Wednesday, 30 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —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, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. Mr PORTER(Barker)(10.01) —The Bills that we are debating include the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. It is that Bill to which I wish to address my comments, particularly to part 6 of that Bill, which refers to amendments to the Spirits Act of 1906. The proposal in its generality is to remove the requirement for a two-year maturation period to apply to brandy, whisky and rum. The Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones), in his second reading speech, identified the reasons why the Government wants to remove that two-year maturation requirement. He said: The Government's examination of the issue, which involved in particular health and quality standards, revealed a significant divergence of industry opinion on the question of compulsory maturation. Firms with a tradition of producing matured spirits favoured retention while other interests suggested that the market, and not government regulation, should be the determining factor. The Government considers that removal of compulsory maturation will allow producers to prepare unmatured products if the market dictates such a requirement. Production of matured products could continue, commanding whatever price the market would pay. Removal of the requirement is also consistent with the Government's policy to remove unnecessary business regulation. It should be noted, however, that States and Territories, which are currently responsible for food and beverage standards in Australia, still require maturation under State and Territory law. We on this side of the House would be the last ones to want to delay the removal of unnecessary regulation. But let me test the claims made by the Government for the removal of this requirement in the face of the divided industry opinion and without putting in place, firstly, appropriate arrangements to protect domestic manufacturers from unfair import competition and, secondly, appropriate labelling provisions to ensure that consumers are informed of the nature of the product they are purchasing if no maturation is required. A number of arguments have been put forward against this proposal. The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association is in favour of maintaining the current two-year maturation requirement. In relation to brandy, it says there is considerable concern amongst existing producers that by dropping the maturation requirements the existing quality brandy market will be subject to a flood of inferior quality product which could destroy the market altogether. There is also concern that the effect on the grape growing industry of dropping the maturation period could be serious as apparently there is some four years of maturing stock at present and the industry claims that little, if any, brandy would be produced for around three years if this change were implemented. There are other factors which, in my view, also ought to be taken into account. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in the other place, who has charge of this legislation, said in the Senate: I believe that there are very few countries where maturation under regulation is required as it has been required in Australia in the past. On the advice I have received the Minister is quite wrong. I am told that, for example, in France the maturation period varies from between 12 months and three to four years, depending on the district and some other factors which are part of the requirements in that country. I believe that in South Africa the maturation period requirement is one year. I believe that in California the maturation period is two years. In addition, a number of countries do not allow the import of brandy unless it has been matured, I think for at least three years. I believe that that restriction applies to countries in our region, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and New Zealand. So not only is the Minister wrong in relation to maturation requirements in countries of production-that is, countries of origin-but also he is wrong in relation to maturation requirements in importing countries. Another matter of concern to me which has not been addressed by the Government in its bland statement in support of abandoning the maturation period is the impact that this will have on our domestic producers of all the products considered, that is, brandy, rum and whisky. As I understand it, the removal of the Commonwealth regulation is not being undertaken in co-operation with the States which also have maturation requirements. The outcome, therefore, of this pre-emptory Commonwealth Government move could be to open up the domestic market to exploitation by overseas producers of unmatured products and, whilst the State controls remain, Australian producers would not be able to match that overseas competition, that is, import competition from those countries producing unmatured product. My concern, therefore, is that the failure of the Government properly to think this issue through could result in the decimation of the domestic brandy, whisky and rum industry by not ensuring that our producers could compete on a fair basis with the imported product because of the State government controls. Finally, I point out that the Government's proposal is in conflict with the National Health and Medical Research Council's model food Act which, in June last year, approved a two-year maturation period and that period was specified in that model food Act. There is one other major shortcoming with this proposal which I shall come to in a moment. What then are the arguments for the removal of the maturation period? As I understand it, the arguments of the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers Association of Australia is that, by doing away with the maturation period, cheaper brandy, for example, could be produced and new marketing opportunities could be provided. Nevertheless, in a telex to me, that Association stated: We believe, however, that most brandy sold in the foreseeable future will be matured brandy. I cannot understand why the Association believes that the matured brandy market will not be affected by unmatured brandy if the regulations are removed. Others have suggested that in countries such as Germany blending is allowed whereby aged brandy is blended with brandy matured six to 12 months; and they would like to try that process in Australia. That is really the nub of the case. It appears that some producers would like to try marketing different types of brandy in this country. The Opposition and I see no reason why consumers should not have a choice between different types of brandy as long as they are advised of what they are buying. In my view this is the most important point at issue in this debate. There is no doubt that in relation to brandy, for example, people are used to a quality product which has been matured. If the maturation period is to be dropped, the labelling requirements ought to be such as to properly inform the consumer of what he is buying. Whilst the proposal relates to brandy, whisky and rum, let me stick for a moment with brandy. If people want to market an unmatured brandy they should be allowed to do so but should be required to label it as such rather than pretend the product is something which it is not. This has been the thrust of the action taken in the United States where it is possible to market an unmatured brandy, that is, brandy that has not been matured for two years, but the requirement is that it be labelled as such-as unmatured brandy. Last night when this point was raised by my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) the Minister, by way of interjection, suggested that the existing Act-I think he referred to section 9-would deal with this problem. In my view, it goes nowhere near dealing with the problem. It deals with very old labelling requirements. The section was implemented in 1906, which gives an indication of the sort of historical context in which labels were being applied. It talks about labels such as `pure Australian standard brandy'. How many people have seen that on a bottle of brandy recently? I am sure that all my colleagues are great consumers of Australian brandy and rum, especially as winter sets in. These old labelling requirements are so out of date they are not even used any more. For the Government to use them as an excuse is a farce. It seems obvious to me that if the Government had sat down with the domestic producers of these products some workable arrangement could be achieved whereby the market is opened up to those who want to try to produce and market alternative unmatured products, provided they meet fair and reasonable labelling requirements. We do not have any in principle opposition to this proposal, but we have clear and unequivocal opposition to the introduction of this measure without detailed consultation with the industry to resolve problems of unfair competition from imports and to establish appropriate labelling requirements. This is a half-baked proposal which the Government has not properly thought through. Regrettably, this Government has no knowledge of these industries and, in relation to the brandy industry in particular, this Government, just like the Whitlam Government, has failed to recognise the existing problems confronting the wine and grape growing producers in bringing this proposition to the Parliament without sewing up the loose ends. The result could be devastating for the whole industry. We oppose this Government's sloppy administration and we say to the Government: `Get your act together. Consult with the industry and industry associations. Stop wasting the time of this Parliament and, more importantly, stop unduly worrying growers and producers by creating uncertainty and concern in these industries'. I repeat: We will look very positively at a proposal which is properly thought through but we will not support this half-baked scheme. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.16) —I am pleased to speak in this cognate debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, but in the main my comments will be restricted to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill. Obviously the Government has thought these Bills through. It was very interesting to listen to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) talk about rum and brandy. Those on the other side of the House would be much more familiar with the finished product than those on this side, who tend to drink more refined products. As I have said, my comments in the main will be confined to one Bill which proposes various amendments to customs and excise laws to implement Government decisions which, in particular, alter the arrangements relating to concessions on goods reimported after they have been repaired or renovated, provides for the termination of compulsory maturation for brandy, whisky and rum and removes a sex discrimination provision in the Excise Act. Sex discrimination comes up everywhere, does it not, Madam Speaker? The Government is here removing the sex discrimination provision in the Excise Act. A number of other amendments of a technical or administrative nature have been included in the Bill and it is on these that I now wish to make some comments. I refer specially to Part II of the Bill which deals with the Coal Excise Act. As we were informed by the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones) in his second reading speech, Part II of the Bill amends the Coal Excise Act to provide that the excise duty imposed by that Act will be paid on the amount of coal sold by a producer as shown on the invoice document provided by him to the purchaser. Currently the legislation requires the excise to be paid on the quantity of coal produced and removed from a mine. In today's operations some producers have difficulty in complying with this requirement since beneficiation of raw coal to meet higher quality standards often takes place at locations remote from the producer's mine. This contrasts with the situation in the industry at the time the excise was imposed in 1949 when practically no beneficiation took place. The amendment will align the Act with current industry practice and will have no effect on the amount of duty paid by the producers. In recent years in the development of the coal industry we have seen greater and greater reliance on stockpiles. I have seen some very big stockpiles in my area and also larger port facilities. In the past producers had to pay the excise on the coal as it left the mine. In future they will not have to pay that money and that means that the producers will not have money tied up because they will not have to pay excise on the coal that is in stockpiles. I believe that this measure will be of great benefit to the producer. It should also assist Australia's greatest export earner, and that, of course, is coal. I turn now to Part 3 of the Bill, in which I have taken an interest. I am pleased to see the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in the chamber because the proposed amendments in Part 3 of the Bill will amend the Customs Act as a consequence of the introduction of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. This Bill proposes to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and extend certain forms of protection to the cultural heritage of other nations so as to enable Australia to accede to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Regulations under the protection of movable cultural heritage legislation will specify the material to be controlled. The amendments now proposed to the Customs Act provide the necessary authority for Customs officers to seize cultural objects as notified by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment when those objects are subject to the control of Customs. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the Bill before the House represent in part a general tidying up of a number of pieces of legislation in order to make more effective the protection of movable cultural heritage legislation. The aim of course is to cover all eventualities and to close all loopholes. At present we have a Customs Act the schedules and regulations of which have been developed over many years, often as ad hoc responses to particular situations and incidents. For example, several years ago a Victorian Cross was put up for auction and it looked as though it would be taken out of the country. Fortunately the Returned Services League stepped in and bought it. Following this incident Customs Act regulations were amended to prohibit the export of such items. Despite or perhaps because of this ad hoc approach Customs Act schedules and regulations do not cover all categories of important cultural material. Under clause 13 of the legislation before the House a new control list will be established and the present regulations will be amended as necessary. All categories to be included in the control list will be prescribed by regulation and thus subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This national cultural heritage list will take some months to be drawn up because there are many categories to be considered. There also needs to be developed a number of criteria by which export controls will be developed. These criteria will include the age of the object, its rarity, its quality and condition, its monetary value and the extent to which it is already represented in public collections. The Government, in establishing tighter controls on the export of cultural objects, is not seeking to stop the movement of all such material. Its prime concern is to ensure that those objects, the export of which would amount to an irreparable loss to our cultural heritage, remain in Australia. In drawing up the control list a distinction will be made between class A objects, which are objects so rare and important as to be considered inalienable, and class B objects, which in certain circumstances may be given an export permit. In certain cases there will be some difficulty in classifying objects of cultural value. For example, how rare does an Australian postage stamp have to be before it is listed as a class A object totally prohibited from being exported, rather than being listed as a Class B object and therefore becoming a legal export once an export permit has been granted? Consider the case of Aboriginal artefacts. At present it is lawful to export any Aboriginal artefacts once an export permit has been granted. I venture to suggest that had this legislation been in place we would not have had today a collection of rare and significant Aboriginal artefacts in the Vatican museum. Under the new legislation, however, certain artefacts, by reason of rarity or sacred or ceremonial significance, will be listed as class A cultural objects and be totally prohibited from export. Contemporary artefacts made for sale to tourists, on the other hand, will receive a class B listing and may be exported once an export permit has been granted. In this area there will no doubt be some difficulty in deciding, presumably in consultation with Aboriginal representatives wherever possible, whether or not a particular object has a sacred significance. Old Australian coins dating back beyond 1901 are genuinely significantly rare and of such historical value as to warrant being listed as class A objects, and again there may be exceptions which could be given a class B listing. The same could be said for early Australian documents. As I have already stated, the aim of clause 13 of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill is not to stop all trade in such objects as early Australian coins and postage stamps or in Aboriginal artefacts, but rather to control it in such a way that Australia suffers no further irreparable loss of its cultural heritage. The legislation will also make it possible for the prohibition of the export of objects which at the moment could not be covered by existing schedules and regulations of the Customs Act. These include items such as very old machinery-for example, nineteenth century steam engines which may be exported without the necessity of first getting an export permit. Not so long ago another piece of machinery, in this case a World War II Messerschmidt fighter, was illegally exported to England. It has proved impossible to get this aeroplane back to Australia. Once the Bill now before the House passes into law, however, together with the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, it will become much more difficult to illegally export objects of cultural significance, and anything illegally exported will be subject to forfeiture to the Crown. Should the illegally exported object be found in a country which, like Australia, is party to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention controlling the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property-as Australia will be once the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill becomes law-then Australia will be able to seek the return of that object through official channels. An example of items that could be regarded as items that should be seized by Customs is-and I am not speaking about members of the National Party-fossil deposits. My attention to this was drawn by a paleontologist friend, Mr Russel Hannah, who informed me about the fossil remains at Riversleigh in north Queensland. According to Russel Hannah, paleontologists have known about the Riversleigh site since 1901, but it was not until 1983 that they realised they had struck one of the most incredible scientific laboratories in the world. I thought that this place was that, but apparently it is at Riversleigh. But it is not only Australian paleontologists who are awestruck by the Ravensworth find, but the world paleontological community. We must ensure that these fossil remains stay in Australia and are not swooped on by other countries. Mr Price —In Cockies Corner. Mr HOLLIS —Yes, in Cockies Corner, as the honourable member for Chifley says. People go there and take them as souvenirs. Tourists go in and take these rare things. Mr Cohen —It is not the easiest place in the world to get to. Mr HOLLIS —No, but tourists are going there and, according to one source, individuals and teams from Japan, the United States and Europe are known to have come to the Riversleigh site in the last couple of years without any permission and simply returned with bags of fossils. These fossils are really part of the cultural heritage of Australia and as such they should be protected and, of course, they will be protected. I know that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, who is seated at the table, will instruct the Australian Customs Service that any fossils leaving this country-unless they are members of the National Party-are to be impounded and, therefore, will be protected by this Bill. I commend these Bills to the House. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.30) —I wish to speak on the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill, and in particular the provision dealing with bounty payments on high alloy steel products. There are two types of high alloy steel products produced in Australia, namely, bar products and flat products, the latter consisting mainly of stainless steel. Under the present system bounties are paid on a sliding scale whereby the more the companies produce the less percentage of bounty is paid, and conversely the less produced the more percentage of bounty is paid. When bounties were first brought in Commonwealth Steel Co. Ltd-Comsteel-was the major producer of both. But now we have a situation where most of the high alloy bar steel and most of the high alloy flat steel are produced by two different companies, Comsteel and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd Coated Products Division, though it must be said that Atlas Steels (Australia) Pty Ltd and Overall Forge Pty Ltd produce small amount of bar products. Because the production of high alloy flat products has been relatively buoyant, bounty payments to Comsteel, which produces bar products, have been lower than they otherwise would. This legislation proposes to split the bounty payments of $9m between the two steel producers roughly on a pro rata basis so that the low-producing bar steel producer Comsteel will not be averaged up and therefore miss out on bounty payments. At first blush that may seem a reasonable proposition. However, when one looks closer a number of important points of principle emerge that make me, for one, object to what is happening. Not the least of these is the fact that it will cost taxpayers more money. However, we should first look at the companies involved. Bar steel products are produced mainly by Comsteel, which is located at Waratah, Newcastle. That company is 38 per cent owned by BHP, 38 per cent by Vickers (UK) and the remaining 24 per cent is owned by the public. That company produces bar steel which is used in tool and die production, in car manufacture, the aircraft industry, the defence industry and in the mining and oil industries. The flat steel products, which consist mainly of strip sheet and plate, are made by BHP Coated Products Division. That is 100 per cent owned by BHP; it was formally the Lysaght company. It produces the product down at Unanderra, Port Kembla, near Wollongong. The flat stainless steel is used mainly in the car industry, the building industry, in containers, in the furniture industry and also in white goods and domestic appliances. In the financial impact statement which is retrospective to 1 July 1985, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has told us that bounty payments would increase from $3.5m to $4.3m, an increase of $800,000 to taxpayers-in other words, this legislation will cost more. The Comsteel Special Steels Division is concerned not only with high alloy steel but also with carbon steel production, with low alloy steel production, medium alloy steel production, although it is only high alloy steel that is eligible for the bounty that we are dealing with today. The high alloy steel makes up something less than 50 per cent of the plant's output. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member tell me which one of the Bills he is speaking to? Mr COBB —The Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill. Madam SPEAKER —The House is dealing with a group of three Bills dealing with Customs and excise tariff and Customs administration. The House is debating the three Bills cognately. Mr COBB —I refer to the Minister's second reading speech, which deals with the bounty relating to high alloy steel production in clause 5 of the Bill. Madam SPEAKER —There is not a bounty Bill before the House at the moment. To which second reading speech is the honourable member referring? Mr COBB —The Bill that was presented to the Parliament on 17 April, the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member should resume his seat. I will call him again later. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.35) —Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to have been deferred to in this way and called on early. I am very much honoured. To assist the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) who seems to be a little confused-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Parkes will have leave to speak later. Mr PRICE —I just thought that I would run through what we are actually debating. We are actually debating three Bills: The Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. I have some sympathy for those who suggest that this is a rather dry package of Bills to discuss. However, I will firstly comment on a few of the remarks of the two shadow Ministers, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who have already spoken in this debate. In fact, I think they have been commenting rather adversely on the proposed changes to maturation for whisky, rum and brandy. The impact of the Bill will be in 1990 when it becomes operational. Much has been said about what the Bills will do, but all speakers opposite have ignored the fact that there are overriding State labelling requirements, and the traditional two, five and 10-year labelling will still be a requirement under State and Territory legislation. However, the proposed amending Bill will remove unnecessary regulation, and I would have thought that Opposition members would have been supportive of that. The Bills also allow customers or consumers, should they be given the choice, to make the decisions, rather than it being done through government legislation. I find it rather extraordinary that two shadow Ministers opposite can object to the fact that unnecessary regulation is being taken away, and also that consumers should be denied freedom of choice about their purchases. Mr Hollis —There's nothing to be surprised about on that side. Mr PRICE —I am not as experienced and as learned as my honourable colleague. I must say that it came as a surprise to me to hear two shadow Ministers speak like that. In their remarks they overlooked the impact of State and Territory legislation and I believe attempted to seriously cloud the issue for honourable members and for the listening public of Australia. I would also like to talk about the provisions of the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. I remind the House that in the autumn session last year we established, by a legislative package, an independent customs service, which was proclaimed to operate on 10 June 1985. Essentially, the bulk of this legislation allows the Comptroller-General of Customs to be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Customs Service. I believe that that is a very sound administrative approach which I would have thought would not have been questioned by the shadow Minister. However, let me just say that, in the earlier legislation, we delegated some 75 per cent of the powers of the Minister, and there remained 25 per cent that the Minister was required to exercise personally. I am pleased that this legislation encompasses a review not only of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Minister's Department, but also the Australian Customs Service with the benefit of advice from the Attorney-General. As a result of that, a further 15 per cent of powers has been delegated to the Comptroller-General, leaving the Minister essentially with about 10 per cent. I might add that in one case one power has been taken away from the Comptroller-General and returned to the Minister. However, this allows the Minister and the Secretary to the Department greater opportunity to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. The Minister, for example, still retains the power and responsibility in terms of extension or variation of bounty assistance, the proposing of Customs tariff alterations, the formulation of schemes for calling and dealing with tenders for the right to import goods, and numerous other powers under the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act relating to import, dumping and countervailing duties. I should comment a little about the Australian Customs Service, as the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), was in some doubt about the rectitude of the changes made last year and the establishment of an independent service. In fact, he called upon the Minister to give some report about the success of it. I will take up that point because I thought it was a little disappointing that the shadow Minister, being a Queenslander, did not comment about the trial that had been undertaken in Queensland. He certainly did not talk about the inland revenue risk management scheme which was trialled in Queensland. This was a result of the Public Accounts Committee Customs inquiry. There was a report to the Parliament. The Committee was assisted by the Customs Service. Essentially, the features of the risk management system are that it has clearly understood components; concentrates on rating risks; allows flexible allocation of resources; measures the result of all activities; and is uniform in its application amongst collectorates. That trial has been successfully concluded in Queensland and will be extended throughout Australia. What is the role and responsibility of the Australian Customs Service-this new, independent organisation that was established last year and to which we are delegating additional powers? Firstly, it is responsible for exercising effective control over the movement of goods, people, ships and aircraft into and out of Australia. This involves a number of activities: Industry assistance, for example, tariffs and quotas; and enforcement of community protection requirements, for example, areas such as quarantine, narcotics and prohibited imports. The second responsibility in that area concerns the collection of revenue, for example, revenue on imported goods. Some 15 per cent of all government revenue is collected by this independent Australian Customs Service. The third main role of the Service is non-barrier assistance programs-that is, bounties and diesel fuel. Of course, the Customs Service acts on behalf of other departments in its barrier role, for example, in quarantine, fauna protection, immigration and, as the previous speaker, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) would say, the protection of Australian fossils. I believe it has been a successful move, and one that should be supported. I am very pleased to see that the Service, in addressing its role, has adopted four main priorities. One is to measure achievement by result. I think it is very important in the Public Service that we have this task and target orientation and measurement by results. Secondly, to apply benefits of computer support as widely as practi- cable. I am very pleased that it is expanding its computer network and proposing to upgrade it. I notice that the level of expenditure will not be sufficiently high to attract the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, more is the pity. Thirdly, to invest heavily in training and development of staff. Lastly, to improve industrial relations in the Customs Service. As a former trade union official in the Public Service, I can say that there has been improvement in this regard on a service-wide basis, but we still have a long way to go. I can well recall a chief manager who flatly refused-and he was physically repelled by the thought-to meet trade union officials. Also, there is the classic case, which I am sure we all know about, that, under Public Service guidelines, because there is not a dispute, a State or regional manager refuses to meet the union. That shows a clear lack of understanding of the concept of preventative industrial relations. In the training and development of staff, I think it is true not only in the Public Service-I am sure it is in the Australian Customs Service-but also in private enterprise that the most valuable commodity or resource that an organisation possesses is its staff or people working for it. An investment in training and development is richly rewarded. I have some difficulty because I believe that the Public Ser-vice Board should spell out more clearly the desirability for staff to undertake tertiary studies. Whilst an assistance program is in operation and whilst, apart from specialist positions, mandatory tertiary degrees are not stipulated, I believe that the Public Service Board could do much more to encourage public servants to undertake relevant courses. The last item that I want to speak about concerns the provisions of clauses 16 and 18 of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill which follow on the Government's accep-tance of recommendations contained in the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on re-import concessions dated 16 November 1984. The IAC, in its conclusions in that report, listed five main questions that it felt that the report should address. Those were: Is the concessional entry of re-imports consistent with Australia's policies for assistance to industry; in particular, should re-imports continue to enter duty free and should overseas repairs continue to receive concessional entry? Should Australia have a general system of overseas assembly packages? What, if anything, should Australia do about the use of the Australian content provision in the rules of origin for determining eligibility or preferential tariff rates as a de facto system of OAPs? A number of problems have been identified in relation to Customs administration of the re-import concessions; how should these problems be tackled? Lastly, although Australia is a contracting party to the International Convention on Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedure, known as the Kyoto Convention, it has not acceded to the two annexes dealing with re-import concessions under reference in this inquiry; therefore, should Australia cede to these arrangements? The bulk of the IAC's recommendations were picked up in legislation on 22 November 1985 but the Government has not acted in relation to overseas assembly provisions. In fact, reading from a Press release from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, the provisions would provide a duty concession for imported goods according to the extent of material or components of Australian origin. The Government has decided not to introduce a general system of overseas assembly packages at this time because of administrative costs and the issue of whether it would benefit Australia. But I am pleased to say that the Government is still keeping open its options and adopting a flexible attitude because enactment of those sorts of provisions could benefit certain industries. The provisions of this Bill generally complete the re-import package by authorising the Comptroller-General of Customs to make a commercial tariff concession order which will permit duty free entry of goods re-imported after repair or renovation if it is established that repair or renovation is not capable of being performed in Australia in the normal course of business. To conclude, I certainly support the three Bills. I have not gone into all the details of the three Bills. I find it rather disappointing that the Opposition has, if I may say so, tried to cloud the issue of one of the provisions and to entrench unnecessary regulation to entrench the denial of consumer preference. That is rather disappointing. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.50) —The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 are being dealt with cognately. Not surprisingly, these Bills have attracted a good deal of interest because of the focus they have on the brandy and spirits industry. I was a little amused to come into the House and hear the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) make reference to just how little the honourable members on his side of the House know about the spirits industry because of their tendency to be beer rather than spirit drinkers. The honourable member for Throsby, in a rather uncharitable way, implied that only on his side of the House was there really an egalitarian approach to the consumption of various beverages. In my opening remarks to this debate I must therefore remind the honourable member for Throsby that it was the egalitarian Curtin Government that applied approximately the same taxation rates to beer and to spirits. Subsequently, I note, governments dominated by conservative parties have been the governments that, along with this Government, have reached the point at which spirits currently attract tax at almost twice the rate levied on beer. With that little digression, I wish to refer specifically to the brandy industry because of the impact that that industry has on my electorate. I must say that too little is known and appreciated in this House about just what a modern, up to date and effective industry the brandy industry is and about the level of innovation that currently occurs in the wine producing and brandy industries across this nation. Too many people happen to have some odd view about the wine and brandy industries-a view that they are some sort of peasant industries, a view that clouds them in romance, a view that imagines that all people involved in the wine and brandy industries are somehow caught up in a Grapes of Wrath sort of mentality in which a setting sun disappears behind rows of vineyards and people walk hand in hand down those same rows. In fact, the industries are innovative. Whether one looks at them in the vineyard or in the distillery, modern techniques that are being implemented anywhere in the world are already being used in Australia. Much of what is used in innovative grape growing and distillation in the world had its historic origins in the industry in Australia. But the industry is an industry that, as a result of the impact of governments, particularly governments of the political persuasion of the honourable members opposite, has had a very sorry saga. The brandy industry as a component of the wine industry in Australia has a unique characteristic. It has the capacity to be a sponge that in years of surpluses soaks up the surpluses and does not necessarily need to be supplied in years in which there may be a short supply of wine grapes. So the brandy industry has historically been used to level out the supply of grapes available to the wine producers within the grape growing industry. It is also fair to say that it has been a very important sponge in levelling out the supply of grapes available to the dried fruits industry, which has been every bit as unpredictable in terms of its market opportunities. As a result of the impact on the brandy industry of excise measures, particularly by the Whitlam Government, the Australian brandy industry has all but disappeared and this capacity to absorb surpluses has all but disappeared, so we have a grape growing industry that is adversely affected by the absence of an Australian brandy industry. I must make the point that never has the brandy industry been as disadvantaged as it has been following the period of the Whitlam Government. At the start of the Whitlam Government's period of office the customs duty on brandy was $3.8 per litre of alcohol and the customs duty on whisky was $4.93 per litre of alcohol-a differential between brandy and whisky of almost 60 per cent. At the end of the Whitlam Government's period of office the customs duty on whisky was $10.75 per litre of alcohol and the excise duty on brandy was $10.21 per litre of alcohol, a differential between brandy and whisky which had fallen from 60 per cent to 5 per cent. That proved to have a disastrous impact on the Australian brandy industry. At the same time, the average spirits duty rate had been sharply increased to about one and a half times the duty rate for beer, as I intimated earlier. The results of these legislative decisions were that Australian brandy production fell from 4,484 kilolitres of alcohol in 1971-72 to 1,784 kilolitres of alcohol in 1974-75-a reduction in the area of brandy production of 2,700 kilolitres of alcohol. Furthermore the Australian brandy market's share was down from 35.1 per cent to 26.9 per cent, which is a decrease of 8.2 per cent, while imported whisky in the period of the Whitlam Administration rose, supplementing the brandy industry's market share, from 47.6 per cent to 59.1 per cent, an increase of 11.5 per cent. As if the history of the Whitlam Government were not disastrous enough for the brandy industry, we had the additional offence of the Hawke Government coming into office and further loading the imposts that the wine industry in Australia generally was carrying. The end result of the Hawke Government's broken election promise not to tax wine, when it ultimately did so, was that the imported whisky share had grown to 74.6 per cent and the Australian brandy share had fallen to 17.2 per cent. So the capacity of the Australian brandy industry to level out the peaks and troughs of vineyard production had been absolutely annihilated by both the Whitlam and Hawke governments. The specific implications of the legislation before the House, which are to remove the two-year maturation provision, have already been adequately addressed by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and quite eloquently by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who mentioned his particular concern for the wine and grape growers in his electorate and pointed to the implications of the removal of this two-year maturation period. I must restate what the honourable member for Barker has so eloquently said, that is, that the Opposition is not opposed in principle to the removal of this two-year maturation period. The Opposition is opposed to the removal of that provision at this time before certain other steps are taken by the Government to ensure that any adverse reaction to the removal can be insulated against by other legislative moves. We, in the Opposition, applaud the action of the Government in moving in a deregulatory fashion. It suits us. We would like to be supportive of it but we believe it to be premature for the Government to take such steps unless it can assure the Opposition that, by 1990, when the two-year provision has been removed, other steps have been taken to ensure that imports maintain some minimum standard and that labelling provisions have been introduced. As the honourable member for Barker has said, we recognise the particular advantages of removing the two-year maturation provision. We recognise that the removal could substantially reduce some of the production costs currently being faced by the Australian brandy industry. We recognise that the removal of the two-year provision could lead to new product opportunities. We recognise, from our conversations with people involved in the brandy industry, the great advances that could be made in brandy marketing if there were opportunities for brandy producers to blend mature brandies with immature brandies and so produce a brandy that suits the palate of a particular market. We were among the first to recognise that the move in the brandy industry from pot stills to continuous stills-the innovation I referred to earlier in my speech-means that the brandy industry no longer has this mandatory need for a maturation period. To remove the maturation period without putting in place certain other legislative safeguards we believe would put the Australian brandy industry at risk. I must say that it is in recognition of these concerns that we have suggested that the legislation before the House is not in error but premature. One of the real fears that the Opposition has is that, by removing this two-year maturation period, we could open up the Australian spirits market to inferior overseas product. We fear that the quality of the Australian product may slip and we fear that any downturn in the qua-lity of the Australian product could lead to a further impact on the Australian market of immature overseas spirits, brandy in particular. I point out to the House the very sad experience of the Italian wine producing industry where the adulteration of wines and spirits of Italian origin has led to a major reduction in the sale of Italian spirits on the American market. As the honourable member for Barker has said, it is quite in error for the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to indicate that the removal of this maturation period only matches what is being done overseas. The Minister, in response to a question from Senator Jessop in the other chamber, said: I believe that there are very few countries where matu-ration under regulation is required as it has been required in Australia in the past. The Minister was in fact wrong. In an inquiry into the Wine and Brandy Producers Association I discovered that, at least in the United States of America, the European Economic Community, Singapore, Malaysia and Canada, a minimum two-year maturation period is required. One of the concerns that the Opposition has about what we see as the premature removal of this provision is the impact that this could have on adulterated wine flowing into Australia and its consequent impact on the health provisions that would affect every Australian. On 14 November last year I asked the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) a number of questions, one of which was: Will he also . . . require that each consignment to Australia- this was of wines or spirits from overseas- is accompanied by a guarantee from the government of the exporting country that the consignment is free from any adulteration and . . . provide an Australian import inspection regime similar to that which the European Economic Community applies to Australian exports of alcoholic beverages as interim measures until a list of eligible export establishments is approved and published. The Minister, in response to that question, replied: No. Within Australia, the States and Territories have responsibility for administering domestic food laws including ensuring that imported food complies with domestic standards. Apart from the application of Quarantine Regulations and Customs . . . Regulations, there are no comprehensive Commonwealth inspection arrangements for imported foods either at the place of manufacture or point of entry. Commonwealth involvement is largely limited to the administration of quarantine control, tariffs and prohibited imports. As if that were not reason enough for concern, he then went on to say: My major concern at present is to achieve uniformity of food Acts, Regulations and Standards as they apply to all foods sold in Australia, whether of domestic or imported origin. The question of reviewing manufactu-ring conditions for food and beverages in overseas countries exporting to Australia is not at this time seen as a practicable alternative. There rests my case. The Opposition does not believe that the removal of this two-year matu-ration period is unwise; it believes that it is unwise at present and it is unwise until the Minister for Health has taken the trouble and used this opportunity to sort out the way in which we police those products flowing into this country from overseas and the way in which we achieve uniformity of our food legislation and labelling. If the Minister could assure us that we will have some sort of import control and some sort of import inspection of overseas goods by 1990 and that we will have some sort of uniform food Acts across Australia by 1990, the Opposition will be able to look at this piece of legislation from a very different point of view. I note that the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) was anxious to use the red herring of State labelling as a reason to favour deregulation and the phasing out of Commonwealth maturation provisions. The State maturation provisions are policed largely by Customs officers. The existence of Commonwealth maturation provisions has meant that the State provisions have scarcely been used. I cannot believe that the removal of the Commonwealth Customs policing which has made the State provisions ineffective will mean that the State provisions will automatically become effective. I would have thought that the end result of this legislation would be to encourage the States to phase out their maturation requirements. The Opposition would not be opposed to that if it could be assured that steps were being taken to ensure that imports into Australia meet minimum standards, that those standards would be policed and paid for by the importing country. Furthermore, uniform food legislation would ensure that no Australian was placed at risk as a result of the legislation before the House today. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.07) —in reply-Let me respond to a number of points that were made in the debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 last night and today. I thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate. A number of points were made by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I deal with those points together because they encompass a number of points that were made, for example, by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). The first issue has just been discussed by the honourable member for Wakefield and concerns removal of the requirement for the maturation of brandy, whisky and rum. I repeat: The Government announced on 4 May 1984 that, following a review of regulations applicable to spirituous beverages, the requirement for the maturation of brandy, whisky and rum would be retained at that time but that further examination of the continued need for compulsory maturation would be made. The examination revealed two major points. From the health viewpoint, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) advised that compulsory maturation was unnecessary. On the matter of quality, where there are no health considerations, the examination revealed that the market itself, and not government regulation, should determine what is to be produced and sold. The examination found that there were no quality grounds for the retention of compulsory maturation. Removal of the maturation requirement from the Spirits Act is also consistent with the Government's overall desire to remove unnecessary regulation of business and encourage efficient, long term growth of the industry. This legislation underlies the commitment of the Hawke Government to the freeing up of the market. It also highlights the curious embarrassment of Opposition members-theoretical free marketeers, but actually interventionists when it suits them. The Government also believes that Customs legislation is no longer the appropriate medium for this type of control. The States and Territories have responsibility for food standards and, in the Government's view, this is where any maturation control-if it is required and if the market mechanism does not cover it-should rest. For the information of honourable members, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania require in their food standards a two-year maturation period with the `old' and `very old' labelling requirement. Western Australia has similar legislation yet to be proclaimed and New South Wales has such legislation before its Parliament. The question of uniformity of food laws would not be dealt with by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) under the Customs laws. At the Commonwealth level it would be the responsibility of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who has responsibility for consumer affairs matters. I will refer the speech of the honourable member for Ryan to the Attorney-General. I know that he reads the honourable member's speeches as a matter of course. Without trying to put words in the Attorney's mouth, I think that basically the uniformity of food laws is a State responsibility. If the States were disposed to move towards a uniform national law it could be only at State instigation and with the agreement of all six States. Because these regulations will not come into effect until 1990 there is time to look at this matter, but I will refer the matter to the Attorney-General who will, I hope, reply to the honourable member directly. In regard to the matter of labelling raised by the honourable member for Ryan, the National Health and Medical Research Council model food standard provides that there shall not be included in a label words, firstly, which describe spirits as matured unless the spirit has been matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years, secondly, which describe spirits as old unless the spirit has been matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than five years and, thirdly, which describe spirits as very old unless the spirit has been matured by being stored in wood for a period of not less than 10 years. These standards are being progressively incorporated in State legislation. Several honourable members, including the honourable member for Ryan, raised the question of the day to day responsibility for the Australian Customs Service moving away from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce towards the Comptroller-General. It must be stressed that under our system the Minister retains portfolio responsibility for the Customs Service and for the overall political direction for getting legislation through, handling correspondence and so on. In this legislation the Government is proposing a completion of the exercise of transferring only administrative powers involving the day to day operation of the Customs Service. By arrangement the Comptroller-General of Customs and the Minister meet weekly for the Comptroller to inform the Minister of current Customs operations. As Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, I have been quite heavily involved in that procedure. The transfer of some ministerial powers last year to the Comptroller-General has been of considerable benefit already. The Minister can devote much more time and effort, as he wants, to the major policy issues facing industry. He has not been required to be involved in day to day Customs administration functions. The Comptroller-General, on the other hand, has been able to devote his entire attention to running the system, the Customs Service. Before the establishment of Customs as a separate entity, the Comptroller-General and the Secretary to the Department of Industry and Commerce, as it then was, were the same person. The powers mentioned by the honourable member for Ryan, that is, anti-dumping and tariff powers, are not being transferred to the Comptroller-General. These powers are in the major policy arena and, in the Government's view, are not suitable for transfer. The powers that already have been transferred and that are now proposed for transfer are purely administrative and, as I say, involve the day to day running of the Customs Service. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 24-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clauses 25 to 27-by leave-taken together. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.14) —The Opposition wishes to oppose these three clauses which will remove the maturation requirement of two years, particularly in view of the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), both of whom very adequately put the case that the removal of the maturation requirement would lead to lower standards within the industry and would not give the local industry the operational opportunities that undoubtedly exist. On top of that I would like to express the view of the rum industry, which feels particularly disadvantaged by this move. Mr Braithwaite —Particularly Bundaberg rum. Mr MOORE —I know that the honourable member for Dawson has a keen interest in that area. The Opposition is particularly concerned that a reduction in the maturation period for brandy, rum and whisky will impinge on Australian production. Thus, the Opposition will oppose these three clauses. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.16) —I rise to support the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and to restate the case I made earlier in the debate. I note that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), in his second reading reply, suggested that the Opposition could reasonably be accused of being interventionist. Once again I must state for the Minister's benefit, as I did in my earlier speech, that the Opposition is not opposed to the removal of this two-year provision; it would simply like to see, first, some assurance that Australians will not be disadvantaged in terms of the quality of the product that is put on the market. We recognise that the maturation provisions can be policed by both the States and Territories. Currently they are not being policed by the States and Territories because the Commonwealth has taken over that role. Unless there is some indication that the particular concerns we have about uniform health food requirements are being addressed by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) or the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), we feel that we would be acting less than responsibly if we allowed this two-year provision to disappear until other safeguards are in place to ensure that Australian consumers are not disadvantaged. I must restate that the Opposition is not standing here in some dog in the manger pose; it is not asserting that the legislation before the Committee is in error, but that it is premature. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.17) —I have already given the reason why the Government cannot accept the proposal put forward by the Opposition and there is little point in restating it except to say that the termination will not take place until 1 April 1990. We regard this as a matter entirely appropriate for State regulation as part of the consumer affairs responsibilities of the States rather than something that historically evolved out of the Customs powers. As the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) pointed out last night, the Customs Act 1901 is one of the oldest Acts and has one of the broadest heads of Commonwealth power, the result being that anything was dragged into it. It is a bit of an historical anomaly; it does not appear to be particularly appropriate. I should also point out-I did not say this earlier-that when the Government was examining the issue earlier it found a significant divergence of industry opinion on the question of compulsory maturation. Firms with a tradition of producing matured spirits favoured its retention while other interests suggested that the market, not government regulations, should be the determining factor. It could hardly be said that the Government is rushing into this provision. In effect there will be virtually a four-year period so that the legislation can be given an opportunity to mature-not, of course, in wood! If there are problems, they can be appropriately dealt with at the State level, and, if it is necessary to refer to the Commonwealth to make sure there is national legislation, that ought to be taken up by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). As I have said, I will refer the points raised in the debate to the Attorney-General. We just do not believe that it is an appropriate exercise of the Customs power. Clauses agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 8 April. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —The question is: 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 Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April. That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.22) —The Oil Companies (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill 1986 would not have been required had the Government heeded the advice of the coalition to deregulate the oil market as recently as last year. It is government regulation which has placed the oil industry in a cost-price squeeze and government regulation which forced oil refiners to suffer the stock losses that have occurred. Under normal market conditions oil companies would have been able to limit stock losses and delay price reductions on sales. However, the compulsory allocation system and wholesale price controls prevent this normal commercial action. Further, because the price of crude oil is regulated and adjusted only at regular periods price movements are reflected only with a lag and occur more suddenly and dramatically than under normal market conditions. The import parity price set on 1 January 1986 was $A43.71 per barrel. Refiners were required to take supplies of domestic crude oil at this price during January and February despite the rapid plunge in comparative world crude oil prices. On 1 March 1986 the Government lowered the price of domestic crude oil supplies to be allocated to refiners to $A27.09 per barrel, a fall of $A16.62 per barrel. On 1 April 1986 prices were again adjusted downwards by a further $A6.10 per barrel. These price falls were equivalent in real terms to both of the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. The stock losses subsequently incurred by the oil industry have been estimated at between $A575m to $A600m. The Government has agreed with this legislation to partially reimburse refiners for stock losses by, firstly, a payment for stock purchased in February, but not January-the Government had argued that refiners took supplies at acceptable risk conditions under the allocation system-and, secondly, less the value of sales from those stocks between the 1 March import parity pricing adjustment and the subsequent Prices Surveillance Authority wholesale price reduction on 14 March. Given that oil companies have a legitimate claim for compensation for these stock losses suffered as a result of government regulation and that compensation is to be paid from Consolidated Revenue, the coalition supports the Bill. However, the coalition is concerned that the oil industry will not be fully compensated and that the Government will continue to pass the buck for oil market regulation on to consumers; that is, ordinary, overtaxed Australians. In fact, we have to ask the questions: How heavily will this change in price fall on the shoulders of consumers? I understand that as recently as yesterday the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) was criticised in the Senate for asking, as a lead issue, where the price reduction was on home heating oil. I believe he was unfairly criticised in that House because he is a person who has had a interest in the oil industry, including refining, for quite a number of years. It was a legitimate question, yet he came under severe criticism in that place. I ask the further question: How much longer will consumers be asked to pay higher prices for plastics, fertilisers, tyres and other products of oil refining? There is no evidence of any benefit to consumers in the market-place at the moment, and I believe that that is a legitimate complaint of people who are suffering the on-costs of the regulation of fuel prices now that the import parity pricing levy has been reduced. When will they see the benefit? I can understand that there is a lag, as evidenced here, but it would appear to me that, as is the case with home heating oil, consumers will be asked to make up this cost in relation to all these other final products, such as plastics, fertilisers, chemicals and tyres, ad infinitum. Passing on costs to consumers is just one way the refining industry can reconcile its loss. The coalition is also concerned that the Government has not moved to deregulate the oil market, despite the recent problems which have led to this legislation, and is apparently unwilling to deregulate and avoid similar problems in the future. Let us take each of these points in turn. The value of stock holdings in February was estimated at $210.6m less sales of $85.8m, leaving a payment of $124.8m to be distributed on the basis of allocation of shares. What about the remaining $300m which the Government accepts the oil industry has lost in January and since March? The Government has argued that the earlier losses may be made up if prices increase. The Government has also argued that companies will be able to recoup effectively nearly half of any remaining losses via company tax deductions. This does not appear to be the most economic equaliser in a situation where there is so much doubt expressed by the Government, on both the fall of the price of oil and now on its recovery. Given no price recoupment the companies will therefore increase company tax deductions by a further $150m to $200m. This is little comfort for the oil industry, which will be forced to wait for compensation which may not occur, and if it does, will occur only after a lengthy period in which substantial damage will have been done to company results, shareholders' returns and share prices. So it has an implication right down the line. The Government apparently does not want to think about the commercial reality of its decisions. Further, while the Government indicated that the $124.8m payment would be tax free, it has stated that company tax deductions will be reduced by this amount to prevent double dipping. Mr Lloyd —By what amount? Mr BRAITHWAITE —By $124.8m. That is to be tax free, but it has other effects on company arrangements. Some oil companies had assumed that they would pay no tax on the $124.8m and would maintain full tax deductions for stock losses, effectively increasing the value of the compensation payment. The Government has refused to alter these tax conditions despite the perilous financial position of these oil companies. Given