more comprehensive taxation system, if people wish to take their superannuation as a lump sum, which was never the intention in the first place. This Government wants people to take their superannuation over time, which was the intent of superannuation schemes. With next to no tax being payable on lump sums, coupled with the fact that we did not have an assets test, pensioners could take the lump sum virtually tax free, invest it so that it was turned not into income but into capital growth, and by that means take the age pension. The double dipping was stopped virtually straight away by this Government. We plugged those gaping holes. Another area that needed attention was taxation. That took us a little longer because of its complexity. Certainly we have taken out all the rorts, such as the entertainment and free lunches that were the preserve of the more affluent. They benefited from those provisions at the expense of people such as the public servants who contributed to this superannuation scheme we are talking about today. The fringe benefits tax allowed people in the private sector to walk around the taxation system, yet our public servants, who are covered by this superannuation scheme, as are members of this House, were subject to pay as you earn tax. There are many other points I will not go into now, but certainly the plugging of a lot of those holes in the taxation system has meant that we have a much fairer taxation system, and that is to the benefit of all. This Government also inherited an economy in a real mess. People who can remember back to those days know that the economy was taking a nose dive. In the last year of the Fraser Government 200,000 jobs were lost. The economy has been turned around, to the extent that our growth rates today are amongst the highest in the world. We promised 500,000 jobs and have delivered over 600,000. The other gaping hole involved superannuation. We plugged up the hole when we first came in, but it did not fix the underlying problem-that not many people, at least in the Australian private work force, could have a comprehensive superannuation scheme. To put the matter into perspective, I think it is worth looking at the aging of our population in Australia. In 1881 only 2.5 per cent of the population were aged over 65 years. That figure grew to slightly more than 10 per cent-in other words, it went up by more than 400 per cent-in the 100 years to 1981. Projections are that by 2001 the figure will exceed 12 per cent. Therefore, superannuation is not only a matter for the public sector but also for the private sector. It is not the first time governments have thought of this. I came across a speech back in 1938 by a conservative Treasurer, Mr Casey, who, unlike his conservative contemporaries of today, looked 40 years into the future and made some projections about superannuation implications for the Budget of that day. He made a prediction back in 1938 that in 1978 there would be 1.28 million pensioners. The actual figure was 1.38 million, so he had an error of only 2 per cent. He also predicted the cost. The cost he predicted in 1938 was $478m in 1978 values; the actual pay-out in that year was $3,229m. One can see the escalation of the cost was an error of 680 per cent. It is very hard for us to look into the future and to estimate what future superannuation schemes will cost. Certainly many of the measures in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill will make the position very much more flexible and allow for the capital growth necessary to fund superannuation schemes in the future. It is instructive to look at that speech made in 1938 and compare the predictions with the reality. I alluded earlier to the private sector and the lack of superannuation facilities. An Australian study of 583 private businesses, covering more than 700 different schemes, found that the participation rate was 56 per cent among men and only 22 per cent among women. But in the different sections within those groups 91 per cent of executives and 72 per cent of salaried people were covered, but only 32 per cent of workers were covered by schemes. Under the Commonwealth superannuation scheme all people are covered and this contrasts the difference between the public and private sectors of the superannuation scheme. The honourable member for Groom alluded to the Government's negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to remedy this past neglect in the private sector. The current provisions in respect of retirement income for people in the private sector relate to the age pension and its benefits. It goes to an overwhelming percentage of people in the private sector mainly because of the fact that there is not a comprehensive scheme to allow people in small firms at least to join a superannuation scheme. Also there is private occupational superannuation, to which employees of many of the larger firms and indeed Commonwealth public servants have access to. The present system is unfair because all taxpayers forgo $3,000 in taxation receipts, yet only 40 per cent of the Australian population receive the benefits. As I have already pointed out, they go increasingly to the more affluent. In fact, that is borne out by a 1985 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which shows that of people earning over $520 a week 73 per cent were in superannuation schemes; yet only 23 per cent of people earning less than $320 a week had access to those schemes. In round figures about 40 per cent of the Australian population have superannuation schemes, including Commonwealth employees covered under this legislation. Of the 60 per cent of people who do not have access to comprehensive schemes, about 95 per cent get the age pension or part of it. The agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions will for the first time ensure that an investment is made in respect of retirement benefits for the future. That is the essence of a superannuation scheme: It is benefits forgone today to provide an income for tomorrow. I believe that this is the first time a government has been in a position to implement that. I know that there were earlier moves by a previous Labor government, but it lost office before it could see the fruits of its endeavours. I am sure that this Government will be around for long enough to ensure that the negotiations with the ACTU will produce for the first time a comprehensive scheme for people in private industry who currently do not have access to the superannuation benefits of people in the Public Service and also in the larger firms. Some of the broad principles the Government will be looking at are-and I read from Government in Focus of April 1986-as follows: . . . the need to reach an appropriate balance between providing for the needy and maintaining adequate incentives for self-provision for retirement; and the need to ensure that occupational superannuation arrangements were used for genuine retirement purposes and operated on a sound and equitable basis for the benefit of the whole community. The 315,000 contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme will have their retirement provisions advanced by the passage of this legislation. The initiatives of this Government in the private sector will complement the provisions of this legislation and ensure more adequate retirement for all Australians. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(6.05) —On behalf of the Government, I thank those honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I shall respond to a couple of the points that have been made. I think that it was unfortunate that the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) chose to reflect on Mr Monaghan's report-not apparently because he disagreed with the findings of the report, but because he thought in some way Mr Monaghan might have been biased in his consideration of the issues, given that, in the honourable member's consideration, he had some responsibility for the administration of the institution under review by him. In the first place, it is not the case that Mr Monaghan had any direct relationship with these issues. It is true that at one stage he was an officer of the Department of Finance, but not within that division responsible for overseeing the functions of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Indeed, he had left the Department of Finance before the matters which his predecessor as Auditor-General had commented on and which he himself was then investigating. I think it is fine for the honourable member for Bradfield to disagree with Mr Monaghan's findings if he wants to, but simply to say that in some way we should not take Mr Monaghan's findings seriously because of some suggestion of bias is a very unfortunate reflection on Mr Monaghan. He is a man who has achieved very high office within the Public Service and he now occupies an independent office, where he is responsible only to the Parliament. I think that for a member of Parliament to reflect on his capacity in that way is indeed unfortunate. Perhaps it is best that I refer to the Opposition's proposed amendment now rather than in the Committee stage. It probably will not come as much of a surprise to the honourable member for Bradfield to find that the Government does not accept the Opposition's proposed amendment. The principle established by the Bewley case to which the amendment refers has serious implications for the administration of the medical classification provisions and would render them almost unworkable in view of the difficulty in establishing a particular degree of probability as opposed to identifying the existence of a real risk. There would be a sharp reduction in the number of benefit classification certificates issued and the effect would be to make the payment of full benefits on invalidity, retirement or death almost automatic irrespective of the cause, and the benefits would thus virtually become social welfare benefits rather than superannuation benefits. The cost implications would be extremely serious. If no benefit classification certificates had been in force in relation to contributors who retired on invalidity grounds in 1984-85, the capitalised cost of the benefits that became payable to such contributors would have increased by $35m. The Government's amendments to section 16 are to operate with retrospective effect to 1 July 1976, the date of commencement of the Act. They have been designed, however, so that they will not affect the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to set aside the decision of the Commissioner for Superannuation to issue a benefit classification certificate in relation to Mr Bewley himself. Mr Bewley's position will be protected either way. Because of the importance of the principle at issue, the Commissioner has appealed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision to the Federal Court of Australia. Pending the outcome of the appeal he is continuing to administer section 16 on the same basis as previously. If the Bill is passed before the court hands down its decision and the Bill has retrospective effect to all cases but Mr Bewley's on the basis that his is the only case in which the AAT has handed down a decision against the Commissioner, the Commissioner's appeal will be withdrawn. It is argued by the Opposition that this represents a matter of retrospectivity and as a matter of principle I want to dispute that. I think what the Minister for Finance (Mr Walsh) is trying to do here is establish a very important response by this Government-and I would hope also other governments. Where a court, which, let us fact it, does