the revenue to be derived from the massive increase in petrol tax, this is a very hard-nosed decision by the Government. What about stock losses suffered after February and any future stock losses? The Government has refused outright to bear the burden of regulation and provide compensation out of Consolidated Revenue. Instead it indicated that consumers should be forced to pay this compensation. The Prices Surveillance Authority has already introduced a wholesale surcharge of 0.45c per litre to account for stock losses which occurred as a result of the 1 April import parity pricing adjustment. The surcharge is supposed to last for seven months. Given the revenue greed of this Government and its attempts to renege on the commitment to reduce the new tax on petrol as world oil prices increase, the coalition doubts whether the surcharge will ever be lifted. Indeed, it is likely that the Government will increase and extend the new tax and keep the revenue for itself rather than pass it back to the oil companies and consumers and will rely on the convenient memories of the consumers and the refiners to help it through this situation. The Government has indicated it does not support any further tax increases via the PSA surcharge. How, then, will it compensate oil refiners now that oil prices have fallen again? The Government should indicate its position on this matter immediately. It has shown a lack of judgment in forecasting the collapse in world prices and letting consumers pay, but it is now quite prepared to gamble on an upturn to provide compensation to the refiners. One wonders where this situation will eventually end. The Government has also indicated that it will not provide any compensation to retailers who may have suffered stock losses, because, firstly, retailers are not required to take stock, they may limit stock exposure by delaying purchases; and, secondly, they are not subject to formal retail price controls and may recoup such losses by delaying price reductions. However, while this may apply in theory, retailers on average have enough storage capacity to hold only about three to seven days stock, or nine to 10 days stock in country areas. As such, those retailers would have been forced to take higher priced stock. Further, the Government neglects the effect of persuasion, particularly by State governments who have retail price control powers, and the effect of consumer expectations of price reductions which, when combined with the high level of retail competition, shown by extensive discounting, limit the ability of retailers to maintain high prices. Some retailers, particularly those in areas where discounting is heavy or those who were required to take larger stock purchases, particularly in rural areas, would obviously have suffered stock losses. Yet the Government has turned its back on them. Once again the Government does not understand commercial reality, once again it has dumped the problem in the too hard basket and once again it has passed the buck on to somebody else. This Government must be prepared to compensate fully the oil industry out of Consolidated Revenue without any recoupment by tax or price increases. Consumers have suffered enough from the high taxes of this Government, and they too must have some relief. This high spending Government must be forced to accept fiscal limits. It must be forced to make expenditure cuts so that it can afford to reduce petrol taxes and compensate the oil industry and consumers. This Hawke Labor Government must be forced to get its own Budget and its own house in order but it has indicated a clear reluctance to come to terms with galloping expenditure, as evidenced by its three record deficits. Despite clear indications that world oil prices were going to fall quite dramatically and could stay at low levels for some time, the Government has consistently refused to make the necessary policy adjustments to permit a more flexible response to the oil crisis. The Government has had plenty of time to adjust policy; however, it is unwilling to do so. While maintaining the principle of import parity pricing, world pricing of our energy resources, and making some changes to the IPP formula to reflect the growth of the non-Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries spot market which has in part led to the current crisis, the Government refused to deregulate fully pricing and allocation arrangements. Deregulation would have enabled the oil industry to adjust more flexibly and efficiently to recent price movements and market changes. Unfortunately, the Hawke Government seems unwilling or unable to pursue actively deregulation initiatives in the oil market. I suspect that the Government has been heavily influenced by the union movement and sections of the oil industry which have sought to portray self-interest as the national interest. The efficient development of all our resources will not occur where we underprice or overprice our energy resources. Misallocation of resources and hidden costs can only result from this. The oil industry today is large and diverse and much more mature than the infant industry of 10 to 20 years ago. It must be able to stand on its own feet. This cannot be done while the oil industry is overregulated and overtaxed, particularly while the oil market is in crisis. As such, the coalition supports assistance where sudden policy changes jeopardise investments, particularly where government regulation imposes added costs and constraints on the ability to compete and adjust to market changes rapidly and efficiently. Given the importance of maintaining adequate oil exploration and development incentives and the need for equity in government policy, the coalition also supports appropriate tax relief for oil explorers and producers, both as a short term assistance measure and as the necessary corollary to deregulation of the oil market in the longer term. Increased and new taxes on oil exploration and development under the Hawke Government have been major disincentives. In particular I refer to the resource rent tax, the new oil levy and the cash bonus bidding. The coalition has opposed and will continue to oppose these new taxes on the oil industry and will review them when elected to government. In a recent speech to the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) indicated that a fundamental principle of coalition policy was that the taxation regime provide adequate incentive for continued oil exploration and development. I believe this is in the national interest. In the present climate of low oil prices there is a strong case for immediate tax relief to assist continued oil exploration and development to offset the adverse effects of the oil crisis. Again, the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that the coalition would only move to a totally free market following a phasing in process to allow producers to gain access to markets with provision for some small producers to remain in a residual allocation system as a form of adjustment assistance. The coalition is not wedded to this particular form of adjustment assistance and is willing to receive advice on the most appropriate form of assistance required. Of course, it is unfortunate that the coalition is not in a position to implement such measures now. That responsibility clearly rests with the government of the day. However, it would be a disaster if nothing were done until the next coalition government. It will bring further chaos if nothing is done in an already chaotic economic situation. The coalition supports this Bill but maintains that the Government should provide proper compensation to the oil industry, pass on to consumers the full drop in world oil prices, not half of it, provide immediate tax relief for oil exploration and development, and fully deregulate the oil market with further fundamental tax reform to lower community and industry costs and increase industry efficiency and competitiveness. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.38) —It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Oil Companies (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill. While it gives me great pleasure to speak, I am certain it will not give the oil cartel pleasure to listen to or read this speech in the future. My dislike for the oil cartel in Australia goes back many years. I have watched it effectively carve up an industry that generated work for many Australians. The cartel has systematically gone about the business of forcing service stations to close and blackmailing the operators of the few remaining owner-operated stations to manage their business. These multinationals dictate with the threat that their leases will not be renewed. These are the sorts of threats that many of these multinationals use on service station proprietors. BP Australia Ltd would have to be one of the greatest exponents of forcing service station operators to toe the line. In March 1984 I called BP the quiet deceiver and I am glad to say that others are using this phrase. I think, of all the oil companies involved in this nasty business, it would have to be the worst. It is the hit man of the industry-a company that has made millions from Australia, a company which in 1984 and 1985 made world-wide profits of $6.21 billion or $62m per week over two years. That is approximately $8.9m profit per day. Yes, that is correct-$8.9m per day profit. Let me tell honourable members a few things about the quiet achiever-some of the things it has done, that is, besides pulling down the refinery at Hastings and swallowing up Australia's own refinery, COR. On the program The Investigators the following discussion took place: Reporter: Recall a couple of weeks ago we featured a report on Frank Farrelley, the BP proprietor at Cronulla in Sydney's south. Now, after close to 20 years in the business, Frank's been given his marching orders. BP says his lease won't be renewed and that the site will no longer be used as a petrol station. Sadly for Frank the news came just a couple of weeks after he'd arranged to sell his business for more than $100,000. First up BP didn't offer Farrelley a brass razoo, not a single solitary cent. Then an offer of $25,000 which a fortnight ago it upped by another $10,000. Now, whether that offer still remains open is uncertain. Frank Farrelley also received a lot of support from many people in the Australian community. One from Western Australia writes: Thank God for the Frank Farrelley story. Only those who have been under the thumb of one of the major oil companies know how true his story is. Unfortunately, I must ask that you not use my name or in any way identify me, as I am still surviving in the business and can't afford my supplier to find out that I have spoken out of turn. This is the sort of fear that BP and other oil companies engender in their proprietors. The report continues: Well, one person who's not perturbed about being identified or speaking out of turn is Kel Gouch . . . He's launched a scathing attack on BP following what he describes as the company's jackboot tactics . . . Now the breach, according to Kel Gouch, is that he was late, 12 days late, in paying his December account. Now, that's not the $150,000 in cash he pays BP every month for petrol, but rather an oil bill for $800. For this the quiet achiever saw fit to warn him that a repeat breach could see his lease terminated and BP would throw him out . . . Strong stuff, but Mr Gouch doesn't stop there. The apparent desire, he says, by BP to resort to bullying, harassment and baseball bat tactics designed to engender fear and compliance on the part of its dealers could be said to strongly resemble the approach adopted by dictators in days gone by. I agree with that. It goes on in the report to refer to `shades of the quiet deceiver'. I am glad to see that others are using this phrase that I used to describe BP several years ago. One of the other things I would like to mention is the profit of the oil companies. The profit of Ampol, Shell, Mobil, BP, Caltex and Esso in 1984 was $574m. In 1985 it was $307.6m. This figure does not include Esso which, in the year before, made a profit of $412m. I hasten to add that they handed over to their US masters a dividend of $280m. I have picked out BP for special treatment here, but it is typical of all companies. They make huge profits out of our resources which they believe they own because they have found them. I strongly believe that resources in Australia are the property of all Australians-not overseas companies which, at the moment, dictate to us. In the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 18 February 1986 was the headline `Refiners stop loading Bass Strait crude'. The article began: Australian oil-refining companies have baulked at loading further shipments of Bass Strait crude oil at existing prices until the Federal Government gives an undertaking that the companies will be protected from a potential combined inventory loss of $480 million. Australian refineries are compelled to take a minimum 350,000 barrels a day of crude from Bass Strait. A continuation of the companies' refusal to load the oil may result in a partial `shut-in' of production in Bass Strait, while effectively increasing pressure on the Government to respond quickly to the fall in international crude oil prices. Later the article continued: Oil company spokesmen said that the Australian refinery industry has never before been confronted with losses as large as those it was forecast would result from a drop in indigenous crude oil prices under the IPP system. They said that unless the Government moved to protect the companies, the impact on their profitability would be devastating. In other words, it states that unless the Government gives the oil companies $480m, they will not proceed to load Bass Strait oil and therefore shut down production and create chaos within Australia. These greedy companies have incurred a loss on the stock they held in their tank farms. What did they do some months ago when the prices went up? Did they sell their stock that was in these huge tanks at lower prices, the prices at which they purchased it? No, they made huge profits and kept very quiet. Did they pass on to the public the profits their companies made because of the huge amount of petrol storage they have at company-owned service stations? No, the money went straight to their parent companies and their pockets. Oil companies without any shadow of doubt are the ugliest and most avaricious of any sector of industry within Australia. The answer to curbing the greed of this cartel is in section of the Australian Labor Party Platform, which states: With the exception of the United States, all of the oil exporting nations and every oil importing country of consequence have established government companies for active involvement in the oil and gas industry. Public participation in the oil industry provides a means for the nation to share fully in the benefits of its own oil and gas reserves without impeding a healthy level of private oil and gas activity. Only through participation can government acquire its own direct knowledge of the industry. Government enterprise can enhance the nation's energy independence whilst providing other benefits as an integrated public oil company. It states that the Australian Labor Party will: Establish a public corporation, responsible to the Commonwealth Government, to participate in the development of Australia's oil and gas resources, such that the corporation- (a) will have strategic as well as commercial objectives; (b) may, with the approval of the Government, engage in any of the activities of an integrated oil company; (c) may operate independently or in joint venture with private or other enterprise; (d) will act commercially when participating with private companies, but may explore and locate reserves without seeking to develop them immediately, in the national strategic interest, when acting solely; (e) will be funded as appropriate by Commonwealth grants and loans and by public borrowings, provided that its commercial operations incorporation provides a satisfactory return to its investors. This is a part of the Australian Labor Party policy that I feel we should implement immediately. Why should these companies dictate to this Government the orders of some faceless overseas board? I believe that the Government has been blackmailed into giving the oil cartel a $125m handout. We must make certain that it never happens again. I also take this opportunity to join with the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)-I do not join with him too often but I do so on this occasion-in calling for an inquiry or a joint parliamentary committee to look into the oil industry. He has made this call several times in the past, and I am very happy to put my name to the call for some inquiry to find out what is going on in this industry. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.50) —I listened intently to the speech of the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) on the Oil Companies (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill in which he continued his attack on the oil companies. Sometimes some of his criticisms are most valid, but the oil industry is ever changing, and indeed has changed dramatically in the last 15 years. I suppose the oil companies have to make a buck in the market-place. They temper changes with the ultimate aim of making a profit for their shareholders. It is beholden upon governments that if they want to change the oil industry they have to be prepared to put their hands into the barrel of oil and have a good look at these changes. This Bill has caused me a fair bit of concern because it will provide a windfall for the oil companies of $125m of taxpayers' money. I can understand that if one has stock on hand and there is a variation in the price one has paid for that stock, one will be in trouble if one cannot get something back in subsidy because of reasons that are beyond comprehension and beyond reality. Some assistance must be given to such people. But regrettably the people of Australia today are looking very closely at the oil industry. They are making comparisons in the price of petrol as well as comparisons State to State. When they see a printed maximum wholesale price indicated in their State and a printed wholesale maximum price in another State but discover that quite frequently petrol is being sold below that wholesale price, they start to wonder why there is a windfall for the oil companies. Then, regrettably, in the next breath the companies drop the price, which may be to the detriment of many Australians. We hear continually in this House that the price of petrol and petroleum products has a flow-through into the economy. If the price increases, great problems are created in the rural sector. This also creates great problems for the ordinary Australian who uses his car to go from point A to point B and in his ability to be able to get to work. We all know that it is a terribly high price at the moment. In my State of Tasmania the price of petrol varies between 52c and 54c a litre. Let us take a person who lives 20 miles from his work place and needs to travel 40 miles a day to get to and from work. I do not use the new measures but the old, because a lot of people have been hoodwinked by the price of petrol. They think that the price refers to gallons, dollars and cents, but in fact it costs about $3 a day for some people to go backwards and forwards to work. We all know that governments can win or lose in the hip-pocket nerve. Sometimes it is argued that a difference of $3 in pension can create great hardships. In fact, I repeat that it now costs about $3 for some people to get to work. I hate to go over the same ground, and I have said this before, but I would emphasise that the people on the lowest incomes cannot afford the most modern car. They have the car that they can afford to pay for, and usually it is a bigger car that uses the greatest amount of petrol. Those people are being penalised all the way. I agree with the honourable member for Dunkley. I have spent a lifetime in the oil industry dealing with oil companies and I know them to a certain degree. I know that there are pressures on the companies with higher wages, strikes and goodness knows what, and in getting money for their shareholders. I understand all that, but if they ask for a windfall from this Government, they must play the game fairly. I would hate to see a repetition of what happened before. One can go back in history to ACTU-Solo and we can talk about Ampol and Mobil and their involvement. We can also talk about the decline of the industry in Victoria as a result of discounting, where poor proprietors on one corner were buying at one price and on another corner it was being sold at that same price. We understand discrimination, market forces and goodness knows what. If one cannot buy at a competitive price, one goes to the wall, and a lot of those poor devils went to the wall while we all stood back and watched. We have had a report by Mr Justice Collins of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, and there has been about one speech in this House since 1975 on the oil industry. Mr Hodgman —That was you. Mr GOODLUCK —I did not take credit for the home heating oil reduction, and I was criticised in the other place by my friend Senator Evans following a question from a senator, whose name I do not remember. Mr Hodgman —Coates. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, Senator Coates. He criticised me for taking a bit of credit for home heating oil reductions in Australia. If the credit is due, I will take a bit of it. Mrs Kelly —It is due to me. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Canberra copied my speech the next night; I heard her on Canberra radio. I could give the honourable member the works, but she is a lady and I cannot attack her too much. I heard her on Canberra radio; it was a rerun of my speech, but not as good. I will leave that aside. I rang Canberra, and I did my homework. I asked for the price of home heating oil in Canberra and I was told that it was 48c a litre. My poor people in Tasmania were paying 54c a litre. The distributors were delivering the oil right at the peak of winter at the old price. One poor lady rang me and she said: `Bruce, I have just paid 54c a litre'. I said: `Ring them and tell them that there was a reduction'. She said: `Bruce, they have told me that on the 16th they charged 54c and on the 18th they charged 46c a litre'. The people of Australia are starting to realise that this oil industry needs looking at, and we are the ones to look at it. The honourable member for Dunkley made a suggestion: Yes, we sometimes twiddle our thumbs up here when we could be doing some intelligent looking at the price of petrol in Australia. We could start liaising with the oil companies instead of standing back and shooting cannons at them. We should start getting involved. The honourable member for Canberra said that the poor people of Canberra are so disadvantaged. I have good eyes. I came to work today and saw that petrol is 48c a litre in Canberra; it is 54c a litre in Hobart. I would say that the people of Canberra with their roads and cars are far better off than the people of Tasmania. The people of Canberra have a $17m bus service, which runs at a loss, so they do not really need their cars. The honourable member for Canberra should not make comparisons with me. I have given her a good go, but she should not make comparisons. I have done my homework on this subject and I have done the comparisons, and the people of Canberra are far better off than my people in Hobart. If we go a bit further, we find that petrol is selling at 43c a litre. It upsets me when these people get a windfall. We have to play the game fairly today. All right, we have had a reduction in home heating oil. However, it is the end of the barrel; it is the cheap stuff. The people who kept their oil heaters in can least afford these prices. I refer to the elderly, the sick and the needy, although a couple of modern ones also kept in their oil heaters. However, most people I know took them out when we went to import parity pricing. This oil is the cheap part of the barrel; the price should have been reduced. In Tasmania we pay nearly twice as much for LPG. Mr Hodgman —Scandalous! Mr GOODLUCK —It is scandalous and we must have a good, sensible and constructive look at it, and we as politicians need to get involved and make certain we can change this industry for the betterment of everyone, for the people who work in the industry in overalls, for the people who work for the oil companies, for the oil companies and their shareholders, and for the consumers of Australia, most importantly, who need to be aware that we are going to do something to make it fair for everyone. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(12.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr Hodgman —Don't copy his speech again. Mr McGauran —Don't repeat him verbatim. Mrs KELLY —I am really very concerned that maybe I have been in this Parliament for too long, because I actually agree with some of the points just made by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and particularly those in relation to the irregularities of the retail price of petrol and the home heating oil pricing structure. Let me take the Australian Capital Territory as an example where we can see a considerable variation in the price of petrol. Petrol is cheaper in Canberra than Tasmania, as the honourable member for Franklin said. I suppose one reason for that is that the people of Canberra have an effective local member who is out there fighting for them so that the impact is felt at the bowser. However, there is still the price variation: It is 49.9c at Hawker, closer to the city it is about 45.9c, and at Fyshwick it is 44.9c; yet on the Hume Highway in Sydney it is 39.9c, and New South Wales motorists are also paying the State petrol tax which we do not pay in the Australian Capital Territory. I find it totally confusing when there is the same source of supply. Transport costs do not make up that sort of difference, because motorists in Sydney are also paying the State petrol tax. In fact, what is happening is that the consumers in the Australian Capital Territory are subsidising the discount war that is going on in the major metropolitan areas. That has been the situation for a very long time. I think it is quite unfair that those people in provincial towns and in country towns must subsidise this competition in the metropolitan areas. This Bill really is not about retail pricing; it is about the wholesale pricing and about compensation for the oil companies. It is a one-off Bill which will compensate the oil companies for inventory losses they incurred as a result of the sudden fall in oil prices. Without this legislation consumers really would be worse off; they could now be facing increases in oil prices and they would definitely be faced with huge job losses on the oil fields. The basis of the payment to the oil companies is the stock losses incurred by refiners in respect of their lifting of indigenous crude oil during February. These were not recouped by sales in March prior to the Prices Surveillance Auth- ority's determination of the net maximum wholesale price of petroleum. In other words, oil companies bought locally produced Bass Strait crude, because of the voluntary agreement they had, at $43.71 a barrel in February. The price fell to $27.09 a barrel on 1 March, and on 1 April it fell a further $6.10, so that oil companies lost considerably from the time they purchased the oil until the time it was sold at the bowser. Why is the oil company case so special? Surely this practice of buying at one price and selling at another is normal commercial activity. The oil companies, in normal business practice, without any constraints on them at all, would have simply bought the cheapest oil. That was not the Bass Strait indigenous crude oil but the Middle East surplus. This would have dramatically affected local oil products, employment and, very importantly, government revenues. The Government, if it had not acted, would have put at risk for the month of February $350m in revenue from its crude oil excise and also put the whole crude oil absorption policy in jeopardy. The Government was not prepared to take that risk. Why is it that only the oil companies are compensated and not the petrol retailers? The position of retailers is very different from that of the oil refining companies. Unlike the refiners, the retailers were not obligated under the crude oil allocation scheme to lift high priced product in February. Retailers had the option of running stocks down in anticipation of the price fall and, of course, many of them did that. The extent retailers could deplete their stocks depended on their commercial judgments about the timing of deliveries of lower priced products and the consequences of running out of supplies entirely. To comply with the crude oil allocation scheme, refiners were not free to exercise their commercial judgment. In February they had to lift 350,000 barrels a day of Bass Strait crude together with the total produce from all the other smaller domestic oil fields, which was about another 75,000 barrels a day, in full knowledge that the price of oil would fall dramatically in March. So, is it any wonder that we have to have this legislation before us today? There is no way, without this legislation, that that agreement would have been kept in place. The size of stocks held by refiners and retailers is very different. For normal operation refiners need to hold 50 to 60 days' stock. City retailers', stock levels are only three to seven days and in country areas they are about nine to 10 days. The retailers' exposure to inventory losses is therefore very much less than that for refiners. Also, a very significant fact is that petrol retailers are not bound by the decision of the Prices Surveillance Authority. That is something that I regret because the Prices Surveillance Authority only sets the maximum wholesale price of petrol. It is my view that it should also set the maximum retail price, but I cannot get unanimous agreement for that point of view. Retailers are able to dispose of oil stock at the retail price they consider appropriate, given market forces prevailing at the time. As can be seen from the remarks I made regarding Australian Capital Territory prices and the figures cited by the honourable member for Franklin, prices vary considerably. At this point I make reference to the Opposition's policy regarding the oil industry. The honourable member for Franklin seems to have adopted a unique position in the Opposition. I am pleased that the Opposition supports this legislation, but there have been considerable differences of emphasis in the Opposition's position on the oil industry. Senator Durack, who, I understand, is the Opposition spokesman in this area, says that he intends to introduce a free market for the petroleum industry if the Opposition wins office. In the Age of 26 June 1985 Senator Durack claimed: The non-decision on deregulation of the oil industry demonstrates a lack of direction by the Hawke Government and a lack of nerve by Senator Evans. Mr McGauran —Absolutely. Mr Ian Cameron —Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —Presumably that means that the National Party of Australia supports the view that there should be deregulation of the oil industry. Mr McGauran —Hear, hear! Mrs KELLY —I am glad to see that National Party members support that policy. The views espoused by the Opposition-particularly by the National Party-are not supported by the general community. Mr Ian Cameron —What nonsense! Mrs KELLY —They are not supported by the trade union movement, the oil producers or the oil refiners. Senator Durack and the National Party are on their own. What does the industry say about the Opposition's policy? At the twenty-sixth annual general meeting of the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Mr Ted Harris, Managing Director of Ampol Exploration Ltd, as reported in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 April 1986, stated: If cheap petrol is (the Opposition's) predominant objective, then we can fix that very quickly. He can fix it quickly, all right. But what is the impact of that? Mr Harris continues: We will simply have a milk run of tankers bringing petroleum products into Australia from huge surpluses available from the Middle East . . . and to hell with exploration and efficient refinery capacity and employment and capital investment. So Mr Harris said: `We can bring it in from the Middle East. That is no problem at all. We can get cheaper oil. But to hell with exploration and efficient refinery capacity and employment and capital investment'. He continued: Need I really say more? Need anyone really say more about the Opposition's policy of deregulation in the oil industry? Mr Harris says that he supports the concept of deregulation, but he conceded that it would never work in Australia. That sums up the Opposition's policy. When will honourable members opposite ever learn that if they want to return to the treasury bench they will have to get their heads out of first-year economic texts and look at the real debates and the complexities of the Australian economy? Their rigid belief in the remedies of the free market will continue to ensure that they remain on the periphery of the political spectrum. I will make some further comments about the industry locally, particularly the point referred to by the honourable member for Franklin concerning home heating oil and kerosene prices. Canberra is subject to a very harsh climate. This means that the average Canberran must spend a fairly large proportion of his income on home heating. Many of the homes in Canberra still have oil heating because it is only in the last couple of years that natural gas has been connected. With winter approaching-in fact, many people visiting Canberra would believe that it is here now-I would have expected that the 40 per cent fall in crude oil prices would have had an impact on heating oil and kerosene prices. But that has not happened. There is considerable variation in home heating oil prices, from about 48c a litre to 54.5c a litre. I took up this matter with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I have been given a commitment that this matter will be referred to the Prices Surveillance Authority. I hope the Prices Surveillance Authority takes up this matter because it is ludicrous that the ordinary home user of heating oil should be providing compensation to the oil companies because they bought their crude at February high prices. This legislation is supposed to cover that. It seems to me that there is no justification for them to keep the price of home heating oil substantially higher than petrol prices. Mr Ian Cameron —But you are all for the oil companies. Mrs KELLY —We are not all for the oil companies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa and the honourable member for Gippsland are listed to speak on this Bill. If they persist in their interjections they may find, when it is time for them to speak, that they are out of gas. Mrs KELLY —That gas is considerably cheaper than heating oil! I conclude by saying that the Government is not supporting or opposing the oil companies. We want to give the oil companies the opportunity to operate without being severely disadvantaged, which is what would have happened if they had had to buy oil, under a voluntary arrangement, at a price so much higher than that for oil from the Middle East. As the Government has given the oil companies a fair go in relation to the purchase of their crude and a considerable amount of support is going to the oil companies, in return they should be fair to Australian consumers, particularly in the selling of domestic heating oil. I hope that as a result of this debate they review their pricing structure for heating oil so that the consumers of Australia who are using heating oil are not subsidising either motorists in the metropolitan areas or the oil companies. I think that the pricing situation, particularly as it applies in the Australian Capital Territory, should not continue. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(12.13) —It is my pleasure to speak to the Oil Companies (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill 1986. I am rather sad that my speech will not be broadcast because, of course, fuel has such a tremendous effect on primary producers throughout Australia. My electorate of Maranoa covers so many-- Dr Klugman —They sniff it. Mr IAN CAMERON —Unfortunately, the only people sniffing petrol are the Aborigines in central Australia. I will have more to say about that problem when I speak to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill tomorrow. It is of tremendous concern to me that petrol is being used in this manner. The purpose of the Bill, of course, is to take $124.8m of taxpayers' funds out of Consolidated Revenue and pay it to the oil companies. I find this a rather dramatic way of going about things. I say to people in Australia that this is a classic example of why we should not have import parity pricing. We have placed ourselves in such a position that we have to pay funds out of Consolidated Revenue-tax-free funds to the tune of $124.8m. Although these funds will be added on and taxed, initially they are being given to oil companies as tax-free funds. If we double that amount, $250m is being given to oil companies for 12 months. The taxing arrangements are to take place at the end of their financial year. In the meantime, they may have had that money invested at 20 per cent. With the sorts of interest rates that the guys opposite have imposed, that sort of money could be invested for 12 months at 16 per cent on call and one would be doing pretty well out of it. Those are the arrangements that this Government has got us into. I have never supported parity pricing. I always felt that it would work against us economically, and that is what has happened. I have been proven 100 per cent correct in the last three months. I predicted that the oil price would fall to $15 a barrel. Once it reached that price, I predicted it would go to $10 a barrel. It is now between $10 and $12 and will go even lower. Mrs Kelly —What are you doing on the back bench, then? Mr IAN CAMERON —One of the reasons I am on the back bench is that I was very critical of Malcolm Fraser and Doug Anthony for introducing parity pricing when they led the Government of Australia. I thought it was a disgrace. It still is a disgrace that the guys opposite continue with it. I wish to hell they would get the hell out of it. There is no reason for us to be taxing-- Mr Goodluck —They are like us-they are getting a few dollars from it. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right. They are getting too much money from it and the economy depends on it. They have turned around and moved all the taxing arrangements from well-head to excise, which is an even bigger criminal offence than the original one. It is a total rip-off now. Not only are we being taxed at the excise point, being ripped off at the bowser, but also the Government has indexed excise taxes to inflation. We have had a 2 per cent increase in inflation in the last quarter so there is a roll forward in the amount of money that the Government will collect from people using petrol. Most of the funds are going into Consolidated Revenue. Initially, these taxes on petrol were to be spent on roads. But we are spending about $1 billion a year on roads and collecting about $9 billion. It is a ridiculous set of circumstances. It is a total distortion of our economic well-being and a total distortion of the taxation system when not only this Government but previous governments rely on the amount of money collected from oil. It is supertaxing one particular industry. Of course, the whole industry has fallen through a hole. What has happened is that the Government has scrambled out of well-head taxing arrangements into excise and is still ripping off the users of petrol. I have always argued that this is a very poor and wrong form of taxation and that we ought to move right out of it and free up the oil market. There are two industries that are totally regulated in this country. One is broadcasting; the number of Acts dealing with communications in this country is something horrific. The other is the oil industry. The deeper one digs into the oil industry, the more hide-bound it is. The number of Bills and regulations is unbelievable. I cannot understand why this is the case. We are self-sufficient in oil. We are actually exporting $2 billion worth of oil. There is the great cry that we are running out of oil. If we are so desperate for oil, why do we allow the Bass Strait oil producers-they produce 90 per cent of our oil needs-to export up to $2 billion of oil a year? We cannot be so short of oil if that sort of thing is going on. It is great for our balance of payments. It is worth two-thirds of the amount that we earn from the wheat crop. We earn about $3 billion in export income from wheat. We now depend on the export of oil yet the pundits and the oil companies tell us that we are running out of the stuff. It is a lot of nonsense. The whole world is awash with crude oil. What is wrong with our importing a bit of oil? We already import heavy crude oil. We need to do so; we do not produce heavy crude oil. We have to import 20 per cent of our oil needs. The only oil that we export is light crude oil. It competes on the world market. The companies are able to produce and sell it, obviously at a profit; otherwise they would not be exporting it. It is high time that governments got out of the supertaxing of the oil industry. I will now explain some other reasons why I feel that primary producers in particular in this country are being overtaxed with fuel. Not only is $124.8m being given by this Government from Consolidated Revenue; in addition, the Prices Surveillance Authority authorised a 0.45c per litre surcharge for seven months, to account for further stock losses, which the consumers will have to pay. So not only are taxpayers being ripped off from Consolidated Revenue; every time they go to the bowser to buy some fuel, they are also being ripped off because 0.45c a litre goes straight to the oil companies. Another thing I say to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), is that yesterday I tried to find out from our side of the fence the sorts of profits that oil companies made when the price was going up. No one seems to think that they made any profits when the price was going up. No one seems to think that they might have bought in oil at $25 or $30 a barrel and kept it in stock. At one stage the parity pricing arrangement was adjusted only once every six months. This now happens every month because the price has tumbled so quickly; we have run off to the oil companies to help them out of their problems. But what was happening when the price was going up and the companies had enormous stocks that they had bought in at the cheaper price? At the end of six months the Government sat around a table and a formula on the dollar was set for the light Arabian crude oil. Obviously, while the price of imported oil went up, so did the price of our oil. But no consideration has been given to the fact that the oil companies may have had a few tankers around the coastline full of 40,000 or 50,000 tonnes of crude oil bought at the cheaper rate which was then sold to the refineries at a higher rate. That situation does not seem to have been taken into consideration. I say to the Minister that in business we know that what goes up must come down. I understand the formula and why we are forced to subsidise oil companies to this extent. But I say that it is bad economics and bad management that governments put themselves in the position of having to do that. As we know, the retailers do not get any compensation, and nor should they. There is no fixed retail price. I do not agree with honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). I do not believe in socialisation. The Government is involved enough with the wholesale price; it has fixed the wholesale price of oil at the refineries. Of course, many people think that we should fix the retail price. I believe that we should free up the wholesale price and let the oil companies compete. Then we may see some reductions in the retail price. The only way to get the retail price down is to have a bit of competition at the wholesale level. There is nothing wrong with a bit of competition. We introduced the fuel freight subsidy scheme to help people who lived in isolated areas to compete because, obviously, where there is not much competition in rural Australia, retailers are more inclined to jack up the price. That is why prices are higher out in rural Australia than they are in the cities; the volume sold is much greater in the cities. The farm community in Australia consumes about 15 per cent of the total diesel used and about 5 per cent of the petrol used. That is not a large amount compared with what the rest of Australia is using. One has only to fly into Sydney and see the number of cars crawling around the streets to understand that that is where all the fuel is used, that is, in the capital cities. The previous Government had a fuel freight scheme but the Labor Government saw fit to pull it out at a cost of $24m to rural producers in Australia. Hawke flies around the world and tries to kid us that he is a friend to the farmers. It is absolute nonsense. That measure has cost the retailers between $500m and $600m and I guess it will not be the retailers who will wear the loss; it will be the consumers. The retailers will hold up their prices at the bowser until they have recouped their losses. Then, hopefully, we will see a slight fall in the price of petrol and diesel that we have to pay. The import parity price has dropped from $43 in February 1986 to $27.09 in March 1986, to $20.99 in April 1986 and to $18.90 in May 1986. The price has fallen by $24 since February 1986. That gives everybody an idea of just how rapidly the price of crude has fallen. Of course, the price could not stay high. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries is probably the biggest cartel ever formed in history. But no cartel ever survives because there is always someone who wants to sell his product a bit cheaper than the other guys. While there was a bit of a shortage in the market the OPEC cartel survived. But, as soon as overproduction set in, down she went. The cartel is not worth a bumper now. The nations involved are selling their oil at the best price they can get and undercutting each other. The Arabs have already stated that they can produce and sell oil for $1 a barrel and still make a profit. Arab farmers pay 4c a litre for their fuel; we pay 44c. The Arabs have enormous supplies. They have about 60 per cent of world crude oil reserves and they are able to produce oil and will produce oil for practically nothing to force a number of countries out of the market. Australia will find it difficult to survive in some of these markets. That is one of the problems we are having, particularly in my electorate and in the electorate of the honour- able member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) who represents the Bass Strait producers. My electorate of Maranoa has the Cooper Basin in the far south-west. We have had articles in the newspapers. Recently, in the Sunday Mail there was an article about Roma. Roma is one of the towns in my electorate where the first oil and gas discoveries were made and it has always been the centre of oil exploration. But, of course, with the downturn in the price it is much dearer for these producers-Delhi-Santos and the other companies involved in the Cooper Basin-to produce on-shore because they do not have the enormous reserves that producers have in the Bass Strait. But these areas in my electorate are contributing. The Jackson oilfield is the only on-shore oil field paying royalties and the well-head tax to the Government. As I have said previously, I believe that that is a tax that we should get right out of to allow these companies some breathing space. Now that the price has dropped we have to get out of taxing these companies. The indirect taxes on companies and producers are killing this country and that is why we are going bankrupt. We cannot compete against the rest of the world if we have to pay these exorbitant taxes that are placed upon us. The Richter Drilling company, which is one of the biggest on-shore drilling companies based at Roma, has recently put off 50 people. Dick Warner, the charter operator there, has had to sell three aeroplanes. He has built up a fleet of eight or nine aeroplanes to service these outback rigs. Richter Drilling employs an enormous number of people in the oil search and the seismic work that goes on. More people are actually employed in looking for oil than there are when they actually find it. Once the oil is found, using today's technology, a walking beam, or what is called a donkey, is put on to pump the oil, and big platforms are built in the Gippsland basin. Once these platforms are all set up not many people are involved in operating them. They just push a few buttons and the oil gushes out of the ground. But an awful lot of people are involved in looking for oil, maintaining the platforms and doing all the seismic work and they are the people who are first affected and affected markedly. We have to get out of these taxing arrangements and allow these exploration companies to continue to look for oil because we have not stopped using it. We are still using it and the cheaper it gets the more we will use. Now that the price has dropped we will obviously want more oil and we will have to find more of it if we are to remain self-sufficient in it. Oil is enormously important to Australia. As bad as our balance of payments is, if we had to import all our oil as some countries do we would be in a horrendous state. We would be bankrupt. We are only half bankrupt now but we would be totally bankrupt if we were paying the import bills that we would have to pay as against what we are exporting, which is practically nothing. Mr Goodluck —We don't want to be dependent on the Arabs, do we? Mr IAN CAMERON —We do not want to be dependent on any nation if we can help it. We have only to look at the sort of fuss that has blown up in the last week with Indonesia, which is one of the biggest oil producers in the world. In past years we have purchased a lot of oil from Indonesia but it could turn off that tap. It just has to have a bit of a row with us about a couple of our journalists or something-it is pretty touchy-and it will say: `We will not supply you with any oil'. That is what happens with these countries. In places such as Injune, which is north of Roma, the Denison Trough gas project which was to be developed has been put on ice. That project, which was worth $270m, will not go ahead. Fuel prices still represent a big cost to the farmers. Of course, this Labor Government tries to make out that it is being kind to farmers. In actual fact farmers are paying more in fuel taxes now than they ever did. I mentioned earlier the amount of fuel that farmers use. Diesel is exempt from excise tax and we are obviously grateful to the Government for that. There is now a 19c a litre rebate for diesel but farmers are still paying well-head taxes. I see that the Minister is shaking his head in disagreement. I will run through a few figures for him. Because we are still paying well-head taxes on crude oil, last year-1984-85-the farming community paid $420m. It is estimated that farmers will pay $440m in 1985-86 and even with the drop in the price of oil I estimate that the farming community will still have to pay $220m in well-head taxes. Indirectly we are paying these horrific taxes. It means that we cannot compete on world markets. This Government makes out that it is being friendly to the farmers but it is not the only group that is getting a rebate on the diesel excise. Farmers get 19.2c a litre now. Miners, stationary engines and power generators are getting 16.3c a litre and old age homes, hospitals and other medical facilities are getting a 13c a litre rebate. So the farmers are not the only group that is getting a rebate. Forty per cent of on farm fuel used is petrol. This is another figure that the Government does not seem to understand. It is estimated that, before the Government's supposed fuel price fall, the old excise rate of 10c a litre meant that farmers were paying about $89m in fuel excise on petrol. With the Government increasing the petrol excise to 19.2c per litre farmers are now paying an extra $78m. If we add those two figures we have an on-farm indirect taxation figure of $156m in a given year for excise on petrol. The figure for well-head taxes is $220m and the Government is now taxing oils and greases which are used on farms, which means that farmers will be paying $3.25m a year. The freight subsidy scheme, which the Government withdrew, is costing the farming community $25m a year. At present there is a total indirect cost to farmers of $404m a year for fuel, yet this Government seems to think that we are paying less tax now than we ever did. That is absolute nonsense. We are paying more tax now than we ever did. I just point out to the House-surely there is no need for me to point out to the Minister and the people involved on the Labor side of politics-how hard the farming community and other people in primary industry are finding things. They do not all come to Canberra and demonstrate because they have fun doing it. They come to Canberra for a reason: They are finding it very difficult to survive. One of the main reasons is the high cost of fuel. The other problem farmers have is the fuel rebate scheme. It so happens that a lot of farmers are not using it because the Government is forcing people to fill out the forms themselves. They are damn busy people. Of the 156,000 people claiming the rebate 125,000 are primary producers but there happens to be 250,000 primary producers registered. Two hundred and fifty thousand people put in a tax return and claim to be primary producers yet only 125,000 people are claiming the diesel rebate. That is great for Treasury because when it adopts these schemes it forces people to put in returns. Half the primary producers in Australia are not putting in returns. That is great for Treasury because it means it is not returning the rebate to them. I suggest to the Minister that, if he wants to help the farming community, he should look at this problem and at the fact that a lot of people are not getting the diesel rebate mainly because at the end of 12 months the scheme runs out and farmers are very busy and do not have the time to do it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.33) —The Oil Company (Stock Loss Reimbursement) Bill is only the latest example of the utter inappropriateness of the Government's import parity pricing formula. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be only too well aware that that policy is that Australian produced crude oils are priced at the cost of their replacement with imported crude oil and consequently sold to Australian refiners under the crude oil allocation scheme. I must say, though, that I take issue with my colleague and friend the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) when he maintained that the import parity pricing was incorrect from the very start. I believe that the decision taken by the then Fraser-Anthony Government was a very courageous one. It was extremely appropriate at the time and led to creating a climate of conservation as well as an economic climate for further exploration and production. However, that was several years ago; that was in 1978. Though the objectives of the import parity pricing formula were achieved over a passage of time it is very clear that, in the last few years, the policy has been disadvantageous to the Australian economy, specifically consumers and particularly primary producers. First, the policy was expressed in American dollars as applied to Saudi Arabian light crude. As the American dollar appreciated we were not just paying world parity price; we were paying far above it. So the pricing policy was inaccurate. We thought that we were paying only the world price, but we were not. We were paying far above what properly could be termed the world price. Secondly, under the pricing formula, savings to consumers as the world price tumbled were not passed on. So the pricing formula was dated several years ago. The Government, because of its extraordinary reliance on the revenue raised under the policy, has refused accurately to reflect its policy. I find it curious that under this legislation the Government intends to compensate oil refiners for any loss incurred in a change of the rules of the game. I find it curious because there is no consistency in the Government's approach. Sadly, the Government has not shown the same respect for consumers when it comes to the rules of the game. On the one hand, the Government is prepared to compensate oil refiners for any loss suffered under the rigid application of the import parity pricing, yet it is not prepared to pass on to consumers their entitlement under the same pricing formula. I find the Government's action hypocritical and curious, to say the least. I stress that I find myself unable to oppose the measure before the House. I very much regret that we are in our current position. We would not be in this position but for the Government's adherence to the import parity pricing formula and its refusal to deregulate the marketing and price arrangements. If it had done so, as is the Opposition's policy, we certainly would not have the compensation problem we now have. In other words, the Government has no one to blame but itself for having to pay out of Consolidated Revenue the extraordinary sum of $124,800,000. I have been approached several times in my electorate, as no doubt many honourable members have, by members of the public who are unable to understand why out of Consolidated Revenue-taxpayers' funds-and at a loss to other programs, oil refiners or companies must receive this amount of money. One tries to explain the technicalities, as I shall shortly attempt to do. However, the fact is that the man in the street, the ordinary Australian who is paying inflated prices for his fuel, primary producers and small businesses which also must pay high interest rates and which are facing disaster, are unable to understand why large multinational corporations are to receive what is, to all intents and purposes, a windfall. The Government had no choice because of the rigid structure under which it operates. The purpose of this legislation is to compensate oil refiners for stock losses suffered during February 1986 as a result of the dramatic drop in crude oil prices passed on in the 1 March import parity pricing adjustment. The reason for this is that government regulation which, on the one hand, requires refiners to take stocks of crude oil and, on the other hand, limits their ability to recoup any cost penalty through wholesale price controls administered by the Prices Surveillance Authority. The import parity pricing set on 1 January 1986 was $43.71 per barrel. Refiners were required to take supplies of domestic crude oil at this price during January and February despite the rapid plunge in comparable world crude oil prices. The Government lowered the price of domestic crude oil supplies to be allocated to refiners on 1 March 1986 to $27.09 per barrel which is a fall of $16.62 per barrel. Prices were again adjusted downward by a further $6.10 per barrel on 1 April 1986. Under normal market conditions companies would have been able to limit stock losses by delaying stock purchases and price reductions on sales. However, the allocation system and wholesale price controls prevent this normal commercial transaction. So the Government had no choice. It was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. But why should we be forced to compensate oil refiners for losses suffered because of this Government's stupidity in refusing to recognise the realities of the world oil market and, further, turning its back on the obvious advantages to Australian producers, to our export industries, to small businesses and to ordinary consumers of lower fuel prices? This Government depends heavily, if not totally, on the revenue raised from not only oil producers but also fuel excises applied at petrol stations. When Labor came to office in March 1983, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested and no doubt shocked to know, Commonwealth excise on petrol and diesel fuel was a little over 6c a litre. As of now Commonwealth excise is over 18c a litre. Mr Ian Cameron —It is 19.2c. Mr McGAURAN — It is closer to 19c a litre, as my friend from Maranoa reminds me. My calculations were done to 26 March of this year. This represents a massive 200 per cent increase and that is not taking into account the punitive taxes applied by Labor State Governments which have increased by a similar measure. Those figures cannot be disputed by the Government. They cannot be argued away. They cannot be blamed on any previous administration. Labor has also tied fuel excises to the consumer price index as from the 23 August 1983 Federal Budget. That means that fuel excises automatically increase every six months according to the CPI. For the average motorist, therefore, fuel prices will rise in the future according to movements in the CPI. We now have an inflation rate of some 9.2 per cent. For that reason there is little relief in sight for the motorist, the primary producer or small businesses-almost every Australian who depends on fuel so greatly. The National Party of Australia, together with our coalition partners, the Liberal Party of Australia, believe that the Government should pass on to Australian consumers the full benefit of world oil price cuts. The loss of government revenue from a full cut should be made up by cutting the wasteful Labor programs. Medicare, which costs somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion a year, is the starting point. There are so many other areas of government administration we should at least be examining but which we at least have firm ideas on, such as the unemployed being required to do some work for receiving unemployment benefits. Scandalous wastage and fraud occurs in a whole range of social security benefits, particularly the supporting parent's pension. The Labor Party should not underestimate the depth of feeling in the community regarding wastage, duplication and dishonesty in out social security services. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101a. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. Mr TUCKEY —When did the the Minister Sport, Recreation and Tourism first become aware that Mr Groux, during the time he was employed on his personal staff, was doing work for Mr Justice Murphy concerning the criminal charges that the judge was facing? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am in no position to say exactly when that was because I did not diarise it. As I answered in this House yesterday, it was of little importance to me when Mr Groux suggested to me, in a very brief conversation, that he wanted to do some work for Mr Justice Murphy. I said: `What you do in your own time is your business'. I did not diarise it and I do not know exactly when it was. Mr KENT —Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to the well documented Australian Broadcasting Corporation program entitled Background Briefing of 13, 20 and 27 April as well as the Four Corners program of 21 April in which a number of former nazi war criminals now living in Australia were named? Has the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs checked its files to explain how it was possible for types such as Srecko Rover and Lyenko Urbanchich to migrate to Australia without disclosing their nazi past and their involvement in war crimes in Yugoslavia during the Second World War? Is the Minister aware that the nazis named are continuing their nazi Ustasha activities in Australia? Will the Minister undertake that the Department will conduct an inquiry into these matters? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am aware of the allegations that have been made recently on an ABC program and that have been been summarised by the honourable gentleman. Both myself and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, before he went overseas, have asked the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to conduct a review of the relevant files to see what the basis was for testing immigrants at that time. The honourable member will appreciate that this involves an examination which goes back many years. The investigation that is being conducted is directed to the question of process; it is not dealing with the rights of any particular individuals. As soon as I have that information I will make it available to the honourable gentleman and to the House. Mr SPENDER —My question is to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. While employed with the Minister, on how many occasions did Mr Groux speak to him about the work he was doing for Mr Justice Murphy? What was the nature of that work? Mr JOHN BROWN —As I said in the House yesterday, Mr Groux mentioned to me on one occasion that he was interested in doing some work for Mr Justice Murphy. I said: `That is not part of your charter with me; that is not part of your job. Whatever you do for Mr Justice Murphy or whatever else you do in your own time is your business'. Mr O'KEEFE —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that many pensioners are unsure of their correct entitlements and find it difficult to understand technical jargon in correspondence; If so, what steps has he taken to overcome this problem and when can these be expected to take effect? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. I think it is a matter of considerable concern amongst many of Australia's pensioners that the form of communication used by the Department of Social Security is often incomprehensible and often full of jargon with the result that often people are unclear about their rights. On occasions there have been overpayments. The Government has developed a new plain English form of letter to be sent to people on social security. Mr Howard —Are you going to give a copy to the Prime Minister? Mr HOWE —The Leader of the Opposition probably wishes that there was not effective communication between him and many of Australia's pensioners because he is so often putting them down. The first of these letters will be delivered this week to coincide with Thursday's pension increase. Each letter is personalised to the individual recipient and sets out very clearly how his or her entitlement has been calculated and the domestic and financial information that the Department has used in its calculation. The letters ask people on social security to inform the Department if any of the details shown in the letter are wrong. It also points out that it is not necessary to contact the Department if the details are right or if the recipient's income has changed but is still below the limit shown on the letter. The letters are an important part of the Government's strategy to improve communications and to combat social security overpayments. Making it easier for people to ensure that the Department is using correct and up to date information in its calculations of entitlement will help to reduce overpayments resulting from oversight or accidental misinformation. More specifically, the letters will keep people informed of the basic details of their entitlement, advise people of their obligations to notify the Department of a change in their circumstances and enable the Department to maintain addresses and generally improve communication. One of the great problems with social security is the scale of the operations. We are dealing with millions of Australian households. Almost every family in Australia, one way or another, receives payments from the Department of Social Security. A massive task is involved in communicating with people in such a way that they have a clear understanding of their rights. I believe that these improved advices and letters from the Department, which will be extended on an annual basis beyond age pensioners to unemployment beneficiaries and all people who receive family allowances, will be of considerable benefit to pensioners and beneficiaries in Australia. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Did Mr Groux, while a member of his staff, spend the latter part of August and part of September 1985 working almost exclusively in investigating material for Mr Justice Murphy and reporting to him regularly in both Canberra and Sydney, as reported in the Canberra Times this morning? Mr JOHN BROWN —If Mr Groux did as the Leader of the National Party of Australia suggested, that is news to me. If he did it, he certainly was doing it in direct conflict with the duties to which I had assigned him. Mr LEE —Is the Minister for Health aware of the criticism from Opposition members that the Government's anti-drug campaign is a $100m flop and the claim of the Leader of the Opposition that the campaign is designed for self-promotion? Are these criticisms correct and have the Premiers of Tasmania and Queensland expressed similar views? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the extraordinary document which has been circulated under the name of the honourable member for Gilmore in which he describes himself as the chairman of the coalition drugs task force. That is a body from which we have had not one positive comment about drugs since whenever it was inaugurated. All it seems to be able to do is devote itself to quite negative criticism. I can imagine nothing more negative, more destructive or indeed more foolish than this present effort from the so-called coalition drugs task force. It has surveyed some 500 people and has drawn conclusions about the success of the drug offensive campaign. Let me say first of all that I do not know where this task force got the 500. I presume they were Liberal Party branch members, though I am surprised that there are so many left in a party which is so negative, derelict and destructive. Let us look at the facts we have to date on the drug offensive. Less than 200 complaints have come into the organisation about the distribution of the booklet and they have been followed up in each case by the Salmat direct marketing organisation. There has been a carry-through by the supervisors of that organisation and they have reported that in a survey of $20,000 households, taken immediately after distribution, the booklet had been received by between 98 and 99 per cent. Additionally the booklet is also available through the information hot line number and already we have received some 7,000 requests for extra copies of the booklet, in many cases from parents impressed by it, by schools and by other government authorities. Moreover, the hot line, which has been advertised in that booklet, has already had 13,500 calls, showing the kind of interest that has been aroused. On Saturday night some four million Australian viewers saw Dire Straits, one of the most famous rock bands internationally, use throughout its program the drug offensive logos to get at the very people in the community who both the band and the Government want to approach. I was accompanied on that occasion by the Leader of the Opposition and preceding that broadcast there was a drug advertisement by the leader of that band, who has actively supported the Drug Offensive campaign. This kind of foolish, destructive, negative and nit-picking criticism directed by this peculiar organisation, the coalition drugs task force, does no service to this Government or to any government in this country which has supported the drug offensive campaign. So the criticisms are directed not just at us but at the governments of Queensland, Tasmania and the Northern Territory as well as the Labor governments in this country. If this is an example of the destructive, negative approach of the Opposition, I am not surprised that it is so hard to find Liberal governments around this country. Let me say finally that it is easy to make nit-picking arguments about a campaign of this nature but if Opposition members really want to make a partisan campaign of this issue, so be it. We will be proud of our record compared with their do nothing record on this issue. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism: How was it possible, in view of his previous answer, for a person employed as a consultant on his staff, answerable to him as Minister, to spend almost an entire month working on an allegedly extra-curricular activity without the Minister being aware of it? Mr JOHN BROWN —I reiterate what I said a minute ago: If Mr Groux-- Mr Howard —You must know. Come on! Mr JOHN BROWN —Do you want the question answered or not? Mr Howard —Yes. Mr JOHN BROWN —Then if you shut your silly mouth I will answer it. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has been asked on numerous occasions by the Chair to have regard for the authority of the Chair. I now ask him to cease interjecting across the table. Mr JOHN BROWN —If Mr Groux was doing the work attributed to him by the two previous Opposition questioners, he was doing it without my knowledge. My statement is this: This series of questions and an article in the Canberra Times this morning are predicated apparently on an affidavit supplied to the honourable member for O'Connor and to the Canberra Times by Mr Groux. I suggest, with deep respect to the Opposition and without any intended disrespect to Mr Groux-who I think is more to be pitied than abused-that the Opposition's information is based on statements from a man who lives in a fantasy world. Mr Beale —Is this a character assassination? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The House might take note of the fact that the Chair is on its feet. Mr JOHN BROWN —I think I heard some interjections about my being a character assassin. I am not about to assassinate anybody's character. I am suggesting to the honourable member for O'Connor and the Leader of the Opposition that they ought to be very careful about checking their facts before they make these charges because their informant does not have a long record of veracity. Mr Moore —How come you gave him a job? Mr JOHN BROWN —I have been challenged about how I employed him. I am quite happy to go through the process. Mr Groux is the man who blew the whistle on some cheats in the meat scandal-a scandal which of course operated under the amazing stewardship of the present Leader of the National Party of Australia. His lack of capacity in his own department allowed the meat scandal to take place. Anyhow, as it turns out, Mr Groux became a very credible witness, having turned Crown witness and having been charged with an offence relating to that meat scandal. He blew the whistle on a lot of cheats. As somebody who had been active in the meat industry for a long time I admired what he did because he helped to clean the cheats out of the meat industry. Because of his honesty, because of his courage in that case, he was unable to obtain a job in the meat industry. He came to Canberra and was recommended to me by the honourable member for Diamond Valley, Mr Peter Staples-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —I hope honourable members opposite find that amusing. Mr Justice Woodward recommended him as a witness of great honesty who showed great courage in coming forward. As far as I was concerned his credentials were impeccable. I gave him a job with the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Service here. He did a very good job for me over there, once again uncovering a few cheats. In the meantime my stewardship in that area was terminated and it became part of the portfolio of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —I am glad honourable members opposite find it so highly amusing. So Mr Groux was again out of work. Because of the work he had done for me, which was of good order, I employed him as a consultant to do a specific task for me. I am afraid that there can be a parallel drawn between Mr Groux and the honourable member for O'Connor-a good parallel. Mr Groux suddenly found himself-in his own mind, I am sure this is the case-in all innocence, in all honesty, in the vanguard of the fight against crime. He suddenly undertook to himself to be the arbiter of all decency in the community. The honourable member for O'Connor, having had one alleged victory in his mind-having produced some rather scurrilous information against the Treasurer which, according to the media, he used to great effect but with which, in the view of all of us on the Government benches, he merely sullied himself-is now prepared to accept anything from anybody if he thinks it will denigrate somebody on this side of the House. Let me tell honourable members something about the witness he has got. I will just give one instance. I have a letter, which I will not quote but which I will table, from a highly respected man who works for the Lend Lease Sports Foundation-a man called Lee Donnelly. He is highly respected man in this community. Mr Tuckey —I know about it. Mr JOHN BROWN —Oh, you know about it, do you? Madam SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor that if he continues to interject I will name him. Mr JOHN BROWN —The man Groux descended into flights of fantasy. He undertook to himself all sorts of positions and all sorts of accolades. He informed Mr Donnelly that he could arrange for him to become a member of the board of the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra and went further. At a public meeting, in front of about 100 people, he announced: `Today, I have arranged for Mr Donnelly to become a member of the Board of the Institute of Sport'. Mr Donnelly was delighted. He then contacted his boss at Lend Lease in Sydney and asked for his permission to take the job on the board. The news, of course, travelled the network of the Lend Lease Sports Foundation throughout Australia. Mr Donnelly was inundated with letters and telegrams of commendation, bottles of champagne, flowers and all the paraphernalia associated with his great success. Mr Groux also announced that the appointment was for six years. I think Mr Groux also went on to say that he had been appointed Chairman of the Institute that day, having defeated the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, in a ballot. This is the measure of the imagination of a man who is now giving affidavits that the Opposition is using as holy writ to try to persecute me, the Prime Minister and anyone else. Mr Donnelly in due course contacted me and said: `I have not heard anything about my appointment to the board yet'. Mr Spender —When was that? Mr JOHN BROWN —About three weeks after this announcement. He was waiting for his letter of approval. Eventually I had to write to Mr Donnelly and apologise most profusely and poor old Mr Donnelly had to write a letter to all his friends as follows; Dear Friend, It is with deep humiliation and personal embarrassment that I inform you that the announcement made by a ministerial adviser on Monday, 23 September 1985 concerning my appointment to the board of directors of the Australian Institute of Sport was in fact without any foundation. I had not at any time been considered for such a position. Yours sincerely, Lee Donnelly That is one of probably 100 instances that I can give honourable members of the flights of fantasy with which this man associated himself. Yet the Canberra Times had the hide to publish on its front page an affidavit of this very doubtful witness condemning people. Mr Howard —Have you got the date of that? Mr JOHN BROWN —I will table it. It is dated 30 September 1985, just after I had arranged for Mr Groux to give me a resignation and terminate his position on my staff. If honourable members opposite want to use Mr Groux as their credible witness to pour scorn on anyone on the Government benches or to suggest that I in any way approved of Mr Groux doing what honourable members opposite allege, namely, work for Mr Justice Murphy-and I have no evidence that he did work for Mr Justice Murphy-then that is their business. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Did the Minister wish to table only one paper? Mr JOHN BROWN —In fairness, I also table a letter to me from Mr Donnelly outlining his complaint; a letter from John Cheffers, the Director of the Australian Institute of Sport, reiterating the embarrassment the Institute suffered over that; my letter to Mr Donnelly, apologising; and a letter from Mr Donnelly to Mr Groux also asking him what was the truth. Mr LINDSAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. Can the Minister inform the House of the progress this Government has made in investigating and improving the conditions of service personnel and their families? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. He, along with a number of other honourable members, has been most assiduous in his advocacy of the needs of his constituents who happen to be service personnel. I am pleased to be able to report that the person I appointed to do a review of the conditions of service families, Ms Sue Hamilton, has now reported to me. I would like to place on record my thanks to her for the work she has done. In the course of her review, she visited many defence bases, including those with which the honourable gentleman would be most familiar, and saw some 4,300 service personnel or their spouses. In what has been a very impressive survey of their requirements, she has identified several problems. She believes them to be poor communications between the Services and service families, lack of extended family and other community support systems for those families, poor employment opportunities for them, low self-esteem among the spouses, family stress caused by disruption to children's education because of frequent postings, and dissatisfaction with the standard of service housing, housing maintenance and the removal of personal effects. The report not only identifies those problems but also has some very practical suggestions as to how we might deal with them. I would commend Ms Hamilton for having been sensible in ensuring that some of the responses to the problems that have been confronted are going to be dealt with on what might be termed a self-help basis, making use of the very considerable resources that are to hand among the service spouses themselves at the various installations to improve both child care facilities and the dissemination of information on service conditions and rights, and also the possibilities for providing an employment service for service spouses. She has been sensible and modest in what she has proposed in terms of expenditure and the large number of very helpful recommendations she makes comes to an amount of $6m. I will take the view, as we look at her report in detail in the Department of Defence, that it is a readily implementable report, that it ought to be implemented and that a high priority must now be given to the question of the morale of service spouses as an important feature of the situation in which service personnel find themselves in their willingness to continue in the service. Mr Sinclair —Why don't you make a statement on it, Kim? Mr BEAZLEY —I will not get a debate out of the right honourable member for New England, I know that. I have a very long list of steps taken by this Government over the last couple of years to address deficiencies that occurred in the administration of our opponents of the defence forces over the last 20 or 30 years. They include providing for service personnel the capacity to have their own independent tribunal and arbitration of their wage claims so they are no longer subject to the capricious actions of Ministers, of which the right honourable member for New England, who is heckling, is so aware when it comes to a consideration of their just requirements. It also, of course, complements what we are doing in the housing area in regard to improving the conditions of service personnel. It is a matter we take seriously and, therefore, we can look forward to the implementation of the recommendations made by Ms Hamilton, which I think will do a very great deal for service personnel in this community. Mr TUCKEY —I ask a further question of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. In the light of the Minister's obvious preparedness to table certain documents, I ask: Will the Minister give details of the actual duties and activities performed by Mr Groux when he was employed as a full-time consultant on the Minister's staff and in particular for the period August, September and October 1985. Will the Minister table all diary notes, worksheets, movement vouchers, travel warrants, details of Mr Groux's home base and any other records relating to visits to and work done by Mr Groux in Sydney in 1985? Mr JOHN BROWN —In fact, I will not table those things because some of them, in light of information that came to me after Mr Groux's resignation, are under investigation. Mr Howard —Ah! Mr JOHN BROWN —Nothing to do with the allegation of the honourable member about Murphy by the way. The dates that the honourable member mentioned were August, September and October? Mr Tuckey —Yes. Mr JOHN BROWN —Let me put the record straight. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —My records are always straight. That is one thing I can say that a lot of Opposition members cannot say-I tell the truth, and all the time. Mr Howard —Particularly about the Parramatta Leagues Club. Mr JOHN BROWN —What about the Parramatta Leagues Club? If the Leader of the Opposition has something to say, he should say it louder. I am ashamed of him. I thought he was better. After two conversations with the Prime Minister on 22 and 26 August when he brought certain facts to my notice concerning Mr Groux's record of personal behaviour, he suggested to me that Mr Groux should be asked to resign. It would have been a fairly simple matter to have sacked Mr Groux I would have thought, but as those sitting opposite who were Ministers will know, and as we found out with the Australian Bicentennial Authority, to sack somebody on contract is a pretty tricky affair. I thought the better thing to do was to get Mr Groux to resign, which he did on 20 September in these terms: My dear Minister, It is with deep regret that I hereby tender my resignation as your consultant, effective as from c.o.b., 1st November 1985. Yours in friendship, Rodney Gordon Groux. I table that letter. With regard to Mr Groux's duties, they were described as such. I believe that the Opposition has a copy of the reference I provided Mr Groux-a very guarded reference. I am happy to read it because it happens to outline them and I can do it all at the one time. It states: Dear Mr Groux, Thank you for your letter of 20 September 1985 in which you tendered your resignation, with the intention that it be effective from 1 November 1985. I would like to place on record my sincere appreciation of your assistance since 6 May 1985 when you joined my staff as Consultant and were assigned the following tasks: Assist and advise on a variety of takeover procedures and new entities to be set up such as the National Sports Centre and setting up the Sports Aid Foundation. Provide advice in the area of the Australian Government Publishing Service, Government Bookshops and EXPO. Such tasks as are from time to time specified by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. Such tasks as are from time to time specified by the Secretary, Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism with Ministerial consent. You have demonstrated your willingness to protect the Government's interests, and consequently those of the taxpayer, on many occasions in the past-- this of course was dated September-- In 1984 during your period of employment as Trainee Manager with the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd you drew attention to certain procedural and administrative deficiencies in the running of the Hostel where you were employed. These were taken up separately by the Commonwealth Audit Office and corrective action was instituted by the Company. Your valuable assistance as a Crown Witness during investigations of the Australian meat industry by the Woodward Royal Commission in the period 1981-83 is well documented. It was reported that while it was found there was an attitude of reluctance in the meat industry to assist the Commission, you were a notable exception. In the Commission's report you were given due credit for your belief that the long-term interests of producers and of law-abiding processors in the industry would be better served by frank disclosure than by secrecy. In accepting your resignation I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your assistance during our association, and offer my best wishes for the future. Subsequent to that reference-I read it because I know that the Opposition has a copy, and I might as well put it on the record-certain facets of Mr Groux's behaviour, for instance the incident with Mr Donnelly, came to my notice. A whole barrage of information came to my notice which confirmed my belief that my staff was better off without Mr Groux's services. If in that period Mr Groux was doing any work with Mr Justice Murphy, that is something of which I have no knowledge. I say that without any equivocation. If Mr Groux's affidavit states otherwise, well, it might well be that he did. It might well be that he did not either. Perhaps some reference to Mr Murphy or the Federal Police might establish what he did or did not do. So far as tabling the documents are concerned, I am not prepared to table them because some of Mr Groux's travel movements in that period are under investigation. Mr Tuckey —Why? Mr JOHN BROWN —Because they were undertaken without my approval. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the Speaker's Gallery today the Hon. Kevin Newman, former Minister and member of this House. On behalf of the House I bid him welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the concern expressed by the record and video industry over cassette piracy? Is the Minister aware that this theft is putting at risk the multimillion dollar recording industry in Australia? Is it a fact that ridiculously low penalties for breach of copyright do not discourage cassette piracy, and what action will the Minister take to protect the recording and video industry? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This matter has been of concern for some time because of the extensive piracy of what are called unauthorised commercial dealings in infringing copyright. The last time the penalties were brought in was in 1981 and it is appropriate that they would have been reviewed. Towards the end of last year I received advice as to the type of proposed new penalties that could be imposed. They would relate, for example, to first conviction on matters other than a film of $500 per article per person or $2,500 per article per corporation. Or first conviction for a film the proposals were for a person $1,500 per article and/or two years' imprisonment, and for a corporation $7,500 per article. There was also a proposal that on subsequent conviction for a film the penalty would increase per person to $1,500 an article and/or five years' imprisonment, and for a corporation $15,000 per article, with an overall limit of a fine per offence to be on the basis of, a person, $50,000 and, a corporation, $250,000. At that time I also received representations from the Video Industry Distributors Association, the organisation representing those concerned. I gave the Association that sort of information about the proposals that were to be brought by way of legislation. I was surprised after that to have representations made by VIDA that it regarded the penalties as not being high enough. As I understand on advice from my Department, the proposed penalties would be the highest in the world, but I have asked that there be discussions between representatives of my Department and representatives of VIDA as to the position. I understand at this stage that the representatives of VIDA feel that the penalties ought to be increased even further. I emphasise the distinction between the proposed penalties and those that have applied since 1981. Dr Klugman —Did they understand that it was per article? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not think they do understand, and that might be one way of saying that penalties of $250,000 per offence and penalties of $15,000 per article are pretty substantial, and are a very substantial increase over 1981. I have now gone ahead and given instructions to have appropriate legislation prepared to encompass those penalties, and I hope that we can introduce that legislation during the course of this session. Mr HOWARD —Can the Prime Minister inform the House when he first became aware that a consultant on the staff of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism was involved in matters relating to the preparation of Mr Justice Murphy's defence? What was the substance of the matters raised by the Prime Minister in his discussion with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism on, I think, 23 and 24 August, referred to by the Minister in his previous answer? Mr HAWKE —I though that I was never going to be asked. I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition. At the outset let me confess that I have something of an animus in this matter. I confess that at the outset because in the various realms of fantasy that have been inhabited by Mr Groux one really struck me badly; I did not like it. Mr Groux is reported to have said that he did law with Hawke, that he came first and Hawke came second. That is a remarkable achievement in any circumstance, but particularly remarkable when one remembers that this man is supposed to be 39 years of age. I commenced my law degree in 1947, so Mr Groux was outdoing me before the age of one year. Members will see that I have an animus in this matter. Let me come to the facts. It was brought to my attention in August that there were certain facets of the operation of Mr Groux that were disturbing. These concerned two things: Firstly, that it was said that he was occupying some of his time managing a meat store in Canberra and, secondly, that he was an undischarged bankrupt, a fact that he had not disclosed at the time of making his application for a job as consultant. When these matters were brought to my attention by a member of my staff, I was obviously concerned because the question of the propriety and the impeccability of the people who are working for this Government is, as is well known, a matter of concern for me. Immediately, therefore, I asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to come to my office, which he did on Thursday 22 August. I then acquainted the Minister with the concerns that I had. Over the weekend a document was made available to me from the Attorney-General's Department, and let me say that in what I am going to refer to now I take no pleasure. The initiation of this has come from those who would seek to deal with people like this. They have put it on the table; we are not going to sit here and not respond to it. Mr Howard —You employed him. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition should not worry about the question of employment-the Minister has indicated the basis upon which that was done. In fact, the basis of the appointment was cleared by a statement of the Public Service Board and by the panel which considered this matter. Therefore, the appropriate processes were followed. Let us come to the basis upon which I acted in this matter. I have indicated what I did on 22 August in discussions with the Minister. Over the weekend I had brought to my attention a document from the Attorney-General's Department. This was a note to the Attorney-General from the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy, as follows: The purpose of this minute is to inform you of certain sensitive information about Mr Rodney Groux, ministerial consultant to the Minister which has come to my knowledge during my inquiries into representations Mr Groux made to the official receiver in Melbourne on behalf of Mr M. J. Rutherford, an undischarged bankrupt. In essence, the sense of the information is Mr Groux has been a debtor in three bankruptcy proceedings, one of which is still current. Mr Groux, according to the official receiver, had some past business relationship, the precise nature of which is not yet clear, with the bankrupt Rutherford, on whose behalf he now makes representation, and both Mr Groux and Mr Rutherford were crown witnesses in the Victorian meat scandal inquiry. A copy of Mr Groux's letter to the official receiver is attached for your information. The substance of the letter is unimportant for the purposes of this minute and will be dealt with by me pursuant to the powers under section 12 of the Bankruptcy Act. Background: During the course of my inquiries I have ascertained that Mr Groux is the same person as Rodney Gordon Groux who was made bankrupt in Queensland on 13 April 1970, discharged by operation of law on 14 April 1975 and who entered into a composition with creditors under part 10 of the Bankruptcy Act in Victoria on 18 August 1978 and into a deed of arrangement under part 10 also in Victoria on 6 March 1984. The deed of arrangement will, I understand, remain in operation until 6 March 1987 or thereabouts. I am informed by the official receiver in Melbourne that his investigations to date indicate that Mr Groux and the bankrupt Rutherford were business associates in Victoria and became involved in the Victorian export meat scandal which eventually led to criminal proceedings against a meat exporter named Hammond. I understand that Mr Groux and Mr Rutherford were meat traders who sold donkey meat to Hammond, which was later processed and exported as mutton. The official receiver says that Mr Groux and Mr Rutherford were Crown witnesses at the Royal Commission into the matter. They were not charged with any offence because they were not directly connected with the fraud and they were co-operative witnesses. The official receiver is pursuing his inquiries into Mr Rutherford's bankruptcy and will be providing a further report to me in due course. That was the information that came to me over the weekend. On the Monday I received further information from the office of the Attorney-General. I repeat: I regret that I have to go into this matter, but the miserable and increasingly despised Opposition members cannot talk about any economic issue in this country, cannot talk about any matter of moment. Their habitat is the gutter. Having chosen that habitat and having chosen their sources of information, let them live with the consequences. This is what I was informed of on the twenty-sixth: Groux is a very active police informer and a con man with a long history. The police who have been handling him as an informer, both at the Victorian and Federal level, say that he is a thorough crook. He lives mainly by informing and would sell anything for money. He has no convictions, but in 1978 was charged with theft by deception. The charge was dismissed on the grounds that he intended to give the money back. He was charged with conspiracy over the meat scandal but was discharged. He is involved in several undischarged bankruptcies. There is an extreme amount of consternation that he could be in a Minister's office. There is no knowledge as to how Groux came to have connections in New South Wales. His parents came from Queensland and he was educated in Victoria. He has been employed as a meat worker, apprenticed as a master butcher, a meat inspector. He has been a weights and measures inspector and a car salesman . . . He has been in partnership with Rutherford. I assume that there will be no wonder that, in the light of the information that I had in relation to Mr Groux, I told the Minister that it was my belief and indeed my instruction to him that Mr Groux's services should be dispensed with, and the Minister proceeded to do this. So that the full flavour of what the Minister has already given to the House can be properly savoured by all members, I will read the actual circumstances of the letter which has already been tabled about this gentleman. They are as follows: It was the evening of 23 September at the annual general meeting of the Merchants Association of Woden Shopping Centre at which Mr Groux was present to receive a trophy for the store trading as Meat City. I am reading from Mr Donnelly's letter to the Minister. The letter continues: In his acceptance speech Mr Groux announced to the 97 guests and three staff of the Southern Cross Club that besides being a trader in the centre he was also a ministerial adviser. In that capacity he was happy to announce, `That as a reward for his hard work and devotion to junior sport Lee Donnelly was today appointed to the Board of Directors of the Australian Institute of Sport, and it is for a six year term, too'. The silly fellows opposite should understand the sort of person they are dealing with. He is a man who is living in the area of fantasy. Mr Howard —You employed him and you gave him a reference. Mr HAWKE —And it was a very highly qualified reference, too. The Opposition seeks to rely on the allegations of this man. Let me say this: The affidavit that was given by this man went to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Australian Federal Police are examining this matter. I spoke yesterday with the head of the Federal Police, Commissioner Grey. He has given me a preliminary report on investigations which have only recently commenced. He has told me that it is clear from those investigations to this point that there is no evidence to support allegations against any Minister of the Crown. Let it be quite clear that this country is faced with the worst Opposition in its history. It is absolutely incapable. Have we had, yesterday or today, one question about the economy? Have we had one question about any matter which goes to the welfare of the people of Australia? Of course, we have not. Honourable members opposite, reduced by their own intrinsic incompetence, get into the gutter and grovel with people of this calibre. Is it any wonder that they are going down and down, as they will continue to do until such time as they obtain principles and a decent leader and concern themselves with the issues of this country? Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he quoted, a statement from the Commissioner of Police. Mr HAWKE —I do not mind tabling it. I am more than happy to do so. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs) —For the information of the House, I present a report on the progress of Priority One and the national youth phone-in. The report was circulated to honourable members last week. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honour-able members, I present an information paper titled `Outlook for the Aviation Industry'. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 24 of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority Ordinance 1974, I present the annual report of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority for 1984-85. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement on the review of the repatriation hospital system by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —On 21 February this year the Australian Financial Review reported a testimony by the Chief Finance Executive of Aussat Pty Ltd, Mr Donald Cocks, in a defamation case against John Fairfax and Sons Ltd in the Supreme Court of New South Wales the previous day. Mr Cocks was quoted as saying that in May 1982, when I was Minister for Communications, I estimated at a Press conference that the all-up costs of an Aussat satellite system would be about $650m. He was further quoted as saying `He got it wrong' and as stating that he understood I had acquired the figure from a departmental briefing and had misunderstood or misinterpreted that figure. In March this year I wrote to the Secretary to the Department of Communications and to the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, seeking access to the relevant briefing material provided to me before the Press conference to which Mr Cocks referred. That material has now been provided. The transcript of the section of the Press conference to which Mr Cocks referred shows that I was asked about the contrast between my announcement that the initial cost of the satellites and their launch was $166m and estimates, attributed to the Finance Department and Treasury, that the all-up cost would be $650m. I said, and again I quote: . . . it depends on what you are taking into account. The first project is the satellite system, and the two control manuals. You add to that the cost of the eight earth stations, then if you add to that the cost of all the installations from the Department of Transport and you add to it the eight capital city earth stations I have spoken about, plus the facilities for Telecom and plus those that will be required for other public sector users, predominantly the ABC, you come to an all-up cost at the moment of about $650 million . . . Obviously if you are going to apportion the cost around all the users (you) get a different value to that which relates specifically to the satellite itself. Attachment F of my briefing notes from the Secretary to the Department of Communications, dated 23 April 1982, which has now been provided to me by the Secretary to the Department, concerned the reconciliation of estimates of project costs for Aussat. That paper noted the Treasury-Finance estimates. It stated that they had been derived by adding Aussat's total funding needs to 1985-an estimated $435m-and adding satellite-related spending by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Department of Transport and Telecom Australia. `By this means', the paper stated, `a figure of the order of $650m can be obtained'. The briefing paper and associated material pointed out the fallacies inherent in that approach by Treasury and Finance. It was in that context, and with that upper figure in mind from the departmental briefing paper, that I answered as I did at the Press conference referred to by Mr Cocks. I did not `get it wrong', nor did I misunderstand or misinterpret the figures supplied by my Department. My answer at the Press conference referred specifically to differing methods of arriving at the all-up costs of the Aussat project as of that time, and I stand by it. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement to the House concerning my recent overseas trip. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the House. Between 15 and 28 April I made official visits to Washington, London, Brussels, Rome and Athens. A principal purpose of these visits was to draw attention to the contemporary crisis in agricultural markets and to secure agreement on both short and long term measures needed to deal with that crisis. Immediately prior to my departure the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) tabled the Government's statement on economic and rural policy. This is the most comprehensive and important rural policy document ever tabled by an Australian government. Despite the politically inspired efforts by some to diminish its significance, that statement is destined to remain on centre stage as far as rural policy is concerned for a long time to come. The Government has clearly indicated that the farm problem must be addressed from both the income and the costs side. Both sides were addressed in detail in the statement. In reporting to the Parliament today my focus will be on the income side, particularly in relation to international markets. The crisis in world agricultural trade has been brewing for a long time. The level of consumer transfers and subsidies to European farmers has been escalating for well over a decade. In many of the world's other major producing and consuming areas, protection of agricultural producers has similarly been unchecked by any semblance of order in the international trading system. Previous rounds of Multilateral Trade Negotiations have failed to address seriously the causes of our corrupted international agricultural trading system. Those causes lie fairly and squarely in the agricultural subsidy practices of the major consuming and producing countries. The consequence for Australian agriculture has been a persistent, insidious erosion of our position as a major non-subsidising supplier of farm products. This has occurred despite the strong comparative advantage we have in agriculture-despite the fact that our farmers are among the most efficient in the world. European farm stocks were at very high levels even before the 1980s. During the 1980s the combination of European export subsidies and American farm policies resulted in a sharp downturn in the United States of America's share of world markets and the emergence of the United States as a stock holder of unprecedented proportions. It was against that background that the United States enacted its 1985 Farm Act. That Act is unambiguously aimed at disposing of surplus stocks on the world market at low prices and with the aid of export subsidies. Its enactment has escalated what can only be termed as a trade war between the United States and Europe. Australian farmers are caught in the crossfire of subsidy and countersubsidy as the treasuries of the United States and Europe wage an irrational battle with each other, using their own taxpayers' and consumers' money. It was because of the seriousness of this situation-for the nation as a whole as well as for the rural community-that I embarked on my trip to the United States and Europe. My overseas visit has been aimed at two specific objectives. First, I have been drawing the attention of world leaders to the fact that the world agricultural trade war is dangerous and that it is in nobody's best interests. Second, I have been trying to win sensitivity for Australia's position as a non-subsidising supplier, to minimise the damage being wreaked upon us while the trade war continues. In the United States I met with President Reagan, Secretary of State Shultz, Agriculture Secretary Richard Lyng, and congressional leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In Britain I met with Margaret Thatcher, Agriculture Minister Jopling and Secretary for Trade Channon, along with other Ministers and senior officials. In Brussels, meetings were held with European Community President Delors, Commissioner de Clercq and Commission officials. I continued my discussions with the Prime Ministers of Italy and Greece, along with senior Ministers and public servants in those countries. Key points that I made to all of these world leaders were as follows: First, the crisis in world agricultural trade is so serious as to warrant immediate world attention. This must be a major issue for the leaders meeting shortly at the Tokyo Summit. Second, agriculture must be accorded high priority in the forthcoming round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. There is a need for fundamental reform of the rules governing world production and trade for farm commodities. Third, there is a need for reform of the agricultural support and subsidy policies in many countries. In the EC 60 per cent of the returns from agricultural production consists of subsidies paid by consumers and taxpayers. The cost is around $70 billion per annum. The common agricultural policy is costing Europe up to one million jobs through its effect on the European manufacturing sector. The economic costs of the United States farm program have not been fully documented, but they are extraordinarily high. In many other countries income and employment is much lower than it otherwise would be because of excessive agricultural protection. Fourth, there is an immediate need for the exercise of strong restraint in agricultural production, price support and export subsidisation. We do not have time to wait for the MTN round before beginning to restore sanity in world agricultural trade. Fifth, Australian farmers are innocent victims, losing around $1 billion per annum in world market returns as a consequence of the CAP alone, let alone the impact of the agricultural policies in other countries. Our farmers' incomes are in real terms at the second lowest level recorded, and look set to fall another 20 per cent in 1986-87. Sixth, the Australian economy as a whole is suffering from the atrocities being inflicted upon our rural community. We rely on the rural sector for almost 40 per cent of our export earnings. In contrast to Europe and the United States, we export around 80 per cent of production of our four major agricultural export commodities, that is wheat, wool, beef and sugar. We clearly cannot afford to join the irrational world agricultural trade war. Seventh, in all the circumstances there is a demonstrable need for the exercise of sensitivity in relation to Australia's position. This applies both in the administration of the United States Farm Act and in the conduct of the common agricultural policy. I am pleased to be able to report that the broad thrust of our case has been accepted in both North America and Europe. President Reagan and President Delors, along with the leaders of Great Britain, Italy and Greece, agree that the current world agricultural regime is intolerable. In both the United States and Europe I have received support for the view that agriculture must be given a prominent position in the forthcoming Multilateral Trade Negotiations. There is also strong agreement on the need for the immediate exercise of restraint on agricultural subsidies and disposal of surplus stocks pending the outcome of the new round. I believe that there is also a good measure of understanding of Australia's particular circumstances and of the effect that the corruption of international markets is having on our rural community and on our economy as a whole. In relation to the United States Farm Bill, I have been able to build further on the assurances given to the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, during his visit in February. In particular the United States administration has assured me that: the export enhancement program will be administered on a targeted basis, aimed essentially at markets of subsidising exporters. Recipients under the EEP will be encouraged to maintain their normal level of imports from traditional non-subsidising suppliers such as Australia; sale of beef in association with the whole herd buyout scheme will be handled in a way which seeks to minimise disruption in Australia's export markets; we should continue to receive access to the United States beef market at least at the levels consistent with the operation of the existing meat import law; Australia's traditional share of the United States sugar market is being protected and our concerns in relation to the cotton and rice programs have been noted; the consultative process covering bilateral agricultural matters will be extended to include Australia's concerns in the implementation of United States export subsidy and surplus stock disposal programs. Periodic meetings between our respective trade and primary industry Ministers will be central to that continuing process. In Brussels I was also given some specific assurances in relation to the management of the common agricultural policy. Most importantly, however, I have been able to restore, and significantly extend, the consultative arrangements between Australia and the Community, within which these issues can be further addressed in the future. Key outcomes of my discussions with the Community were: the Andriessen agreement, under which the Community has agreed not to subsidise sales of beef into our six major Asian-Pacific markets, that is, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and Papua New Guinea, has been reaffirmed. This was most important given the request of the United States Administration under the Farm Act to dispose of 200 million pounds of beef outside the United States market. the EC is committed to continuing to respect the minimum price provisions of the International Dairy Agreement; there will be discussions later this year to try to find an alternative basis for dealing with the arrangement between Australia and the EC on so-called `balance sheet' beef. Certification procedures under the proposed veterinary directive relating to growth promotants will be the subject of consultation with Australia at an early date; a new consultative framework, consisting of four components, has been agreed for future conduct of Australia-EC relations. These elements are: high level ministerial talks covering the full range of agricultural commodity and trade issues are to be resumed at an early date; a basis is to be established for formal liaison on respective approaches to the new MTN round during the lead-up to the new round and for its duration; a basis is to be established for formal liaison on respective approaches to the new MTN around during the lead-up to the new round and for its duration; an EC mission in the field of technological research and development, including agriculture, will visit Australia in May or June; and continuing discussions will be held at an official level between our delegations in Europe and in Canberra on all trade issues between the EC and Australia. I will not attempt to delude Australia's rural community by pretending that I have resolved the world agricultural trade crisis. It would be quite ridiculous to make any such attempt. I have not been able to change fundamentally the policies of the United States of America or the EC. Those policies will continue to corrupt markets and to depress prices for a considerable time to come. I do believe, however, that I have been able to add some impetus to the urgency with which these problems might be addressed by world leaders. I have highlighted the burgeoning costs of allowing the present absurd situation to continue. Only time will tell whether the problems of agricultural trade are given the high profile that they deserve in Tokyo, and in the MTN round. Only time will tell whether the world's leaders, and the political processes in major producing and consuming countries, will resolutely face the intractable farm trade problem. But, whatever time reveals, there is one thing that it will show. This is that no Australian government has worked more determinedly, more comprehensively or more effectively in its efforts to have these matters properly addressed. In the meantime, I have been able to win some sensitivity to Australia's position as a non-subsidising nation. A proper reading of history will show that this mission has brought Australian farmers some respite. We have been able to establish some guidelines within which existing policies in the United States and Europe will be administered. These guidelines provide a framework for ongoing dialogue. We have a set of benchmarks against which we can seek redress, in the inevitable circumstances where the specific actions of others interact with the cold hard commercial world to damage our interests. The recently announced subsidised wheat sale to the Yemen Arab Republic would be a case in point. While Australia can expect to maintain its 400,000 tonnes contracted sales to that market, the avenues for dialogue established during my visit to Washington will be utilised with a view to minimising further subsidised competition from the United States in the additional market that has opened up as a result of the Yemen decision to open a new flour mill. The structure of personal relationships and the consultative mechanisms that have been established through my visits are of enduring significance. These relationships and mechanisms provide a sound foundation for further determined efforts to bring about change in the world agricultural trading system, and to restore the fortunes of our rural community. Let me make this pledge to rural Australia: The Government will do all that is humanly possible to carry on the fight for a fair go for Australian farmers in the world economy. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has had these matters uppermost in his mind during recent meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He has sought a firmer foundation for more widespread and stronger growth in the world economy. He has sought a proper place for agriculture on the MTN agenda. The Ministers for Trade and Primary Industry have already made frequent representations overseas on behalf of rural Australia. We are already trying to build a coalition of likeminded countries, at both a bilateral and regional level, to pursue agricultural trade reform. Official discussions are proceeding in many countries at our initiative. This week we are participating in high level meetings with significant agricultural exporting countries in Uruguay. The Minister for Trade will be attending a meeting of Trade Ministers in Seoul in June and will go on to Canada for a meeting of wheat exporting countries. He will inaugurate a new, formalised dialogue with United States Trade Representative Yeutter soon after. The Minister for Primary Industry will visit the United States, Europe and other countries in June. The Government's approach to international agricultural trade and diplomacy has been clearly set out in the statement on economic and rural policy. As indicated in that document, we will shortly be convening a high level official group to map out a more comprehensive bilateral agricultural trade strategy. Finally, let me say that Australian farmers continue to face serious problems. We have addressed them comprehensively in our statement. We will act upon them comprehensively in the months ahead. It is our sincere hope that the rural community as a whole, and the leaders of farm organisations in particular, will join with the Government in working constructively to seek and implement practical solutions to the problems we face. Australia's rural problems are problems shared by the nation as a whole. While the major purpose of my visit to Washington, London and other capitals, was to discuss the problems confronting Australia's trade in agricultural products, I took the opportunity, of course, to review a wide range of other matters. Let me go to those matters. ANZUS President Reagan and I reaffirmed the importance of the ANZUS ties between us which are fundamental to Australia's foreign and defence policies. They also have important implications for the security and stability of our region. In reaffirming the importance of our security arrangements under ANZUS, I also made clear to the United States that, notwithstanding the current difficulties between New Zealand and the United States over ANZUS, Australia intended maintaining its bilateral defence co-operation with New Zealand. The United States has already indicated that, if New Zealand proceeds to enact its proposed anti-nuclear legislation, the United States will review its security commitments to New Zealand. In my discussions with President Reagan, I reiterated Australia's firm view that, whatever may occur in the security relationship between the United States and New Zealand, the legal framework of the ANZUS Treaty should be left intact, and the security relationship between Australia and the United States reaffirmed. In the President's words: `Australia is a responsible ANZUS ally, an important trading partner and a trusted friend'. In his departure statement at the White House on 17 April, President Reagan confirmed to me that, whatever New Zealand's decision, the United States commitment to Australia under ANZUS is firm. Further discussions on matters related to ANZUS will take place at the Australia-United States ministerial talks which are scheduled to be held in San Francisco in August. Terrorism In the light of recent instances of terrorism and the United States military action against Libya, it was inevitable and appropriate that I should discuss these issues with political leaders in Washington, London, Rome and Athens. I made it clear that the Australian Government unequivocally condemns terrorism. We deplore the loss of innocent lives and the poisoning of relations among States which result from terrorist outrages. In my statement to Parliament before I left Australia, I said that the Government counselled restraint by both Libya and the United States. The Government does not accept that violence, in particular terrorism, is a solution to the complex problems of the world. Members of the House will be aware that Australia drew the attention of the United Nations Security Council to a number of possible measures open to the international community to further the possibility of a peaceful solution. To those who have criticised such action as unrealistic, I would respond that the Government takes pride in the fact that Australia sought to play a responsible and constructive role in the Security Council in the face of the prospect of an intensifying cycle of violence. Regrettably the Security Council has so far been unable to take any positive initiative. An essential condition for progress is a genuine and binding pledge by Libya to terminate its Government's direction and export of, and support for, terrorist activity against civilians and civilian targets. Such a pledge should make possible a reciprocal commitment from the United States to refrain from recourse to armed force. The Australian Government accepts that there is a substantial body of evidence of Libyan direction of and involvement in international terrorism. While in the United States, I put it to the President and others that it would be in the best interests of all that that evidence should be made publicly available. East-West Relations and Arms Control My discussions in Washington also covered the prospects for progress towards effective arms control and disarmament. I confirmed Australia's support for the United States-Soviet summit process and the deep concern of the Australian Government and people that the Geneva arms control negotiations have still not achieved any significant progress towards the conclusion of agreements to reduce nuclear armaments. The United States side reassured me of their commitment to continue negotiating seriously and in good faith. At the request of President Reagan, Ambassador Paul Nitze, Special Adviser to the President on Arms Control, briefed me in Rome on the President's provisional thinking, before taking a final decision, on continued United States adherence to the SALT II agreement. Ambassador Nitze was in Rome as part of his assignment to brief the Heads of Government of European allies of the United States on President Reagan's views on these issues. My discussion with Ambassador Nitze was part of the continuing process of consultation between Australia and the United States on major arms control and disarmament questions. Although SALT II has not been ratified, both sides have publicly undertaken to adhere to its provisions. The United States has previously made clear its concern about Soviet compliance with the SALT agreements. I advised Ambassador Nitze that the Australian Government appreciates United States concerns about Soviet compliance with aspects of the SALT II Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty and believes that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has a case to answer. We remain of the view, however, that continued United States compliance with the SALT agreements is of great importance, especially as the United States seeks to ascertain Soviet intentions during the Summit process in the year ahead. I have since written to President Reagan in these terms. South Pacific In my discussions in Washington, both with the Administration and with Congress, and also in London, I outlined the objectives of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. I explained that this Treaty represents the strongly held aspirations of the countries of the South Pacific, including Australia, to prevent the manufacture, acquisition, possession, testing and stationing of nuclear weapons in our region. I made it clear that the Government regards it as a responsible arms control measure which enhances regional security and marks a positive step forward in the international search for peace and disarmament. I also emphasised to the United States and United Kingdom governments that the Treaty fully respects rights guaranteed under international law, specifically recognises the sovereign right of parties to determine access to their ports and airfields, and is completely consistent with Australia's responsibility under ANZUS. Indeed we would not have entered into the Treaty unless this were so. I urged both governments to sign the Protocols of the Treaty. Mr Peacock —What was their response? Mr HAWKE —Mr Deputy Speaker, my friend opposite-- Mr Simmons —Increasingly popular. Mr HAWKE —He is increasingly popular. Mr Holding —Looking better every day. Mr HAWKE —My looking better every day friend. He is now blushing. Stop it, Andrew! He just interjected gently, sotto voce, in a very friendly way `and what was their response' when I urged both governments to sign the protocols. I am pleased to say to him-how do I describe him, perhaps as the shadow Foreign Minister, that is neutral-that my submissions, exposition, explanations and very logical setting out of the consideration were listened to with great attention in Washington and in London. Both governments have promised to give thoroughgoing consideration to them. I am hopeful that the brilliance and clarity of the exposition will bear fruit. Mr Peacock —Do you want a wager? Mr HAWKE —I will not respond to that interjection. In addition, while in Washington, I took the opportunity to welcome the increased attention now being given by the United States Administration to the fisheries concerns of South Pacific countries. I notice that here comes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Word does not take long to travel, does it? He came as soon as he heard on the microphone what had been said. Would he like to have a ballot? I see that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is now in the Leader of the Opposition's seat-old Potty, the perpetual optimist from Tasmania. South Africa In both Washington and London, my discussions covered the tragic situation-I hope we all agree-in South Africa where there is-I hope we all agree-an urgent need to find a peaceful means of abolishing the abhorrent apartheid system. I reiterated the Australian Government's concern that time is running out for a negotiated settlement with moderate black leaders. It was significant, I think, that the urgency of the situation was readily acknowledged by the United States Administration. I also discussed in both capitals the work of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which is seeking to encourage dialogue between the South African Government and the various racial groups with a view to the peaceful establishment of a non-racial, democratic and representative government in South Africa. In accordance with the communique issued after the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nassau in October 1985, heads of seven Commonwealth governments, including Australia, will meet later this year to consider the report of the Eminent Persons Group. The report is due by 30 June and the Australian Government believes it is very important that the meeting take place as soon thereafter as possible. Italy This was my first official visit to Italy. I was delighted to confirm the strong ties of friendship between our two countries and to pay a special tribute to the contribution which the Italian community has made to Australia. I had valuable talks with Prime Minister Craxi on a range of international issues of importance to us. A very important part of my meeting with him was for us both to sign the Australia-Italy Social Security Agreement which provides comprehensive social security coverage for people moving between the two countries. People in Australia and Italy who will benefit from the agreement include those who have lost pension rights by ceasing to be Italian citizens or by leaving Australia before being granted pensions and those who have not spent sufficient time in Australia or paid sufficient contributions to the Italian scheme to qualify for payments. In addition to our discussions about the Common Agricultural Policy of the EC, the place of agriculture in the forthcoming MTN round and our bilateral trade relations, I also took the opportunity to discuss with Mr Craxi Australia's Bicentenary celebrations. I emphasised how much we looked forward to a major