not have the kind of fiscal responsibilities that governments have, hands down a decision which has a serious impact in terms of extending benefits in a way which was never intended by this Government, or indeed by previous governments, I think it is quite reasonable-indeed I think it is the duty of governments-to move in and change the law to prevent the courts making that kind of unwanted interpretation. Simply to say that courts, or in this case tribunals, have a freedom to make whatever interpretations they like, regardless of the consequences for the exchequer, is I think to have a very undisciplined approach to the whole question of public finance. Therefore, as long as the individual who was the subject of the court decision has his or her new rights protected, I think it is perfectly reasonable for governments to move to change legislation to ensure that that new circumstance, established not by government, not by parliament but by the tribunal and the court, does not have effect across others. That is certainly a government's entitlement and, I would have thought, also its duty. There are many other circumstances in which governments should have taken that action to ensure that we did not get into difficulties which have occurred in other circumstances in the compensation area as well as the veterans' affairs area. On those grounds, the Government will oppose the amendment proposed by the Opposition, both here and in the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.15) —I move: Clause 2, page 1, sub-clause (1), omit ``Sub-section 4 (1), section 5 and sub-section 6 (1)'', substitute ``Sub-section 4 (1) and section 5''. During the second reading debate I took the opportunity to cover in substance the reasons for the Opposition wishing to move this amendment. The Opposition wishes to remove from the Bill the provisions for retrospectivity insofar as they stand. As I said, I covered the matter in the second reading debate; so I do not wish to take the time of honourable members any further. However, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Chairman, I would like to clarify a point made by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in relation to some observations that I made about the Auditor-General, Mr Monaghan. As honourable members would be aware, I am not in the habit of using this chamber to cast aspersions on people who are not members of this House and who therefore are unable to defend themselves in this place. It appears that my advice about Mr Monaghan's involvement with the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, while he was a senior officer of the Department of Finance, was incorrect. If that is so, I accept the points made by the Minister and accordingly I withdraw any suggestion that Mr Monaghan may not have been the best person to carry out that investigation at that time. As an ex-chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, naturally I have the deepest respect for persons who hold the position of Auditor-General. I certainly would not use the Parliament in any sense to impinge upon the status of the person holding that position. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(6.16) —I thank the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) for his elucidation and I repeat that the Government will not accept this amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Connolly's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (Mr Deputy Chairman (Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth. R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jull, D. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Cowan, D. B. Milton, P. Nehl, G. B. Keating, P. J. Howard, J. W. Bowen, L. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(6.27) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Primary Industry informing the House forthwith as to whether or not the Government proposes to reverse the decision announced by the Treasurer on 19 September 1985 regarding quarantining of farm losses and the current revenue implications of the Government's decision on that issue. It is important that Standing Orders be suspended immediately to allow the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to explain to this House and, most particularly, to the long-suffering farmers of Australia precisely what his Government intends to do about the quarantining of farm losses. Not only has the rural package as announced yesterday and as perceived by the Australian rural community yesterday been a total disaster and a dead loss in terms of assistance for farmers and the political credibility of this Government in rural Australia, but also, on top of that, the one thing the Government thought it had going for it in that package, the one thing that it was trumpeting around the farms of Australia that it had done something about, was that it had decided to abandon that stupid proposal in its statement of 19 September to quarantine farm losses. When we picked up our newspapers this morning and read stories about the package unveiled by the Minister for Primary Industry we all imagined that the quarantining of farm losses was gone. That was the common understanding of everybody. Articles in the Press were headed, for example, `The Scrapping of Tax Weapon Welcome', and so on. There were stories that it had been reversed. Many Press reports said that that proposal had been reversed. Of course, if honourable members opposite doubt the Press and doubt what the Opposition had to say about it, let us go to the statement of the Minister. It is a very nice, glossy document. Like all the Government's policy initiatives, it is strong on glossy publications but very weak on commitment and actualities. It is a bit like Priority One and a bit like the drug offensive. The Government spends a veritable fortune publishing these glossy documents and then, within 24 hours, its Ministers are contradicting them. I ask honourable members to listen to what is said on page 59 of this document. Listen to this absolute bon mot from this Minister and this Government. Under the beautiful heading `Measures and Initiatives' this is what the Government had to say, and I ask honourable members to listen to it as it is so very important: Because of the depressed state of the rural sector and the possible greater-than-expected impact on genuine primary producers, the Government will not proceed with its proposed quarantining of farm losses and the associated improved averaging provisions. These changes will cost, in revenue forgone, an estimated $65m in 1987-88 and $45m in subsequent years. Mr Hunt —How much? Mr HOWARD —It was $65m and $45m. They were the figures in this nice, glossy publication entitled `Economic and Rural Policy'. In the good old tradition of Priority One, here it is in nice bold nine-point type. That is what one was entitled to think the Government was going to do. It was not much, but at least it was something. That of course was before the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) got his hooks into it. That statement was made without taking account of the Minister for Finance, without taking into account the state of the Minister's distemper on these matters. In the Senate today the Minister for Finance was asked a question about the status of the Government's rural policy. This is what the Minister for Finance had to say. It was an absolute pearler. The Minister for Finance has dropped many clangers in his time-I note that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) walks out to get another brief-but this one would have to take the cake. The Minister for Finance was asked a question by Senator Chaney about the real meaning of the Government's commitments on this issue, and this is what the Minister had to say: It has not been a reversal. Mr N.A. Brown —Not a reversal? Mr HOWARD —Not a reversal. He then stated: Firstly, Senator Chaney should get his facts straight. Senator Chaney should get his facts straight! He went on: The decision has not been reversed. It has been announced that the Murrumbateman hobby farmers for whom Senator Lewis speaks in this place will be addressed in a different way and there will be some other changes relating to valuation of stud stock. But it gets even better. He continued: As a point of fact it is quite wrong to say that there has been a reversal. Therefore the figures that have been used of $65m and $45m are also incorrect. They are the words of Senator Walsh, and he went on to say in his normally defiant fashion that there has been no reversal of the decision on the quarantining of farm losses. That is not surprising, because Senator Walsh did not want that decision reversed, and in fact as late as 18 March this year Senator Walsh was arguing very defiantly in the Senate that there was no justification to reverse those decisions. He said: . . . I say again that reversal of government decisions on either or both of those issues-- that is, the capital gains tax and the quarantining of farm losses- would make absolutely no contribution to easing the present fiscal problem in the agricultural sector. They were Senator Walsh's words on 19 March, and yet in this nice glossy publication brought down yesterday what did Minister Kerin have to say on behalf of the Government? It is no wonder that he is not here. He said: Because of the depressed state of the rural sector and the possibly greater than expected impact on genuine primary procedures, the Government will not proceed with its proposed quarantining of farm losses. Whom do we believe? Do we believe Senator Walsh or the Minister for Primary Industry? It is no wonder that the farmers of Australia have lost confidence in this Government. How dare the Minister for Primary Industry go before the Rural Press Club today and say that the National Farmers Federation has lost credibility. The only people who have lost credibility with the farmers of Australia are the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. The reality is that Senator Walsh fought to the bitter end the abolition of the quarantining provision. He did not want it removed, neither did the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and he is still having his way. The Government's rural package, which was universally condemned by farm leaders around Australia and which was seen as being an inadequate response to the problems of rural Australia now in 1986, is now suffering the further liability that the one thing that some may have argued they had going for them has been thrown into total doubt and confusion by what Senator Walsh has said. The reality is that the Government is deeply divided as to whether or not that provision should be in or out. The Treasurer has gone overseas in Pontius Pilate fashion, washing his hands of any responsibility. Senator Walsh is fighting a rearguard action about it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is overseas. He will make a colossal negotiating leader on behalf of this country, marching in to see the President with a shambles of a rural package behind him, with no one knowing what is in the package, whether quarantining is in or out. I think the President would be entitled to say to the Prime Minister: `You get your act in order before you ask me for anything on behalf of American farmers'. Frankly, this is just characteristic of the problems this Government has. It cannot make up its mind on a simple thing like this. It has had eight months to decide whether or not this stupid ideologically based, crazy provision about quarantining farm losses should go in or out of the tax package. There was nothing else in the package of any note, apart from this one thing that farmers might have been able to hang on to. It was the one thing that had been reliably and systematically leaked by the Minister for Primary Industry. No wonder the National Farmers Federation is angry. Sections of the Press had this statement three or four days before the Government had the decency to show it to the farm leaders of Australia. It is no wonder they are angry about the discourteous way that they have been treated. The Government could not even get that right. It could not even tell the public whether farm quarantining was in or out. This was the pathetic response of the Minister for Primary Industry: `I don't know anything about it; it is not my responsibility; I will refer it to the Treasurer'. Then this afternoon his office was saying that it was just sloppy language by the Minister for Finance. Some sloppy language by the Minister for Finance! The reality is that, despite the parlous conditions of Australia's rural industry and despite the overwhelming case for a proper policy response, the Government failed to produce one yesterday. To compound its incompetence and its inability to understand the problems of Australia's farmers, the Government has not even been able to get its act together on whether the quarantining is in or out. We have the Minister for Primary Industry saying it is out, the Minister for Finance saying it is in, and the Minister for Finance saying that the figures in his own colleague's statement are wrong. On behalf of the Opposition I say to the House that the Minister for Primary Industry ought to have the guts to come in here right now and tell us exactly where the Government stands on this issue. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.37) —I second the motion. The position is compounded. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has told the House what happened between the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). Not only do we have the Minister for Finance contradicting the Minister for Primary Industry but also we have the Minister for Finance contradicting the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford). In the Press release by the Acting Treasurer yesterday, we find that the very facts repeated in this House by the Minister for Primary Industry with respect to the abolition of the quarantining of farm loss and the costs were repeated by the Acting Treasurer. I return to the statement where he says: Not proceeding with the quarantining measure involves net revenue forgone by the Commonwealth of about $65m in 1987-88 and $45m in subsequent years. We want a full explanation tonight from the Minister for Primary Industry. At present not only do we have the Minister for Finance contradicting the fundamental rural package brought down by the Minister for Primary Industry that has been rejected universally within this House and outside it, but also we have the very people who are supposed to advise the Government on financial measures contradicting each other. Let us face it: Is the Acting Treasurer right or is the Minister for Finance right? Have the quarantining provisions been abolished or are we, as the Minister for Finance says, to accept that the policy has not been a reversal, that the decision has not been reversed? The position in rural Australia was bad enough come yesterday evening. We have waited for eight months in a very, very protracted pregnant pause, trying to determine whether or not the Government had recognised that the drought and domestic costs have affected the interests of every Australian farmer. We were told yesterday that the Government was going to bring down a major rural policy statement. The key element of that statement was that there was going to be an abolition of the quarantining of farm loss provisions. We know that everything else in the statement is nothing much more than subterfuge. There is very little detail in the rest of it; it is nothing but a hotchpotch of promises with very little performance. The only key element, the major significant move, was that the measure the Government should never have announced in the first place was going to be abolished. We have had discussion after discussion in this place about when the Government would bring in the package, the deferred tax package, and when the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the quarantining of farm loss provisions would be brought into this House. Finally, we thought we had got somewhere; one of them was to be eliminated. But today we have been told that that is not so. Unless the Minister for Primary Industry comes into this House, no member of the rural community can have any faith at all in what he said yesterday. Today it is the element of the quarantining of farm losses that has been reversed. What will happen tomorrow? How much of the rest of this package can we believe? The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is sitting at the table. He is very proud of his declaration of pecuniary interests. We know what a mess that is in after we have had the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) not declaring their pecuniary interests in matters where there was a demonstrable possible conflict of interest. We know what the Minister for Trade has done in fiddling the appointment for one of his flunkies in the Milan trade post. Thirdly, we know that we now have a major conflict between the Minister for Primary Industry, the Acting Treasurer and the Minister for Finance. We are in a position where the Government is in a shambles. The Prime Minister is going into a major negotiation on Australia's behalf in a hopeless position. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, the President of the United States of America cannot trust the Prime Minister's words. He has probably gone over there saying that we have had a major domestic policy statement but we are in the position where it has now been all reversed. We know that there has been a complete fracas involving a number of members of this Ministry. They do not know where they are going. The Government is in a shambles. The Prime Minister is away. The Treasurer has run off because he is not prepared to stay and face the music. The Minister for Finance has said that the essential element of the Government's rural policy has not been implemented. I add that the Minister for Primary Industry, half a minute before this debate is up, has left the House. He came in briefly, he showed his face and ran for cover. We have in the chamber the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). We have nobody who counts for a row of beans in the Government present in the House. There is a major contradiction in a fundamental rural policy statement and the Government- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.42) —The Government will not facilitate the suspension of Standing Orders, which will really come as a surprise. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) talks about pecuniary interests and so forth. But one of the funniest stories to come out of the last election was when the Leader of the National Party got up to give his policy speech at Armidale and said: `Ladies and gentlemen'. What happened then in the workers club at Armidale? The burglar alarm went off! All this week I have been requested by the Whip and by the Manager of Opposition Business to facilitate- Mr Porter —We do not want the sheep; we want the sheep dog. Bring him in. Mr YOUNG —Oh, be quiet, poor little rich boy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting from out of his place. Mr Sinclair —Yes, it's funny how they treat farmers with contempt, isn't it? Mr YOUNG —He is not a farmer. You are joking! He is the last of the traditional Porters from down the south-east. He has never seen a farm, let alone been a farmer. I have been requested, as the Leader of the House, to facilitate as much time as possible for debate this week on the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr Sinclair —We don't even know which statement it is. Mr YOUNG —Are Opposition members telling me that they do not want to debate this issue tomorrow? Is that what I am being told? Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —They do not want to debate it tomorrow? Okay, that is all right with me. It will not come on tomorrow. We will put on other Government business. What a ridiculous thing this is! The Leader of the Opposition asked a question at half-past two. At 6.45 p.m. it rings a bell. He thinks there might be some difference between what the Minister for Primary Industry said and what the Minister for Finance said in the Senate. So four and a quarter hours later somebody rings a bell in the head of the Leader of the Opposition and says: `John, go in and suspend Standing Orders because we might be able to exploit a difference between Senator Walsh and Mr Kerin on the quarantining of farm losses'. What happened between half past two and a quarter to seven? Where was the Liberal Party's tactics committee that is giving it so much good advice on making the Leader of the Opposition Prime Minister of Australia? Then the Leader of the Opposition told us that President Reagan will say to the Prime Minister of Australia: `Go and get your story right back in Australia'. Apparently President Reagan now reads the Senate Hansard! He is the only one in the world who I know who reads the Senate Hansard. There are not too many in this House who read it and I would not advise it as good reading for anybody else in Australia either. What absolute nonsense the Opposition carries on with. If it wants to use up a bit of time of Parliament, that is all right. But what does surprise me is that it uses the Leader of the National Party to inform me in this way that the arrangement I made to make available pretty well all of tomorrow for debate is not wanted. Opposition members have now told me to take it off the agenda for tomorrow. That is okay because we have other business we can put up for debate. If the Opposition believes that the rural policy speech is not an important issue to spend some time on, it should let everybody in the country know that it has been taken off for debate tomorrow because Opposition members asked me to take it off. Everybody in Australia should know that the Opposition is too afraid to debate the Primary Industry Minister's statement to the Parliament yesterday and is using this tactic to make sure that I do not bring it on in the Parliament. That is all right. We will fix it up when we adjourn tonight. The Opposition has the Kerin statement. It is all printed, and before all members. Some Opposition members sat here and listened yesterday. Some of the more intelligent people opposite listened to what the Minister for Primary Industry said. Some of the less intelligent people did not listen so they do not need to concern themselves with getting another opinion from the Minister for Primary Industry. He has laid down for the Parliament and all the farmers in Australia the exact attitude of the Government towards their problems. But what really does surprise and shock me, and what must shock the Minister, is that Opposition members do not want to debate it. Let me just put their minds at rest. Some of them may have been listening to find out whether John Howard can survive as Liberal Leader. That is what all this is about. It is really boring. It is boring not only to those opposite but also to us. Poor old John has to come in here and flutter every now and again to see whether those opposite are still supporting him. For God's sake, will they go to him every morning