involvement by Italy, pointing out that ten countries have established national bicentennial committees. I am pleased that Mr Craxi said that such a committee would be established in Italy, combining the government and private sector, to try to maximise the degree of Italian involvement in the Bicentennial celebrations. I am now hopeful that as part of Italy's participation the Amerigo Vespucci, one of the world's finest sail training ships, will be able to come to Australia in 1988. In the course of my visit I extended an official invitation to Mr Craxi to visit Australia. I am delighted that he accepted and I hope it will not be long before the visit takes place. Mr Ronald Edwards —Is he coming to Stirling? Mr HAWKE —Yes, let him go to Stirling. There are many good Italians there. He might just visit Wills, too. I also mentioned to Mr Craxi that we would be very pleased if an Italian Minister were able to visit Australia when Italy is participating in the America's Cup, at which time we look forward to welcoming many Italian visitors to Perth. At the same time our joint working group on trade will meet for its third meeting in Perth. This will follow the second meeting due to be held in Rome next month. My visit also provided the opportunity to acknowledge the splendid work undertaken by Australian Italians through the Southern Italian Earthquake Committee in rendering assistance to the areas ravaged by the Italian earthquake of 1980. Hazel had the pleasure of opening the Child Development Centre at Avellino. The construction of this Centre was funded through Australian contributions. Call on the Pope In Rome, I had an audience with His Holiness, Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul indicated to me the affection he holds for Australia and the enthusiasm with which he looks forward to visiting us later this year. This was no formal indication on his part; it was very clear that His Holiness was looking forward with great eagerness and anticipation to his visit to our country. I informed him of the intense preparations being made for his visit and of the very warm welcome he will receive from the Australian Government and the Australian people. Greece I had the great pleasure of making my first official visit to Greece, a country whose people have also made a most important contribution to Australia. Mr Ian Cameron —Where is Andrew? Mr HAWKE —I was looking for him. In Athens, I had the benefit of interesting and fruitful discussions with Prime Minister Papandreou and also made a courtesy call on President Sartzetakis. My visit coincided with ANZAC Day and served to remind us of the strong friendship between our countries forged in two World Wars, when Australians and Greeks fought side by side in defence of liberty and democracy. Again a major focus of my discussions was the common agricultural policy of the European Communities, the need for trade in agriculture to receive a prominent place in the forthcoming multilateral Trade Negotiations and the opportunities for increased bilateral trade with Greece. In respect of bilateral trade, Mr Papandreou suggested that we examine the scope for an economic and technical co-operation agreement between our two countries, to which I responded positively and this matter will now be examined in more detail at an official level. In addition, I mentioned the Social Security Agreement which I had just signed with Mr Craxi and indicated that I was happy to see continuing consultations with the Greek community in Australia and subsequently the initiation of work aimed at concluding a similar agreement with Greece. I also sought the co-operation of the Greek Government in establishing a national committee linking government and private sectors to promote and plan the participation by Greece in our Bicentenary. Mr Papandreou, as had Mr Craxi, responded positively and such a committee will be established. This will be an especially welcome reflection of the very valuable role played in our development by the Greek community in Australia. Mr Papandreou accepted my invitation to visit Australia, having previously visited us as an exile during the role of the junta. The timing of his visit, to which Australia will be looking forward enthusiastically, is now a matter of discussion between us. My visit to both the United States and Europe has, I believe, firmly established in the minds of both the American and European political leadership the seriousness of the contemporary agricultural trading crisis and the need for effective action to deal with it. No instant remedies are available, but comprehensive longer term approaches and medium term responses have been identified. I am satisfied that I have also raised within the countries visited sensitivity to Australian interests. This heightened sensitivity should inform the administrative decisions of the major trading nations. At the same time, I am confident that my visit has served to strengthen the friendly relations that Australia enjoys with the United States, Britain, Italy and Greece. These relations in their different ways are very important to Australia and will continue to be developed and consolidated by this Government. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes the report of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Parliament on the outcome of his visit to Washington, London and other world capitals. As the Prime Minister indicated in his address, the main purpose of his visit was to put to the United States Administration and to the European Economic Community the concerns of Australian primary producers about the impact of the trading policies of the United States and of the European Community on the welfare and interests of Australian farmers. Of course, the Prime Minister is correct to observe that the task of winding back the levels of protection and the levels of subsidisation of inefficient rural production does to Australia's rural export industries, is not an easy one. Nobody on this side of the House would pretend for a moment that with the wave of a wand or the snap of fingers it is possible for any Australian government to make serious and lasting inroads into the common agricultural policy or to bring about a significant change in the attitude of the United States Administration towards the protection of its farming community. One can only assume that fairly modest returns will result from any prime ministerial or ministerial mission overseas on matters relating to agricultural protection. However, that having been said and freely acknowledged by the Opposition, it ought to be recorded that in relative terms this has not been a successful mission by the Prime Minister. The claims made by the Prime Minister, particularly in relation to the gains made on the agricultural front, simply do not stand up to serious analysis. If the trip was so important and if the impact of the United States 1985 Farm Act required action at the highest government level by the Australian Prime Minister, the reality is that the Prime Minister should have gone there six months ago to talk with members of Congress before the Farm Bill was ratified and implemented by the President. Indeed, one of the responses made by the President and the American Administration to the representations of the Prime Minister was that the final decision in these matters rested with the congressional leaders on Capitol Hill. Our complaint is that if this mission was necessary and if representation from the Prime Minister at the highest level of government was required, that representation and that action should have been taken some six months ago, before the Farm Act was passed into law. However, the Opposition has one even more significant criticism to make of the Prime Minister's handling of the whole farm issue and the whole credibility of the Prime Minister's visit overseas. That is simply this. The Prime Minister would have gone to Washington, Europe and overseas as a representative of Australia's rural community carrying far greater weight and far greater clout if, before he had gone overseas, he had removed from the shoulders of Australian farmers the burdens of the anti-rural bias of the policies that his Party is now following. It passes very strange for a Prime Minister of Australia to go to Washington, Brussels and other world capitals and say to the leaders of other countries: `We would like you to do for our farmers something that we, because of our policies, are unwilling to do for those same farmers'. If the rural package of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) had met the needs of Australian farmers and if, before the Prime Minister had gone overseas, he had announced the lifting of the anti-rural elements of the Keating tax package and had responded to even half of the representations of the farming community of Australia, he would have gone to Washington carrying a lot more clout and a lot more conviction and he would have been treated a lot more seriously. Let us face it, with all the verbiage, all the courtesies and all the niceties of international diplomatic exchange-even between old friends such as Australia and the United States stripped away, we have the simple proposition that really the Prime Minister's agricultural mission was not worth a row of beans. To be perfectly honest, the best demonstration of that is that virtually the day the Prime Minister arrived in the United States, the United States in effect decided to subsidise its own entry into the North Yemen wheat market. That deal has done more to undermine the credibility of what the Prime Minister has just said in this House than anything else. Mr Hunt —It made a monkey of him. Mr HOWARD —Indeed, as my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia so rightly says, the North Yemen wheat deal has made a monkey of everything that the Prime Minister has said about his visit to Washington on the question of agriculture. So not only did the Prime Minister fail before he went to abandon the anti-rural elements of the tax package, such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, but also he failed to announce a proper response by his Government to the worsening inflation situation that this country faces. While he was away his Government chalked up one more unenviable record; that is, we now have a level of inflation, expressed as a ratio of our rate of inflation compared with the average rate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, that is the worst it has been since 1961. In other words, all of the countries the Prime Minister visited-the United States, West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and even Italy-are chalking up inflation rates way below what we have here in Australia. Australia is going back to a situation in which its inflation rate is more than double-indeed, it is treble-the average of many of our major trading partners. There is not a word in his speech about that. He did not get any advice from the American Administration about how to bring our inflation rate back. He did not raise that, and he did not raise it in the United Kingdom with a government whose policies he chooses to deride. He did not raise there any concern about our comparative inflation rate. So the Prime Minister, while he was away, saw a very significant additional record chalked up against his Government. The Prime Minister quite rightly says that many atrocities are practised on Australian farmers as a result of the international trading practices of the European Economic Community and the United States. Of course atrocities are practised. Let me say to the Prime Minister that a great many atrocities are practised on Australian farmers as a result of his own policies. If the anti-rural bias of his policies were not so atrocious, some of the difficulties our farmers now face would not be so great. For example, we still do not know whether or not farm losses are subject to the Keating announcement of quarantining. We still do not know whether we are to follow the Kerin version, which says quarantining is off, or the Walsh version that says quarantining is still on, that there has been no reversal. Two weeks have now gone by and we are still completely in the dark. Nothing has been done to resolve the conflict between those two Ministers. Nothing has been done to resolve the doubt that has been cast in the minds of so many Australian farmers. Frankly, we say again to the Government that the Prime Minister would have gone overseas with a great deal more credibility and clout if before he went he had done something to change the policies of his own Government which are doing such damage to Australian farmers. He would have been taken more seriously in Washington, in Brussels and all around the world if he had done something about those policies. To that extent it is therefore not surprising that the North Yemen wheat deal should have revealed the relative failure of the Prime Minister's mission. The failure of that trip is graphically demonstrated by the United States wheat sale to North Yemen, which was announced virtually on the day he returned from that overseas trip. Let us examine what happened. Hard on the heels of the Prime Minister receiving assurances from President Reagan that the United States would `be as responsive to the extent we can to Australian interests' with regard to the implementation of its export enhancement program, the United States undercut an Australian tender to supply 50,000 tonnes of wheat to North Yemen-a market which, as my colleague from Gwydir will testify, traditionally takes 100 per cent of its wheat imports from Australia. The interesting point about this deal is the clear conflict of interpretation between the Minister for Primary Industry and the Australian Wheat Board. The Minister for Primary Industry has argued: The United States subsidised wheat sale just announced will be replacing European Community flour. Australia will still be able to make its normal wheat sales in the market. That is a quote from the Minister for Primary Industry in the Australian Financial Review of 30 April-today. Clearly the Minister for Primary Industry was trying to make excuses for the United States action in an effort to keep alive the assurances given to him by President Reagan in Washington on 18 April. The Prime Minister's office is trying to do likewise. I quote from today's Melbourne Age: In Canberra yesterday a spokesman for Mr Hawke said the US assurances on wheat sales given to the Prime Minister during his visit to the US only included sales to existing US markets. This meant that the US sale was not in breach of the assurances given to Mr Hawke, because North Yemen was not an existing market, but a new one, the spokesman said. Let us have a look at the remarks made immediately after the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister, because there was certainly no such qualification contained in the formal words used by President Reagan on this issue after his meeting with the Prime Minister. The President had this to say about the trade issue in his farewell speech on 19 April 1986: Necessary interim measures to counter unfair subsidisation, like our own export enhancement program, should take account of the interest of friends like Australia. Prime Minister Hawke has been assured of this and we will of course continue our dialogue on this important subject. There is a stark conflict between, on the one hand, that comment and what the Wheat Board has said and, on the other hand, what the Prime Minister's spokesman and the Minister for Primary Industry are now saying. They have dragged up this business about it only applying to new markets after the event because they are totally embarrassed by the North Yemen wheat sale as it completely undercuts any claim by the Prime Minister that anything at all was derived from his discussion with the President in Washington on this whole subsidisation issue. To use the apt and pithy words of my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party, it really does make a complete monkey out of everything the Prime Minister has said on this issue. To conclude my remarks on the agricultural side of the Prime Minister's mission, I have to say that in relative terms it has been, to say the least, a very undistinguished mission. It started off on the wrong foot because it was commenced with a statement on primary industry by the Minister for Primary Industry that fell far short of the expectations he had generated amongst Australian farmers. It failed to address the major needs and claims of Australian farmers, it left important issues such as the quarantining of farm losses completely clouded in doubt and mystery and it generally sounded the entirely wrong note on the departure of the Prime Minister. I would like to allude to a number of foreign policy matters covered in the Prime Minister's speech. The Prime Minister in his discussions with President Reagan covered the ANZUS relationship. He also covered matters relating to international terrorism and in particular the recent United States response to an incessant campaign of international terrorism by the Libyan Government. It has to be said that our Prime Minister has one foreign policy when he is in this country and another when he is elsewhere. We all remember on the day of the United States military action against Libya the Prime Minister getting up in this House, with the left wing of his Party breathing down his neck- Mr Ewen Cameron —As always. Mr HOWARD —As always on foreign policy issues. The Prime Minister is ever conscious that he can always throw the left wing of the Australian Labor Party a bone when it comes to foreign policy, because in his eyes it probably does not really matter. What did he say on that occasion? In effect, he said to the United States and Libya: `A plague on both your houses'. There was no suggestion that he agreed with the United States action. The Opposition said then, has said since and will continue to say that, regrettable though military action always is, in all of the circumstances the action taken by the United States was justified and should have received the support of the Australian Government, and it should have received the support of the Australian Government in this Parliament before the Prime Minister went overseas. There is, in the eyes of many Australians, something cowardly and unbecoming about a Prime Minister who will say overseas to suit his audience things that he does not have the courage to say in Australia because of internal political difficulties. That is the criticism that we have of the Prime Minister on this issue-that he would say one thing here and would say another thing in the United States. No doubt, now that he is back here he will go to Labor Party gatherings and say again what he said in this Parliament the day the military action took place. So we on this side of the House condemn the Prime Minister's two-faced approach to this very important foreign policy issue. It does him no credit. It does Australia's international standing no credit to have a Prime Minister who will not adopt a consistent line, who does not have the courage to face his Australian electorate with the same remarks and the same assurance as he is willing to give international audiences. I can only say again that it is a great pity that there was a failure by many countries to respond at the beginning of this year to the initiative put forward by the United States to respond to Libyan terrorism by non-violent means, the initiative involving diplomatic and economic action, the initiative that may have rendered the events of almost a month ago unnecessary. It is a great pity that many of those countries, including many European countries, which now moralise and lecture the United States about her action against Libya and are so ready to call for sanctions and so on did not respond to the United States action in January of this year. It is a great pity that the Australian Government had not been willing in January of this year to be more responsive to the initiative put forward by the United States at that time. In his speech the Prime Minister also touched very briefly on East-West relations and arms control issues. Whilst the Opposition has no quarrel at all with-indeed, fully endorses-any aspirations of the Prime Minister and the present Australian Government towards the achieving of an effective, verifiable arms control agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union that will lead to the dismantling of existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons and prevent the use of nuclear weapons into the future, the Opposition regrets and continues to regret the approach taken by the Australian Government towards President Reagan's strategic defence initiative. In his comments today the Prime Minister totally ignored the question of the strategic defence initiative, which is one of the most important issues involved in the whole nuclear arms debate. Once again, it is a cop-out to the left wing of his own party. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is sitting in the House at the moment, himself was to say two years ago that the motives behind the strategic defence initiative were highly moral. That was at a time when the goal of the strategic defence initiative, which is designed to give to the world a non-nuclear defensive capability against nuclear attack, was something that was seen in a more objective light. Even the Minister for Foreign Affairs was prepared to say then that the aim of the strategic defence initiative was an extremely moral purpose. It is a great pity that the Australian Government has taken such a negative attitude to the President's strategic defence initiative. It is, after all, at the moment only a research program. Not only are we locking ourselves out of support for that program but, by the attitude we are now taking, we are denying Australian scientists the opportunity of co-operating in SDI research, and in the long run that will deny Australian industry access to the most developed technological research undertaken in the world. The Opposition again states that it is its very firm view that the research initiative-the SDI-should be supported by the Australian Government. It has the goal of providing a non-nuclear defence capability against nuclear attacks. In those circumstances, if fully developed, it may in fact offer the only long term alternative to a maintenance of the balance of terror which has kept the world at peace for the last 40 years. It is beyond our belief and comprehension how a party which claims to be so dedicated to the idea of lasting world peace can stick its head in the sand and adopt the attitude that it does in relation to the American activity on the SDI, particularly against the background that the Soviet Union has been undertaking SDI research for a period of up to 17 years. In the discussions which the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and I had with the Secretary of Defence, Caspar Weinberger, several weeks ago, he spent some time explaining to us the vast superiority in strategic defence research that the Soviet Union would achieve if the entreaties of those who oppose President Reagan's initiative in this area were to be successful. So it is a disappointment. It is a wrong-headed attitude by the Government and we continue to believe that it should give an expression of support to that particular initiative. Finally, the Prime Minister made some remarks about the South Pacific and about South Africa. As far as the South Pacific is concerned, let me say for the Opposition that the Prime Minister's comments concerning the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty totally neglect the very central fact that the treaty does nothing now nor indeed into the future to prevent the Soviet Union locating missiles at or about the perimeter of the nuclear free area. Those who argue that in some way having a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific is going to insulate that area from any kind of nuclear incursion simply live in some kind of fantasyland or dreamworld. Of course the Opposition condemns French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. That was the policy of the Fraser Government; it was the policy of the Whitlam Government; it is the policy of the Hawke Government; and it remains the policy of the Opposition. We have no argument with the opposition expressed by the Government to French nuclear tests, but we have all the argument in the world with the naivety of a government that pretends that, if we put a circle around part of the world and we declare that as a nuclear-free zone, in some way we abolish the capacity of any country to intrude nuclear weapons or nuclear activity into that area. It is a complete fantasy concept and in those terms we are not attracted to it. Finally, the Prime Minister made some remarks about South Africa. I say for the Opposition that we too look for the day when there will be a multi racial government in South Africa, where the denial by the white minority in South Africa of the legitimate political and social aspirations of the black majority will give way to a more liberal, a more sensitive and a more understanding regime. To that extent I can express agreement with the comments that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs about South Africa. It is well known, of course, that the Opposition does not share the views of the Government regarding the imposition of economic sanctions on South Africa. We remain of the view that to impose economic sanctions on South Africa would damage the black community in that country more than anyone else. We remain of the view that it would be a shortsighted, negative policy to impose economic sanctions. I have to say for the Opposition that, much and all as I can understand the interest in South Africa of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister, if only over the last three years the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs had devoted as much time, as much energy and as much intellectual commitment to building up Australia's relations with Indonesia as they have to moralising and hectoring about the situation is southern Africa, the foreign policy goals of this country would have been more greatly served, because there is no country with which relations between it and Australia are more important than Indonesia. Our relations with Indonesia have fallen very much into disrepair under this present Government. I do not agree with the action taken by the Indonesian Government in denying entry to Bali of two Australian journalists, and I share the Prime Minister's view that it is the tradition of this country to have a free Press. It is important that the leaders of Indonesia, and indeed the leaders of many other countries, understand that we are a democracy that reveres the tradition and the principle of a free Press and that countries that wish to have a proper relationship with Australia must understand that. I have to say in that same context that if the relationship between Australia and Indonesia had been better, if there had been more fat on the bones of that relationship, if it had not been neglected so badly as it has over the last three years by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, if the Foreign Minister had not gratuitously blundered into an anti-Association of South East Asian Nations position over the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea, if the Foreign Minister had not gratuitously ignored the sensitivities of many of our ASEAN neighbours on those sorts of issues, then it would have been a better relationship. It would have been a deeper relationship and one that could have survived the inevitable tension created by the publication of the Jenkins article in the Sydney Morning Herald. I do not for a moment contest the right of any newspaperman to print in this country a story that he believes to be true. It will always be a cardinal principle of this Opposition that freedom of the Press is an absolute in terms of our political verities. But what has to be said and what the Government has to answer is its total failure to give an adequate priority to Australia's relationship with Indonesia over the last three years. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have been long in their lectures and sermons about what should happen in southern Africa, Kampuchea and Nicaragua, but have been strangely silent on building up our relationship with Indonesia. They have allowed the impression to be created in Indonesia that the real authoritative voice of the Australian Labor Party on our relations with Indonesia is the left wing of the Labor Party with its preoccupation about the events that occurred in East Timor almost 11 years ago. Whilst I do not for a moment condone what occurred in East Timor 11 years ago, the reality is that our relationship with Indonesia goes far beyond that. It should have been put in better repair three years ago. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister should have given it greater priority. They carry a lot of the blame for the present tension that now exists. It is about time they stopped expending so much energy moralising and lecturing about events in southern Africa and spent a lot more of their time and intellectual effort and energy in tending to our relationship with our nearest and most important Pacific neighbour. 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 Beale,Mr Brumby,Mr Lee and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumours suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Beale,Mr Halverson,Mr Hunt and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr McArthur and Mr Shack. 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 destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time; (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapons 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: That the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. 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 Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned showeth that there is widespread public concern about the provisions of the Bill of Rights and especially the dangerous powers to be vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the failure to protect vital rights such as the right to own private property. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government not proceed with the Bills enacting the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission; and (ii) that we the people be given the opportunity to express our opinion on the Bill of Rights in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable 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 air ship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government of Australia to intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka: To desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; to offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation to any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that any proposal by the Government to adopt a flat rate family allowance scheme would cause considerable hardship to low income families. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to give due consideration to the effects of such a proposal on Australian families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament and to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: Foreign warships visiting Australian ports give acceptability to the increasing militarization of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; W.A. endures a visit of a foreign warship on average every 1.5 weeks; a situation of de facto `home-porting' facilities exists in W.A.; there is increasing citizen concern that nuclear armed/nuclear powered warships put Australian ports and people at risk in many ways. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Australian Government refuse entry to Australian ports to all foreign warships. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That the recent failure of the Federal Parliament to disallow the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance will contribute further to the erosion of moral standards in Australia. In particular, the legislation increases the danger of the moral well-being of our children, by removing controls, at the point of production and importation of pornographic material. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Public Ordinance of 1983 be repealed. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shack. 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 and charges are 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. 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 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 member 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 to legislate for, effective price control and anti monopoly measures to prevent 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 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. by Mr Free. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the western Sydney State University as recommended in the parry report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Grace. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Ms McHugh. 