and say: `John, you have our support today. There is no need to put on any of your turns in Parliament.' He used to be much better when he did not have these things to worry about. He was much better as deputy when he could float all these ideas. It might have been a bit of trouble to Andrew but it was no trouble to him to maintain his position. Now he is so concerned that he is a nervous wreck. Opposition members are running around the Press Gallery so much talking about their own Party that they have their Leader a nervous wreck. He comes in here and talks about what will be good and what will be bad for the farming communities. But, at the very moment that he is talking about it, the two groups in the Opposition are talking about splitting up the coalition because the Liberal Party cannot service all of the coalition's wants. What will the Opposition do for the farmers when they get back into power? They have said that they will scrub the assets test, scrub lump sum superannuation and increase all the pensions. All the payments of the Government will go up and all the revenue of the Government will go down. What sort of Budget will they have in an incoming conservative government in Australia? We will not facilitate debate on this matter at the moment. After this debate I will discuss whether those opposite were serious about having a discussion tomorrow on the Minister for Primary Industry's statement. I have something important to explain and I will say it slowly so that the National Party members can understand it. Are you all ready? Tom, are you ready? The important thing to explain is that quarantining is not on. The Minister made it quite simple yesterday. He could not have been any clearer about it. Now do Opposition members understand that? If so, will they go and explain it to the Leader of the Liberal Party because he does not seem to understand what is happening. Can honourable members from that corner give me an indication about tomorrow? Does the Opposition want a discussion tomorrow on this statement? Opposition members interjecting- Mr YOUNG —Then what is all this about? The Leader of the Opposition is trying to stop the Opposition from discussing this matter tomorrow. All I can say is that the Opposition has enough problems on its hands with all the undercurrent of intrigue that is in the Liberal Party and the National Party at the moment. I do not think that the Opposition should worry too much about fabricating differences on policy between Ministers and trying to exploit something that was made quite clear yesterday in the Parliament by the Minister for Primary Industry. The Opposition ought to attend to its own house, its own problems, its own divisions and its own policy. The Opposition talks about there being some difference of policy on this side of the House. My God, when will we see the first sign of policy from the Liberal and National parties? When will we see any sign of any policy from the Opposition, be it rural or urban, that will affect the people of Australia in the future? I thought that policy would rain on us when John Howard became Leader of the Opposition but it seems to be like the rain itself; it has all dried up. John Howard has no ideas now that he has become Leader. The Australian people are waiting anxiously for any policy that can come forth from the Opposition, in regard to the farmers or any other section of the Australian community. We will hear more tomorrow, if I feel inclined to bring on this matter for debate. Now that the Opposition has raised it and taken up so much time of the Parliament, I can see that it is not keen to discuss it. The Government will not go along with this sort of nonsense, of poor little John trying to put on a performance in front of the Opposition in order to maintain his position. He should do it with dignity and a bit of statesmanship, not this sort of nonsense. I will have a yarn to him after the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time allowed for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Brown, J. Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Jull, D. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Cowan, D. B. Milton, P. Nehl, G. B. Keating, P. J. Howard, J. W. Bowen, L. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill returned from the Senate with requests and amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's requested amendments. Senate's requested amendments- REQUESTS BY THE SENATE FOR AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENT UPON CONSIDERATION OF MESSAGE No. 292 OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES No. 1-Page 40, sub-clause 35 (1), definition of ``allied veteran'', lines 21 and 22, leave out '', before 1 September 1957,''. No. 2-Pages 87 and 88, sub-clause 68 (1), definition of ``defence service'', line 32 (Page 87) to line 11 (Page 88), leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `defence service' means- (a) continuous full-time service rendered as a member of the Defence Force on or after 7 December 1972 and before the terminating date; and (b) in the case of a person who- (i) was rendering continuous full-time service as a member of the Defence Force immediately before the commencement of this Act; (ii) continued so to render continuous full-time service until and including the day immediately before the terminating date; and (iii) was, immediately before the terminating date, bound to render continuous full-time service as such a member for a term expiring on or after the terminating date, includes the continuous full-time service rendered by the person as a member of the Defence Force on and after the terminating date and before- (iv) the expiration of that term or, if that term is deemed to have been extended by sub-section (4), (5) or (6), the expiration of the extension of that term; or (v) the lawful termination of the person's service as a member of the Defence Force otherwise than by reason of the expiration of the term for which the person is bound to serve, whichever occurs first, but does not include any period of peacekeeping service;''. No. 3-Page 89, sub-clause 68 (1), after definition of ``peacekeeping service'', add the following new definition: `` `terminating date' means the date fixed by Proclamation for the purpose of this definition, being a date not earlier than the date of commencement of an Act establishing a Military Compensation Scheme.''. No. 4-Page 89, paragraph 68 (4) (a), line 34, leave out ``the commencement of this Act'', insert ``the terminating date''. No. 5-Page 89, paragraph 68 (4) (a), line 37, leave out ``after the commencement of this Act'', insert ``on or after the terminating date''. No. 6-Page 90, sub-clause 68 (5), lines 3 and 4, leave out ``the commencement of this Act'', insert ``the terminating date''. No. 7-Page 90, sub-clause 68 (5), line 5, leave out ``after the commencement of this Act'', insert ``on or after the terminating date''. No. 8-Page 90, paragraph 68 (6) (a), line 17, leave out ``the commencement of this Act'', insert ``the terminating date''. No. 9-Page 90, paragraph 68 (6) (a), line 20, leave out ``after the commencement of this Act'', insert ``on or after the terminating date''. No. 10-Page 90, after sub-clause 68 (6), add the following new sub-clause: ``(7) Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) do not apply to a person who was bound to render continuous full-time service as a member of the Defence Force immediately before the terminating date unless the person- (a) was so rendering continuous full-time service immediately before the commencement of this Act; and (b) continued so to render continuous full-time service until and including the day immediately before the terminating date.''. No. 11-Page 90, sub-clause 69(1), line 35, leave out ``Subject to sub-section (2)'', insert ``Subject to this section''. No. 12-Page 90, paragraph 69(1)(a), line 38, leave out ``commencement of this Act'', insert ``terminating date''. No. 13-Page 91, paragraph 69(1)(b), lines 1 and 2, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) is serving in the Defence Force on or after the terminating date and has so served continuously since a date before that date,''. No. 14-Page 91, sub-paragraph 69(1)(c)(i), line 6, leave out ``, being service that ended''. No. 15-Page 92, sub-clause 69(2), line 8, at end of sub-clause, add ``unless, under sub-section (1), this Part would apply to the person by reason only of his or her having rendered that further period of service.''. No. 16-Page 92, after sub-clause 69(2), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(2a) Where a person renders continuous full-time service as a member of the Defence Force at some time after the commencement of this Act and before the terminating date but has not so rendered continuous full-time service continuously from and including the day immediately before the date of commencement of this Act to that time, sub-section (1) does not apply in respect of the person unless- (a) the person completes 3 years' effective full-time service as such a member before the terminating date; or (b) the person's service as a member or officer of the Defence Force is terminated as provided by paragraph (1)(d) or (e), whichever is applicable, before the terminating date.''. No. 17-Page 130, after sub-paragraph 102(5)(a)(i), insert the following new sub-paragraphs: ``(ia) the Cross of Valour; (ib) the Star of Courage;''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(7.03) —I move: That the requested amendments be made. Honourable members will recall that when the Veterans' Entitlements Bill was last considered by this House, on 14 April 1986, The House rejected the requests for amendment made by the Senate. However, this House forwarded a message to the Senate indicating that it would be prepared to agree to amendments to the Bill if amendments and requests were to be made in the Senate as set out in Schedule C attached to the message. The Senate has now made requests for amendment in accordance with the form proposed in Schedule C. It has also made amendments to the Bill in conformity with that Schedule. Only the requests for amendment are now before this House. The amendments sought by these requests are supported by the Government and the Opposition. The effect of the amendments requested was explained in the explanatory notes previously circulated to honourable members and I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House by covering that ground again. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(7.04) —Obviously the Opposition is not opposed to this motion because it embraces the closing stages of the completion of consideration of the massive Veterans' Entitlements Bill and related legislative package. It is interesting to reflect for a moment that that package was commenced way back in May of last year, but not before some parts of the veterans legislation had already been enacted in the mini-Budget legislation which was rushed through Parliament at that time. It is now a matter of record that a number of positions were taken. The coalition supported some 42 amendments to the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill. It came back before the Parliament later in the year in a revised form, with the Government taking up some of the points at that time which subsequently led to an agreement being tabled in the Senate. In part, what we are now doing is bedding down those mainly coalition-initiated amendments but also amendments from elsewhere to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. This does not yet complete the final stage in respect of the complex procedures associated with this veterans legislative package. It is a matter of record that the coalition stuck to its guns in relation to the retrospective amendment. It is now a matter of record that that amendment was defeated in the Senate earlier today. We were trying to prevent and preclude a backdated bite at the digger. That was discussed in more detail earlier this week in the House, so I will not dwell on it. What can be said is that, as a consequence of the responsible approach taken by the coalition throughout the consideration of the veterans legislative package, we have an outcome which has been very helpful to veterans and those related to the veterans community. In particular we have seen six major breakthroughs. The deletion of the 40-year rule which would have discriminated against war widows; the extension of repatriation cover to HMAS Sydney and other ships sailing between Australia and Vietnam; the retention of repatriation cover for recruits, new enlistees, until a military compensation scheme is legislated for; the retention of allied veterans' arrangements for those who fought with us in Vietnam and other conflicts since 1957; the improved eligibility for medical entitlements of all service pensioners who receive a 50 per cent disability pension; and the redrafting of clause 119 relating to the standard of proof to ensure that no onus of proof relates to the claimant. In respect of the last aspect, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that clause 119 is the engine-room clause of the legislation. It lays down the standard of proof operative in the future with repatriation in this country. At no stage did our amendments or our approach to this legislation interfere with the fundamental operations of clause 119. In fact, by and large there was bipartisan support for the engine-room clause of the legislation. It is to be hoped that after the agony of this last year in respect of veterans' affairs, not only relating to the complex changes involved in the legislation but also the regrettable cutbacks flowing from the mini-Budget, there will be a more helpful and bipartisan approach. I do not want to delay the Committee unduly. Our commitment is to the passage of this legislation now that one extra amendment has been defeated. In summary form it can be said that 40 out of the coalition's 42 amendments have been accepted by the Government. A further amendment has been accepted in an adjusted form and one amendment for retrospectivity was defeated in another place. There is not much more that can be done in respect of that amendment. I reiterate the concern that exists in the veterans community in respect of the tightening up of the totally and permanently incapacitated pension criteria. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) at a late stage this afternoon in another place that there will be an independent committee set up to monitor this complex legislation, that it will have access to the necessary statistical information to make its activities worth while and that in turn a report will be brought back to the Parliament on the operation of this most sweeping change to the repatriation laws of this country-the biggest single change since World War II. I add that the concern about cutbacks is, in a sense, beyond the specific motion before the House, so I cannot dwell on it except to say that it is embraced partly towards the end of Schedule D. Those cutbacks are resented, especially on the travel allowance, the dental scheme, the subsistence allowance, the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and the application of the assets test, all of which have been a bitter pill for the veterans, who have been hit hard and have had to bear more than their fair share of the mini-Budget cutbacks. In the terms of the assets test they are losing service pensions, as has now been conceded by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, at a much higher rate than that which applies to the general age pensioner. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) attacked the coalition on this aspect. How can he defend the assets test in detail or in principle when the application of Labor's assets test across Australia is hitting veterans harder than any other pensioner category in the community? It remains a coalition commitment to abolish Labor's assets test. One last aspect, in saying that the coalition does not oppose the motion before the House and the Schedule D draft amendments as part of the final stages of the veterans' legislative package, is to remind the House that some of the veterans affected by these amendments fall into the category known to many of us as soldier settlers. Some have passed on their farms to other generations and others have battled on and many are now in the grip of a severe drought. There has been a little rain over the last 12 hours across much of south-eastern Australia, which may have helped in the short term, but extremely dry conditions, indeed drought conditions, exist over much of rural Australia. The soldier settlers are locked into a farming asset which is unsalable in the rural financial crisis. They cannot get access to service pensions because of the provisions of the assets test. They are in a shocking position. Many of them are isolated and are not able to go to town on a regular basis to buy fresh food and other commodities as part of their diet on the farm. They are becoming increasingly isolated because of the financial disaster which has hit so many primary producers and soldier settlers, many in the closing years of their lives and facing a death which will be hastened by the real economic hardship in rural Australia at this time. In agreeing to the legislation before the Committee I take this opportunity to highlight the plight of those veterans who are soldier settlers who have served their country in time of war and now have fallen on hard times. Their real problems are not being addressed in proper terms by the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-agreed to: That in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, this House appoints Mr Connolly as a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, to replace Mr Shipton, resigned, until the dissolution of the 34th Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr COBB(Parkes)(7.15) —A few weeks ago I raised the fact that Byrock had run out of water. Tonight I want to talk about another town, Girilambone, which is in the same situation. Mr Hunt —They have run out of money too. Mr COBB —That is right. Girilambone lies 45 kilometres north-west of Nyngan on the Mitchell Highway to Bourke. It is a small town of only 24 houses and some 66 people. It has a household weekly income of $150. It has a primary school which has 15 pupils, some of whom travel 120 kilometres a day to attend. The usual water supply for this town comes from two ground tanks-what we call dams in the south. They do not have fancy filters such as those in the city. When the water comes from those tanks it is reddish brown. It certainly cannot be drunk or cooked with. If one puts it in a glass one cannot see through it. Honourable members would probably baulk at washing their bodies in it. They certainly would not want to wash their clothes in it, as do the people of Girilambone. This means that they cannot buy white clothes because after a couple of washings the clothes have gone brown. Mr Hunt —What is the State member doing about it? Mr COBB —I do not know. People are wondering about that. The people of Girilambone are happy with this water supply. They are unhappy that on 2 February they ran dry for the third time in four years. They have to cart water from the Pastures Protection Board ground tank, which is 5.4 kilometres away. The fellows carting it work all week and now they have to work all weekend carting water. They charge only $5 a load to do so. I was particularly grateful to Mrs Sybil Roberts and the president of the water committee, Col Ferguson, and his lovely wife, Jan, who met me and showed me the town's problem. We looked at the tank from which they are now drawing water. It is green with slime and algae. I thought that Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the only person in this country who could walk on water, but after looking at this ground tank I reckon that I could. On top of that, sheep have fallen into it and are rotting, and I have photos here of that. When the sheep are pulled out the flesh peels away from the bones and falls back into the water. This is what people in the bush have to put up with. This tank is so low this week and so thick with slime and soup that the people cannot even pump from it and they will have to cart water from twice the distance. If one washes one's hands in the water from this tank, they smell for days. The threat of an outbreak of disease is constantly hanging over the town. What is the solution? The tanks cannot be deepened any more. They have been dry for three out of four years. The only long term satisfactory solution is to run a pipeline from Nyngan. A quote to do this with six-inch polypipe was $430,000, of which Girilambone would have to kick the till for 25 per cent. There is no way that the people of this town can afford that sort of money-$107,500 divided among 24 families. That would work out at $4,500 per family. The town is made up of pensioners, shearers, workers, and other people in a worse financial situation, such as farmers. Those people would like to put a proposition to the Government: If the Government will buy the pipe and the fittings for the pipe, supply the wages of the surveyor, the fuel for the bulldozer and the tank, that would run to $130,000. Mr Hodgman —That seems fair enough. Mr COBB —Exactly, and the people would work the bulldozer, lay pipe and connect it to the houses. By doing that, the taxpayers of this country would actually save $300,000. I put this proposition to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Evans). I hope he heeds it and that he will have some compassion for these people in the bush. I hope that the Government is fair dinkum about its policy of decentralisation. One would think that if the Government can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the Darling Harbour scheme, it can come to the party and provide at least a basic for people who live in country New South Wales, namely, a water supply. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(7.20) —I want to raise an issue which many other members in this House have raised before. I refer to the act of violence being perpetrated by the state against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. President Jayewardene has declared war on the Tamil minorities, by pursuing a military solution to what he perceives as a military problem. In spite of the ceasefire agreed to by both sides engaged in this conflict, a very serious escalation of violence in the northern and eastern provinces has occurred, and there appears to be very clear evidence to suggest that violence directed against the Tamil minorities is indiscriminate and makes no distinction between those engaged in conflict and innocent civilians. I have a number of constituents who are Tamils and who have relatives living in areas which are being subjected to these indiscriminate acts of violence. One particular constituent has asked me to bring to the attention of this Parliament a letter received from a relative in Jaffna on 5 March 1986. His relative writes: The situation here is getting worse. All the households have dug trenches. We have requested one to be dug in our yard, too. It has become so dangerous to live in the houses. Our village was bombed twice on 19 and 27 of February- On 19th, six bombers and two helicopters were in the attack. We stayed inside the house. Now when I think about it, I am convinced God saved us. Houses are not safe. When bombed, houses get totally destroyed . . . Who is to blame whom? When the Government elected to safeguard us is doing this, who else can save us? Is there one or two incidents to write about? As we wake up children are frightened to face the day, fearing the worst. These are dangerous times. Children tremble with fear on hearing the noise of planes or helicopters. Their mind is getting scarred . . . you should be here to experience the harshness of the situation here . . . Figures published this month by the Social Responsibility and Justice Centre of the Uniting Church in Melbourne show that in the province of Jaffna in February alone rocket launches and helicopter shellings have killed 97 people and injured many more. Houses, schools and hospitals have been destroyed or damaged. It has even been reported that in a radio and television interview President Jayewardene vowed to wipe out `terrorism' before the end of the year. When he refers to terrorists, he means Tamils. It has been reported that parents who come to claim their dead sons from the security forces have first to declare that the deceased were terrorists before the bodies are released. The Government then makes a Press release referring to these dead civilians as terrorists. Some parents have stopped claiming the bodies under these terrible circumstances. Australia has expressed to the highest level of the Sri Lankan Government its concern at the continuing communal violence. We have expressed the importance of finding a political solution to this problem and we have urged the Sri Lankan Government to resume negotiations with Tamil representatives. In Sri Lanka violence by the armed forces is used in all its might and is justified as a reaction against terrorism when in fact the Government is forcing a military solution to problems involving an ethnic minority. This very week, of course, we have seen the violent reaction by the United States of America to acts of terrorism perpetrated by Libya against American citizens. This reaction by the military, which some honourable members opposite have attempted to justify as a natural reaction, will do nothing to stop the incidence of terrorism around the world. In fact, it will escalate it. Australia has expressed its very deep concern about this case, too, and the importance of finding a political solution. Australia must speak out strongly against the pursuit of military solutions. As an ally of the United States Australia must use its influence to persuade the Americans to seek a political solution to the problems caused by terrorists. We must make this a high priority if we do not want to see the International Year of Peace be the year in which we finally achieve our complete and permanent destruction. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.25) —Tonight I want to raise a very serious matter. I received recently, as did other members, a copy of the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission annual report for 1984-85. I want to draw to the attention of members of the House the purpose of that report in relation to the Associations and Corporations Ordinance of 1953, under which the Corporate Affairs Commission maintains a register for non-profit making associations in order to file annual accounts and keep proper records to enable people dealing with those organisations to ascertain from the register appropriate information to assist them in those dealings. Honourable members will be surprised, as I was, to note in that report these comments in relation to defaults: In the report for 1983-84 attention was drawn to the high level of associations in default for failing to lodge balance sheets. When one reads through the report one finds that of 1,119 organisations registered under the Associations and Corporations Ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory only 711 during that year had filed balance sheets. That may have been the case for more than one year. I asked a question on notice of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), which he answered on 11 March, concerning organisations registered in the Australian Capital Territory. I made specific reference to this matter. In answer to that question the Attorney revealed: As at 5 February 1986 there were 1,223 organisations registered under the Associations Incorporation Ordinance. In answer to that question he added: 1,113 associations due to lodge balance sheets during 1985. Of these, approximately 613 had not done so by the end of January 1986. Half the organisations registered under the Ordinance with whom members of the public may be wanting to deal are failing to honour their obligation under the law. When I asked about the enforcement of these provisions I was told that there were no provisions for enforcement. The report has drawn attention to it but nobody has any responsibility for ensuring compliance. The only factor that might be in any way in remission in this case is the indication that the Attorney has given that some review of the Ordinance is proposed. I raise this matter in the context of another matter that concerned me relating to organisations in the Australian Capital Territory that had failed to lodge returns. The organisation I am speaking about is Through Art, Unity. Through Art, Unity, is an organisation of which a Miss Morosi was recently elected chairman. I had cause to raise certain matters in this House and certain articles were written in newspapers concerning the administration of this organisation. I was concerned about this group and I undertook a search in relation to it. I recorded in the House when I spoke on this matter on 17 October 1985 that there were severe discrepancies in relation to the returns lodged by that organisation. There were matters that I believed warranted clarification and I sought certain assurances in relation to the utilisation of Commonwealth funds and the way in which the organisation had accounted for them. The organisation responded to the matters that I raised in a very strongly worded Press statement. It held a Press conference to which certain of its officers came, including Miss Morosi. They refuted all of the allegations made by me. They said that they had filed annual reports, including audited financial statements, and that they had been lodged earlier in the year, as required. I searched that organisation on 25 June 1984 and I was not able to find any documents recorded at that time. I was worried that the organisation may have been in some way maligned by me and I sought further information from the Attorney. The Attorney answered my question on the same date, 20 February, in relation to this matter. One question I asked was whether TAU had in fact- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(7.30) —The matter I wish to mention tonight relates to today's performance by Opposition members on the farm relief package presented by the Government yesterday. This again highlights the fact that Opposition members are most adroit and most consistent with any and every criticism that they can possibly find, yet still offer no alternatives. Those opposite are ready to point the bone at every problem that exists in the national economy, rural or metropolitan, but they are singularly unable, or unwilling, to offer any policy alternative whatever. It is not a singular event that we saw today. It is a consistent strain that has characterised the Opposition since it arrived on the benches opposite in March 1983. Opposition members are unable or unwilling to come into this place and lay on the table for the people of this country a wages policy that each and every one of them is ready to stand up and get behind and say: `That is Liberal Party policy; that is what we present to the nation; and that is what we shall be running on.' Mr Lee —Too many factions. Mr PUNCH —My colleague correctly points out that the reason is too much faction fighting among Opposition members. The Opposition includes the wets, who are to be seen in fine numbers in the House tonight, and also the dries. They are continuing to fight among themselves on wages policy. There is still no concrete, identifiable policy on monetary issues that Opposition members can point to and say: `This is our alternative'. Yet Opposition members have the audacity to continue to criticise the Government's interest rate policy. Opposition members have no policy whatsoever that they can point to on this issue. They are still unable to put together a fiscal policy that is any longer than a couple of newspaper headlines. There is no consistency in their approach in the fiscal area. Let us take for instance the documentation by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the Senate a few weeks ago on what the blow-out of the deficit would be if all the Liberal Party promises were honoured. It ran to the tune of some $5 billion. So, a projected Budget deficit by this Government of $5 billion next year would be $10 billion under the Opposition's proposals. Further, Opposition members point to Medicare and say: `If we slash Medicare, it will save $3 billion'. Yet last week the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) pulled that argument apart to show that, at the most, there would be a saving of $1m after taking out the levy contribution and the subsidy to the needy in the health care system. This would be based on the same subsidy that applied to private health insurance under the Liberal-National Party in 1981. Therefore, in wages policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy no real alternatives are offered by the Opposition. Yet on the farm policy today, with no clear discernible policies that can be conceptualised in a fiscal framework, Opposition members still offer no alternative in that domain either. I take the opportunity tonight to call on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to come into this place and table a wages policy for the Opposition, to table a decent monetary policy for the Opposition, and to table in this place, line by line, an expenditure pattern of fiscal policy for the Opposition. Until such time as he or one of his minions does so, Opposition members will have no credibility whatever and should act with the silence that their policies carry. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(7.35) —A special Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of Friday, 20 December last year, notified the amalgamation of stage 2 and stage 1 of Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory. This sounds pretty simple, but I believe the Federal Government's actions are more sinister than simple. I believe this Labor Government wants Australia to stop talking about, let alone exploiting, proven mineral wealth which could easily pay off our overseas debt if its value were allowed to be realised. I believe it wants to achieve this by putting stage 2 of Kakadu Park-the location of untold mineral wealth-into the effective control of an international organisation, the World Heritage body. This is because the mineral in question is that dirtiest of words in the lexicon of the Left-uranium. Kakadu National Park comprises three areas covering almost 20,000 square kilometres in the Alligator Rivers area. It is rich in all sorts of minerals, but particularly in uranium. Last year its two relatively small operational mines exported $428m worth of yellowcake. Stage 1 of the park was declared in 1979 and shortly afterwards put on the World Heritage List; stage 2 of Kakadu was proclaimed as a national park in November 1983, and amalgamated as part of stage 1 on 20 December last year; stage 1 of Kakadu National Park is protected from commercial use, particularly by the mining sector. For one, it is Aboriginal land; secondly, it is a proclaimed national park; thirdly, it is formally listed with the World Heritage body. The World Heritage body has 70 member countries, including Australia, and its executive committee is made up of representatives from 21 member countries, again including Australia. This committee has overriding responsibility over the listed properties. There are some strange bedfellows on that committee. They include Algeria, Bulgaria, East Germany, the Yemen, and Libya. The Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, is quite famous for many things, but I did not realise until I read that committee list that he was internationally recognised as a sponsor of the arts, heritage and the environment. Active mining exploration was banned in the Kakadu region 14 years ago because of the area's proposed future as Aboriginal land and as a national park. But a radiometric survey carried out from the air over Kakadu in 1982 by the Territory Department of Mines and Energy found there is $40 billion worth of proven uranium deposits at current prices, and in 1982 dollar values. This ignores the other mineral wealth of the area, which includes large deposits of gold, silver and zinc and Australia's richest potential gold mine at Coronation Hill. But what we know is that the proven uranium deposits in Kakadu stage 2 could pay off Australia's overseas debt tomorrow and leave the Treasurer (Mr Keating) $8 billion in change to cope with his Budget blow-out. It is probably the richest piece of real estate in the world which has not been properly looked at by its own citizens because of decrees from their own Government. This brings us back to the special Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of Friday, 20 December 1985. From my description of this area it will be appreciated that quite a number of people and organisations have a big interest in Kakadu stage 2. It is supposed to be Northern Territory land, part of it is Aboriginal land, all of it is minerally prospective, and in fact the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources-a Committee of this Parliament-is currently conducting an inquiry into the resource potential of the Kakadu National Park region. None of these organisations was told of the gazettal beforehand. Why are the Government and its Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service acting so secretively in this matter? What do they have to hide? One of Kakadu's big problems as far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned is that the area is rich beyond belief with uranium. So we have a special Gazette combining the mineral rich stage 2 of Kakadu National Park with the World Heritage listed stage 1 of Kakadu. Does this mean that the World Heritage listing applies to stage 2? Does this mean that Kakadu stage 2 is now doubly tied up to exploration and development of its mineral wealth through the guardianship of the World Heritage Convention Committee? Does this mean that a future Australian Government which wishes to accommodate the desires of the Aboriginal land owners, and open known ore reserves for mining, will be constrained from doing so by a world body comprising of such luminaries as Colonel Gaddafi? Was this proclamation whizzed through just before Christmas so that nobody would notice-or are there even more sinister reasons? It so happens that the 70 of so member nations of the World Heritage body have to submit any areas in their sovereign states for listing as heritage areas by 31 December each year. Such areas proposed are submitted to the Convention Committee for deliberation around the middle of the following year. Can the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) tell the House whether Kakadu stage 2 was amalgamated with the World Heritage listed stage 1 on 20 December so that an application could be in the hands of the Committee by 31 December? If this is so, will he undertake to tell the House what the governments of Bulgaria, the Lebanon, East Germany and Libya think of the suggestion after their deliberations on our Territory are finished in June or July this year. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer that I gave. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr DAWKINS —In examining the green proof copies of Hansard today, I noted that certain words were recorded in an answer I gave to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). The proofs record me as firstly saying: I do not know who the applicants were. I was then interjected on by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and it is recorded that I then said: I do not know any of the applicants. It was my intention then to simply repeat my earlier statement and I have amended the Hansard record to make this clear. I make this clarification, in case there has been some confusion, in the interests of consistency about the matter and I apologise for any inadvertent misleading statement I might have made. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(7.41) —Tonight I want to speak about a matter about which I feel very passionately; that is, a university for the western suburbs of Sydney. We heard honourable members from the Liberal Party saying that this is a bipartisan project. I acknowledge that they have indeed supported this proposal, but I would be remiss if I did not remind-and I do not think that I need to do so-the good people of the western suburbs of Sydney that it was the Fraser Government that instituted the Defence Force Academy, its most recent decision costing some $340m. I am not aware of any honourable member from the Liberal Party who purports to come from or does come from the western suburbs of Sydney requesting that this money be diverted to the western suburbs of Sydney. They certainly had the opportunity in relation to the Defence Force Academy. As the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) points out, it was the Liberal State Government under Mr Askin which established the Macquarie University, which was set up to cater specifically for the needs of the western suburbs people. Of course, as everyone knows, in relation to trying to meet the needs of the western suburbs of Sydney, that was a disastrous decision. In fact, for the people who live in the western or south-western suburbs of Sydney no university is more difficult to get to than the Macquarie University. If Liberal members stand up in this Parliament and say that it is a bipartisan policy, I find it very difficult to understand how the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition can get up in the State Parliament and suggest that all is lost. Here we have a situation where the Liberal Party claims that it is a bipartisan policy and the Government is trying to reach this very worthwhile objective-and I have no doubt that we will-but who capitulates all over the dispatch box in Macquarie Street? None other than Nick Greiner. Mr Lee —And Mr Metherell. Mr PRICE —And Mr Metherell, as the honourable member for Dobell has pointed out. On this side of the House a number of honourable members have lent their strong personal support and commitment to this proposal. I would like to run through a few of those people: The honourable members for Fowler (Mr Grace), Greenway (Mr Gorman), Lindsay (Mr Free), Prospect (Dr Klugman) and two Ministers, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). This project has also attracted the strong support of New South Wales Australian Labor Party senators. When this debate on the university first began, we saw it as a leading edge to open up the whole issue of education in the western suburbs of Sydney. We passionately believe that it is an area that is deserving of equality of opportunity, a concept which we on this side believe in but which is not being demonstrated by the results. There is no doubt that, as Mr Hudson, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, is quick to gleefully point out, participation rates are very low. But where do we start? A university will serve as an inspiration and an aspiration for the western suburbs of Sydney. I would like to say on the public record that my State colleague, the member for Riverstone, has re-opened the debate in regard to establishing a public senior high school in the western suburbs of Sydney. We already have a very worthy example of the benefits that a senior high school can give in John Paul II at Marayong, which has outstanding results. I passionately believe, as he does, that on the Government or public side we need to have a finger in the pie. For Mr Hudson's benefit, let me say that things are moving. The campaign has been opened and already this year we have a trial truancy program in the electorate of the honourable member for Riverstone which coincides with my electorate. I believe that by 1987 there will be a senior high school there. I say quite frankly to Mr Hudson that if he believes he will see a university in 1991 or 1994, he is sadly mistaken. We will be making an impact on participation rates in terms of the numbers, and also we will improve the results. Once we lift participation rates and the results in the western and south-western suburbs, there will be one hell of an increase required, not only in regard to the existing colleges of advanced education of Nepean, Hawkesbury and Macarthur, but also we will require that university, and that university will be filled to the seams. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.46) —Matilda magazine was set up one year ago to encourage the art of humour and satire in this country. I acknowledge the distinguished presence of the editor of Matilda, Mr Robbie Swan, in the House this evening. It was also intended that Matilda would encourage the dying art of free speech and the pursuit of individualism and originality in expression. Heaven knows, we need more of that in this country. Australia harbours some brilliant comedians, writers, satirists and wags, who tragically too often find the natural expression of their art severely restricted by the boa constrictor of Australia's legal system, the defamation laws which, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) will confirm, are a veritable legal jungle which strangle free speech in this country. Matilda magazine has over the past year attracted a plethora of writs and sanctimonious damnation. Many of the writs are what are known in the legal profession as stopper writs. They are writs which are issued to stop publication, to intimidate the publisher into silence. Much of this has been set about by thin-skinned individuals who have no interest in pursuing the writs with the idea of clearing their names; but rather, with the idea of either intimidating the publisher into silence or making hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not state by name some of the well known litigants who have issued writs against Matilda in the last 12 months. Mr Hand —Go on. Mr HODGMAN —One is a member of this chamber and a very good friend of the honourable member for Melbourne who has just interjected. I refer to the Prime Minister, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke). Of course, the other is the Premier of New South Wales. But I will not go into the pros and cons of those writs. What has just been revealed today-it does concern me, and I am sure it will concern the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand)-is that two things have happened which I find singularly suspicious. Firstly, the national newsagency distributor which has been handling Matilda has now dumped the publication without giving any proper or reasonable explanation for its action. It puzzles me as to why on earth distributors, printers and even newsagents, should act in this manner. It strikes me as being somewhat suspicious. Secondly, for reasons which I, as a former Minister for the Capital Territory, do not understand, the present Department of Territories has given Matilda magazine notice to quit the premises which it currently occupies. The reasons that have been given hinge around a suggestion by the Department that in some way the building-which is, incidentally, only a stone's throw from the Lodge-is being used for a purpose which is other than residential. In other words, it has been suggested that there is a breach of what is known as the use condition in the lease. When I was Minister for the Capital Territory, it would be fair to say, over a period of three years hundreds of cases of breach of use provisions in leases through the Department of the Capital Territory were brought to the attention of the Department and the Minister. I cannot understand why this building has been singled out from some 12 other buildings in the same area which are prima facie being used for purposes other than residential. I smell a rat. Why is it that the premises occupied by Matilda have been singled out? Is this some heavy-handed, ham-fisted departmental or government action to crush out of existence a publication which has been an annoyance to the Government, or an annoyance to the Prime Minister, or to other senior members of the Hawke socialist Government? Why is it that these premises have been picked out for this treatment? Why is it that action is being taken to put them out of business? I have in the chamber a copy of the publication, which is sold throughout Australia and is read by thousands of people. It gives an opportunity to prolific writers-some new writers and others-to do something in print about satire, humour and Australian freedom of expression. On the face of it I have to say that I think something very suspicious is going on. The Prime Minister is out of the country, so I cannot tax him with it, but I intend tomorrow to pursue the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) about why this building, out of hundreds, if not thousands, in Canberra, has been singled out for what appears to me to be deliberate, discriminatory and mala fide treatment. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEE(Dobell)(7.51) —The first comment that I would like to make is that the Matilda magazine must be in real trouble if it brings in the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to bat for it. I really think we are getting into trouble. I turn briefly to the comments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) on Kakadu National Park and the gazettal of stages 1 and 2 in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The honourable member for the Northern Territory seemed to be suggesting that because the Libyan Government participated in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and in the committee which decides on World Heritage listing, therefore all Australian government involvement in World Heritage listing should be wiped out. I am quite proud of the fact that this Labor Government has taken action so that South West Tasmania, the Great Barrier Reef, and the Kakadu National Park all have World Heritage listing. Because those areas have World Heritage listing they are protected from the developments which people opposite would love to have carried out. We well remember the Opposition's proposals, when it was in government, for oil exploration on the Great Barrier Reef and for developments in South West Tasmania. We have just heard the honourable member for the Northern Territory put forward a case to open new uranium mines in Kakadu. I would really be interested to know- Mr Hand —Where is he? Mr LEE —There are rumours that he no longer lives in the Northern Territory. I am afraid that is why he wants more uranium mining in Kakadu. Mr Hand —He lives in Queensland, that is why he wants more uranium mining. Mr LEE —It has been suggested by the honourable member for Melbourne that, because the honourable member for the Northern Territory now lives in Queensland, he supports more uranium mining in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that Liberal Party members of the Opposition who represent Sydney electorates would be severely embarrassed by the fact that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is seeking to create a right wing, anti-environmentalist stance. I remind the House of the actions of several members of the New South Wales Liberal Party, who have taken a deliberate decision to distance themselves from the right wing National Party elements in the New South Wales Parliament. Those elements have advocated logging within New South Wales national parks. The New South Wales Liberal Party has divorced itself from that stance. I call on those decent and honourable members of the Liberal Party in this Parliament to divorce themselves from the honourable member for the Northern Territory and those members of the National Party who seek to dismantle Australia's national park and World Heritage system. I turn now to the question of nursing home beds. I was outraged to see an article on the front page of last week's Sun Herald written by Mr Andrew Casey. The headline read: `Government cuts nursing home beds'. The first paragraph of the article refutes that leading headline: The Federal Labor Government plans a sharp drop in the proportion of nursing home beds available for old people. Mr Price —Disgraceful. Mr LEE —It was a disgraceful article, as the honourable member for Chifley suggests. It was simply a desperate attempt by some sub-editor to seek to boost sales of the Sun Herald by terrifying the elderly and members of their families. Earlier this week the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is responsible for nursing homes, tabled a report in the Senate. That report is known as the `Review of Nursing Homes and Hostels'. I quote to the House a very important part of that report which totally refutes that front page article. The report states: The main result of implementing the recommendations of the Review would be (a) over 38,000 additional nursing home and hostel places would be provided over the next 10 years, of which a maximum 10 per cent would be nursing home beds; . . . While the Sun Herald claims that the Government intends to cut nursing home beds, the review itself has stated that there will be an expansion of 3,800 nursing home beds over the next 10 years and a massive increase in the number of hostel places available. It is important that this Parliament should recognise that we have been putting too much money into expanding nursing homes at the expense of hostel accommodation. While I am glad that there will continue to be an increase in the number of nursing home places, I think that the provision of more funds for hostel accommodation is long overdue. In addition, I understand that the Minister will ensure that more funds will be made available for home and community care, and I am sure that many honourable members will also agree with that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.56) —Last week I spoke about home heating oil. I said that there was discrimination and that I thought the unfair tactics of the oil companies were reprehensible. I mentioned that the price for home heating oil in Tasmania was 54c a litre. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr GOODLUCK —Fifty-four cents a litre. In Canberra it was 43c a litre. I note that the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party has taken up the cause too and I believe that it is referring the matter to the Prices Surveillance Authority to ask it to recommend a price in future. Before that home heating oil was not subjected to any pricing authority and the oil companies could charge what they wanted at will. Today in Tasmania I thought I would take a check again. I found that the price in Launceston was 46c a litre, in Devonport it was 45c litre, but in Hobart it was still 54c. Before we went to import parity pricing most people in Australia had oil heaters installed in their homes. When we went over to import parity, for reasons that I have mentioned on many occasion, it became very expensive and a lot of people pulled out their oil heaters. The ones who left them in are the ones who need protection-the elderly, people who cannot chop wood and people who cannot get coal. In fact, the people who were left with oil heaters are the ones whom we need to protect. When the price of oil came down-it did not come down as much as it should have done-I found to my dismay that in certain parts of Australia instead of coming down, the price of home heating oil went up. Therefore, something needed to be done about this matter. I have referred it to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and I hope that he will react. Something needs to be done. I wish to touch for a few moments on the price of petrol. I have heard all the cries of consternation from the oil companies, about how they have been losing money and so on. I know that the oil industry is ever changing and the price is very hard to detect at any particular point because in the heavily volumed areas of Australia there is sometimes a glut of petrol and sometimes in the free enterprise system the oil companies might want to sell a quantity very quickly. The unfortunate part about it is this: I am starting to wonder whether the PSA has the ability to determine a maximum wholesale price for petrol around Australia. The maximum wholesale price of petrol does not vary very much from city to city, but regrettably all of a sudden we will see petrol being sold in certain capital cities for well below the wholesale price. Of course the motorists of Australia read the newspapers and they find that, for example, in Adelaide petrol might be selling for 44c a litre whereas in Hobart it is being sold for 54c a litre. Mr Hand —Why does the Tasmanian Government not do something about it? Mr GOODLUCK —You are trying to direct blame at the State Government. I could elaborate on that argument but I have not got the time now. I urge the Hawke Government to have a good look at the pricing of petrol in Australia, and if it believes that the ordinary average working person deserves a fair go- Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m. the debate is interrupted.The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make certain amendments in consequence of the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for other purposes. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to welfare benefits and other matters. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Institute of Sport as a statutory authority. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the dissolution of the company named Australian Institute of Sport in consequence of the establishment of a statutory authority by that name and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts providing for the payment of bounty or subsidy. Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 April 1986: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986- No. 1-Marine, Part 5. No. 2-Marine, Part 29.