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. 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 Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. 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 divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag 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 Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 whites 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland 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 the present justice system in this country or 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 Slipper. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing uncertainty over the Government's tax package, its damage to the whole Australian community and its failure to provide tax relief to low and middle income families. Madam Speaker also received another letter. However, she has chosen the proposal put forward by the honourable member for Mackellar. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.07) —I suppose the first question Opposition members will ask in beginning this matter of public importance is: Where is the Treasurer (Mr Keating)? Will the Treasurer be present to answer the case against the package, or does he intend to follow the practice he followed yesterday when the shadow Minister for finance and taxation, Senator Messner, went to the Treasurer's office and asked for a briefing from departmental officers on the proposals on negative gearing taxation and the Treasurer failed to agree to that briefing being given? The Treasurer has now walked into the House, but since Senator Messner wrote to the Treasurer expressing his concern about the Treasurer's decision not to give him a briefing on negative gearing, I hope that in the meantime he will have altered his decision. Mr Keating —I haven't, no. Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer says that he has not altered his decision. Mr Keating —You will get a briefing when you get to government next. Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer has just said that we will not get a briefing on the legislation that is coming before the House from the Department until we get into government. The Treasurer cannot get away with this sort of arrogance. If the Opposition spokesman on a particular matter asks for a departmental briefing on a Bill, the Minister is obliged to arrange for it as an elementary matter of courtesy. He can instruct the Department as to the limits of that briefing. But for him to come into the House and say that he will not arrange for departmental officers to be available for a briefing on negative gearing on essential tax matters is outrageous. He will not be allowed to get away with it. We will ask for a briefing on all these matters, we will expect it, and will keep taking it up until we get it. The reason we are raising this matter this afternoon is that the tax package introduced by the Treasurer on 19 September last year is a total shambles. Not only has it not been introduced, as to most of it, in the form of legislation but a great deal of it has been changed, a great deal is subject to questioning, and a great deal is totally uncertain. Taxpayers throughout Australia do not know what their tax liabilities are. Not only that, but at the very heart of the proposals there is a fraud on the ordinary low income and middle income earning Australians as to the tax benefits in that package. Of course, what happened in the history of this matter is that we had a taxation summit in July in this very chamber. We had discussions between a whole lot of industry and community representatives and the Government. Numerous submissions were put forward and indeed in his statement of 19 September the Treasurer made these rather grandiloquent remarks. I quote from the Treasurer's statement of 19 September 1985, as follows: For the first time in Australia's recent history a government has been willing to place tax reform on the political agenda. But much more than that, for the first time a government has been willing to act. We have invited debate, we have asked the people of Australia to express their views, and we have listened carefully to what they have said. The tax reform measures I am announcing today are the outcome of that unprecedented process of consultation. In fact, they were really the illegitimate offspring of a meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the ACTU in a motel in Canberra. After all the discussions had been held, after all the payments had been put forward and after the Treasurer and the Prime Minister had stamped the whole country trying to sell what they thought was a reasonable package-much of which was supported by the Opposition-they came in here and conducted a sham of a tax summit. The Prime Minister went off to a motel room and the ACTU told him what he could do. The Prime Minister then came back and told the Treasurer what the Treasurer could do. The Prime Minister cut the ground totally from the promises the Treasurer had made to reduce marginal rates of taxation substantially for low and middle income earning Australians. This afternoon I will be dealing with the effect of this tax package as it now stands on ordinary taxpayers-not farmers and not small businesses. My colleague the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) will be telling us about the effect that it is having on business investment and the creation of jobs in Australia. He will be telling us about that. Firstly, let me look at the effect on families. What does the package mean for the ordinary Australian taxpayer and for Aust- ralian families? Having examined the figures in great detail-and we have now had plenty of time to look at them-we find that lower and middle income earners have been cheated by this package; they have been totally cheated. In his statement of 19 September last, the Treasurer said: What I have announced today are far reaching, genuine and substantial tax reforms. They achieve the fundamental objectives we set ourselves at the outset of this ambitious endeavour, namely, to significantly reduce marginal tax rates. That was the first objective that the Treasurer set himself, and it is the first objective that he claimed that he had achieved in his statement to the House. Let us look at the reality of that claim. Let us look at what has happened to lower and middle income earners. We conclude that after we allow for wages and inflation moving up over the period between the announcement of 19 September last and July 1987, when the package is fully implemented, all these taxpayers will be actually paying more tax. Let me quote some precise examples. A taxpayer on an income of $15,000 per annum, at the time the statement was made, that is, earning $290 a week, will, after the effects of inflation and wage increases-after the normal wage increases through the conciliation and arbitration system have been taken into account-be paying $10.06 more per week in taxation as a result of these measures. A taxpayer on $20,000 a year, that is, $385 a week, will be paying $20.29 a week more in tax as a result of this so called tax reform. If we take a person at average weekly earnings of $404.50 as at the time of the statement last September, he will be paying under the current rates a top marginal rate of tax of 46 per cent, and I exclude the extra one per cent Medicare tax. Let us take the 46 per cent basic rate which is the top rate being currently paid. An average tax rate over the whole income is 22.73 per cent. The Treasurer tells these taxpayers that their top marginal rate will come down from 46c in the dollar to 40c in the dollar. That is what they were told on the night of the statement, and that is what they believed, and they thought they were doing well. When one looks behind that piece of flummery, one finds that their average tax rate will in fact go up from 22.73 per cent of their income to 24.49 per cent of their income. That is taking into account the effect of inflation on the taxation scales. Those people have been duped. The Treasurer came in and said: `We are dropping your marginal tax rate from 46c to 40c'. What the Treasurer did not say to them is: `We are putting up your average rate of tax from 22.73 per cent to 24.48 per cent'. There has been in this tax package a major marginal rate fiddle. Over the two years between the time the package was introduced and the time it is actually implemented he tells us that the marginal rates will come down from 25c to 24c in the dollar, from 30c to 29c in the dollar and from 46c to 40c in the dollar. Everyone listening to the statement would have believed that that would have been helpful for them. However, the catch of course is that over that two-year period and by 1988 the effects of inflation, of rising prices and wages going up and no particular gain in real terms to wage earners-that is assuming they do not get any increases over and above the ordinary inflation and indexing-about two million taxpayers will have moved from a 29 per cent top rate to a 40 per cent top rate. Mr Hodgman —How many? Mr CARLTON —I said `two million taxpayers'. Of course, it looks good if one says that the top marginal rate is reduced from 46c to 40c and that the 30c rate is reduced to 29c. It sounds good, but when one realises that over the course of the two years, because of inflation, two million taxpayers will move from a 29 per cent top rate to a 40 per cent top rate, one realises that the whole thing is a massive swindle. Indeed, by the date of full introduction, in 1987, 50 per cent of all taxpayers will have moved into the 40c in the dollar top bracket; 50 per cent will be at the 40c in the dollar tax bracket, and a further 4 per cent each year will move into the 40c in the dollar rate purely because of the effects of inflation. Mr Beale —What inflation rate? Mr CARLTON —I might say, and certainly the honourable member for Deakin reminds me of this, that all these figures are based on earlier inflation estimates. We found last week that inflation in Australia had gone up to over 9 per cent: It is now 9.2 per cent. It is about two and a half times that of the average for our trading partners. We do not know what will happen to our inflation rate over the rest of the year. If we keep going at a rate two and a half or three times the rate of our trading partners, these figures will look worse by the time the tax package is introduced. This has been a massive confidence trick. It has been an illusion. It disguises the defeat of the Government at the hands of the ACTU, but it is wholly typical of the presentation of this Government. It is all surface. It is like the Priority One scheme: It is all advertising, it is spending up big, spending on advertising, and spending on the Prime Minister in front of a television camera; but it is actually heating the ordinary low income and middle income earners of Australia. I can add to that, by taking the effect of petrol prices. The rest of the world has had the benefit of a fall in world oil prices passed on to them. A motorist in the United States or Japan can be certain that the effects of the fall in world oil prices will flow on to him at the bowser. However, in Australia the Treasurer-the bowser bandit-has been pinching most of that drop in extra tax. A low income earner on, say, $310 per week and running a car who is promised a tax cut of $4.60 in the Treasurer's statement-and mind you that is a fraudulent promise because it is $4.60 without taking inflation into account and in fact that person would lose about $12 a week-if he uses 45 litres of petrol a week will be paying an extra $3.90 a week in tax. The Treasurer says people like that gain $4.60 whereas in reality they lose $12, and the Treasurer is ripping off them an extra $3.90 a week in additional petrol excise. Of course, that hits the lowest income earners in the community. So much for income tax. On top of that, we have the fringe benefits tax which has already caused massive falls in sales of motor cars. On the best industry advice, 10,000 jobs will be lost in that industry alone because of the fringe benefits tax. In addition, whereas the Treasurer said in the statement on 19 September that religious, charitable and non-profit bodies would be excluded from paying this tax, he has failed to give any assurance subsequently to those people that they will be excluded. This means that charitable bodies which have to collect money for their services will have to pay the full fringe benefits tax, as far as we know-unless he makes another statement. Schools which have to provide accommodation for teachers will have to pay the tax. Charities which look after welfare cases and so need to have motor vehicles will have to pay the tax. This is absolutely ludicrous. We will move an amendment in the Senate to try to have that changed. With regard to people in the bush and in the mining industry, it is absurd that this tax will impose an extra payroll tax, in effect, on farmers and miners-in the coal industry alone it will cost about $40m-for the provision of housing in remote areas, the use of farm vehicles and all of those sorts of things that are an inevitable part of running a mine or a farm. Given the parlous position of our mines and farms in the present trading environment, it is absurd to impose this additional virtual payroll tax on those employers. Yet that is what the Government intends to do. It will kick them where it hurts at a time when they can least take it. Also, of course, there is the negative gearing on rental properties which is drying up the rental market. There is the quarantining of farm losses which has been reversed. But has it been reversed? The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) says that it has not. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) says that it has. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), as Acting Treasurer, said that it had. Senator Walsh said that the numbers were wrong and that it had not been reversed. Wherever we look in this package-the honourable member for Forde will say more about this-there is confusion, uncertainty, disincentive and downright fraud in regard to ordinary taxpayers at the lower and middle income levels. The Treasurer has a lot of explaining to do and we will be very interested to see how he can explain it. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.22) —It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would not entrust the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) with taxation. He buried it in the Senate with Senator Messner. The fact is that I had to be bored stiff for a quarter of an hour by this pedestrian performance about uncertainty and damage. What uncertainty? We have had the longest tax debate in Australia's history. What is more, we have had a public debate, a government statement and most of the legislation already presented, yet the Opposition talks about uncertainty. If it expects to get any marks for credibility from me, it will get none. Honourable members opposite talk about damage. Do they actually talk about damage to the tax system after the national scandal, the rotten mess in taxation, with which they left this nation? There were five years of tax scandals. The previous Government not only did not reform the system but left it in stinking repair, with all the fraudulent paper evasion-not avoidance, but evasion-schemes left untouched before it was dragged screaming to the table in the House of Representatives by the Costigan and McCabe-Lafranchi reports. Yet the Opposition talks about damage. Does it expect me to say that I have explaining to do? Honourable members opposite must be cracking jokes. Of course, they ran the tax administration into the ground. They gave the Commissioner of Taxation no people with whom to work. We have implemented a massive recruitment program in the Australian Taxation Office to try to cope with the job of managing it because the previous Government supposedly put some ceiling on the Public Service. But the signal given to the Tax Commissioner was: `Lay off all the rants and rorts. Don't touch the paper schemes'. Do honourable members opposite remember Mr Commissioner O'Reilly's telephone book of letters to Mr Howard imploring him over about five years to do something about the rotten paper evasion schemes? Do honourable members opposite remember all of that? That occurred in 1982, for the benefit of those who were here then. This Government has put down the biggest reform package ever. Yet the Opposition talks about credibility, uncertainty and damage! Does the Opposition remember its broken promise? Does it remember its promise in 1977 to index the tax scales? In 1977 Malcolm Fraser said that there would be full tax indexation. Do Opposition members remember the television advertisements which stated: `Ring up the Liberal Party headquarters and find out how much your tax cut is'? Do they remember those television advertisements? Do they remember when they took them away the following May, five months later? Do they remember that? The Liberal Party has a hide as thick as an elephant's. It will say and do anything. It says: `Don't look at what we did. Don't examine what we didn't do. Don't do as we did, just do as we say'. It not only did not reform the tax system but it did nothing about general running repairs, the kind of necessary repairs which need to be done all the time to close loopholes. That is what this Government has done in regard to superannuation lump sums, income splitting, abuse of unit trusts, leverage leasing, the prescribed payments system, sales tax avoidance schemes and all the others which, since 1983, total about $2 billion to $3 billion in terms of savings to the revenue in trying to make the system spin around. Those opposite did not do any of the running repairs as the need came about. The Opposition sat and watched the tax system being ripped apart so that tax in this country was made optional. It left a high marginal tax over a narrow income range which encouraged everyone either to split their income or to avoid it. It then provided all of the mechanisms for everyone to slide down their tax obligations, except the poor person on a pay as you earn income who never had any of the options of getting out of paying tax, who never had any of the options of diminishing his tax. It left all the rorts in the system. Mr Downer —That is a pathetic performance. Mr KEATING —The honourable member can leave if he likes. He never liked the truth. The Opposition left all the rorts in the system. It thought that everyone would ignore the system forever. In the end the system broke down. This Government has had to deal with it as best it could. It has dealt with it by introducing, after a long debate, the most far-reaching and comprehensive reforms in the history of the system. It is very interesting to hear the Opposition now whinging about the fringe benefits tax, the motor vehicles tax, negative gearing and remote area housing. I refer particularly to things such as negative gearing and motor cars. The Opposition operated by always leaving an out for the high income people who it thought supported it. It always left it in there. All the other mugs could pay their tax but the smarties-the mob it represents-could always sneak out under a bit of negative gearing, or they could have their Rolls-Royces, Jaguars, Mercedes Benzes, or Holden Commodores with all the options. They could write it all down- Mr Hodgman —And Ferraris. Mr KEATING —And Ferraris, yes. They could write it all down. In terms of fringe benefits, the Opposition did not mind that the middle ranking executives had their children's education paid or that they walked around the tax system in some other way by claiming hostess allowances, or whatever it might be, because these allowances were all for the Opposition's people. It was only the ordinary poor fellow who had to pay his way. Of course, now we are knocking out the ingrained rorts- Mr Hodgman —You would not be leasing a Ferrari, would you, Paul? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member will remain silent. Mr KEATING —The honourable member keeps yelling about Ferraris. Does he have a Ferrari? Mr Hodgman —No, but you leased one. Mr KEATING —Like hell I did. I have never had one in my life. Mr Hodgman —You are a ferret in a Ferrari. Mr KEATING —Let us not deal with this clown opposite. Let me make this point. All of these rutted-in things were things which politically could not be touched. The political thing was that the Opposition could knock off some paper scheme but it could not touch motor cars, negative gearing or all of the other rorts in the system because it said: `They are there for our people. They are on the side'. The fact is that we have done that, and honourable members opposite squeal like stuck pigs about it. I walked in to the amazing situation of having the honourable member for Mackellar demanding of us that we provide tax officials to talk to him about negative gearing when he has said that he will oppose the measure. I am expected to drag somebody off the tax reform package to come over here to explain to his Party what the measure is about when his Party has said that it will oppose it. Mr Carlton —But you still have to provide a briefing. Mr KEATING —I do not have to provide the honourable member with anything. He will get what I give him, and that is that. Mr Carlton —You do not understand the parliamentary system. You are totally contemptuous of it. Mr KEATING —Oh, no! I have been here since 1969. Does the honourable member know how many briefings I got from his lot? I got none-N-O-N-E. The honourable member has received far more from me than I received from the previous Government. He has received them whenever he has asked for them reasonably to shed light on something. But if he thinks that he can tell us that he will oppose something and demand briefings of us which would require ripping people away from working on tax reform, he has to be joking. Opposition members should not talk to us about taxation; for God's sake, they can talk about any subject but taxation. On taxation they have the backside out of their pants. The Liberal Party was prepared to run the tax system into the ground. It was not prepared to fund the Australian Taxation Office and to staff it. It was not prepared to move against the blatant tax evasion schemes which had been operated by all the smart solicitors and accountants. It was not even prepared to do running repairs to the normal avoidance schemes and loopholes that appeared from time to time. Not only that; it was not prepared to look in any serious way at tax reform. The honourable member for Mackellar talked about uncertainty and damage. Does he think there is any damage from a full imputation system for the business community in this country. This is the second country in the world after West Germany to provide full imputation for business; that is, no double taxation on dividends. The Germans provide for a corporate rate of 56 per cent. We provide for a corporate rate of 49 per cent. In other words, this is a world first. Does the honourable member for Mackellar think there is any damage in reducing the crazy marginal rates from the 60 per cent that his Government bequeathed us to 49 per cent, or from 46 per cent to 40 per cent, from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, or from 30 per cent to 25 per cent? Is that damage? Does the honourable member really expect to state such things and be listened to? Mr Carlton —The average rates are going up for low income earners. Mr KEATING —Listen, my friend, you have a long way to go if you think you can come into this House-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I remind the Treasurer that he should address the Chair and not address other persons in the second person. Mr KEATING —But he interjected, Mr Deputy Speaker. The fact is that the coalition has a long way to go when it comes in here trying to put over this sort of tripe. Most of the taxation Bills have been introduced; the balance will be introduced before this session is over. This is a massive and major tax reform exercise. The whole bureaucracy is flat out trying to cope with the enormity and complexity of the task. We will bring in as much legislation as possible as soon as possible. It is a revenue neutral operation and it will complete the tax reforms that will, of course, impact on marginal rates in September and on 1 July 1987. Of course, interestingly, what we get in terms of credibility from the Liberal Party is that it says that it will not oppose the tax cuts but that it will oppose all of the measures to pay for those tax cuts. In other words, it will let the Budget bleed by about $1 billion by giving the tax cuts, but it will not support any of the measures to pay for the tax cuts. That has been said repeatedly. There is not much more to be said about it than that. I have a meeting to go to and, frankly, that is more important than answering this tripe. Dr WATSON(Forde)(4.35) —Given the statements by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), it is perhaps appropriate that I start off with an antique quotation. I think it was Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities who began his novel with the words: It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. Of course, he was talking about London and Paris at the time and was weaving a story about the lives of people, some with despair and some with hope. But perhaps today it is appropriate to reconsider those words: `It was the best of times; it was the worst of times'. When one compares Australia with the rest of the world, one can see the best of times in the rest of the world. Many countries are taking off today with high rates of growth, low inflation and a very secure future. One compares them with Australia and wonders whether we are getting the second half of those lines. Recently I was reminded by a Japanese banker that, if one looks at the world economy in terms of a Boeing 747, one sees in the first class area countries such as the United States of America, Switzerland, West Germany and Japan. But where is Australia? Australia is back in economy class. It is no wonder that we are back there as this Treasurer has probably missed the plane altogether. Australia is back there when one considers items such as the dollar. Under this Government over the past 2 1/2 years we have seen the dollar fall not only against the United States dollar but against every other major currency in the world. We have the highest interest rates in the Western world, at least compared with those of our major competitors. We have the highest inflation rate in terms of consumer prices and probably even worse in terms of wholesale prices. That is reflected in the latest edition of the Economist, which shows that Australia has had a positive wholesale price index increase whereas many other countries, such as Japan, the United States and West Germany, have had negative price changes over the last 12 months in the wholesale index. This does not augur well for Australia's future. At a time when Australia is facing these problems, we have a Government that cannot lead. We have a Government that cannot make decisions. We have a Treasurer who wants to run away rather than to face up to any questioning from the Opposition's shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). It was well caught by Paul Kelly in his recent article in the Australian in which he indicated that one senior Minister had told him: `If it's an issue like what economic direction we should be taking, it is too hot for Cabinet to debate'. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the Hawke Cabinet is immobilised, watching its Treasurer's stunning juggling performance taking place at the edge of the economic precipice. Nowhere is this lack of leadership more obvious than in the taxation area. At a time when the terms of trade are going against Australia, at a time when the balance of payments is going against Australia, at a time when the Treasurer is just hoping that that J curve will take off-he is almost sitting there imploring it to pull around-one would expect there to be a taxation policy in place which would encourage private investment in Australia. But, no, it is not in place. All that is being done is compounding the problem of private investment. Ever since this Government has been in place, private investment in Australia has been falling-from the highs of 12 and 13 per cent of a few years ago down to about 9 per cent of our gross domestic product today. Investment is falling and it is no wonder. Investment is based upon expectations. An uncertain taxation system simply undermines those expectations. By looking at the legislative program that should be facing us, we can see why those expectations are being undermined. The changes affecting negative gearing were announced on 17 July 1985 to take effect from 18 July 1985; we still have not seen them. The measure relating to depreciation of residential buildings was also announced on 17 July, to take effect from 18 July 1985; but we still have not seen it. A capital gains tax was announced on 19 September 1985 to take effect on 20 September 1985; but we still have not seen it. Measures relating to non-cash fringe benefits were announced on 19 September 1985 to take effect from 1 July 1986; we still have not seen them. The same can be said of improved averaging provisions, quarterly provisional taxation, the foreign tax credit system and the imputation system for company tax. Then there is the quarantining of farm losses. What a great saga that has been. It was announced on 19 September 1985 to take effect on 1 July 1986. It was pulled out by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on 15 April 1986 and reinstated the following day by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). This Government tries to tax by proclamation, modified, of course, later by Press releases and statements from the Treasurer which unfortunately lack the finer detail required for taxation and investment planning. Business is being confused by the ad hoc manner in which reform is being undertaken. There exists, of course, already a high degree of uncertainty in Australian business, brought about by the economic policies which this Government has implemented. But taxation vagueness, which is the hallmark of this Treasurer-not taxation reform but taxation vagueness-is exacerbating the difficulty of making business decisions. We do not have to go very far to find them. For example, the real estate industry is reeling from negative gearing and capital gains taxation. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), as shadow Minister for housing, has repeatedly brought to the Government's attention the problem of falling loans in the savings bank and permanent building society area. Loans have fallen by between 33 per cent and 34 per cent this year. We have noticed that housing starts have fallen drastically this year. We know that rents are rising throughout Australia. In my area they have risen by something like 13 per cent in the last year. In Sydney and in other places they have risen by as much as 20 per cent. We have seen those rents rising, outstripping our already extremely high inflation rate. No wonder investor buyers are disappearing from the industry. No wonder owners are frightened to sell because of potential future capital gains on new investments. No wonder owners of negatively-geared property, which is clear of this tax, are frightened to re-finance their investments for fear of being caught in some potential, unknown refinements of the tax system which may or may not be disclosed in some future, unknown Press release. It is absolutely impossible for business to enter into tax planning arrangements. We see even today in the Australian Financial Review and in other papers that the fringe benefits tax is blamed. It is certainly at fault in terms of current car registrations. Car registration is down by some 25 per cent to 33 per cent over a year ago. It is no wonder. I ask why is that? People do not know what the effect will be. No one has seen the legislation. If one introduces this kind of uncertainty into business decisions one will simply have investment fall off. I do not know whether these delays are deliberate. I do not know whether these delays simply reflect incompetence on the part of the Treasurer and this Government. Mr Lloyd —Absolutely. Dr WATSON —I suspect that it does. After all, the Treasurer cannot even stay in the chamber and face any criticism. Mr Slipper —He has fled from the chamber. Dr WATSON —The Treasurer has fled from the chamber, as the honourable member for Fisher has said. Mr McGauran —He didn't finish speaking. Dr WATSON —He didn't finish speaking. He cannot answer anything. I think sometimes the government believes-the Treasurer spoke of this-that lawful business tax planning is tax avoidance. After all, this Treasurer has made an art form of confusing the population, of trying to suggest that legitimate tax planning is some kind of tax evasion. He did it when he was in Opposition and he has done it even more so since he has been the Treasurer. I suspect that he probably thinks that, if there is not any legislation, there cannot be any loopholes. I suspect that he really is quite incapable of understanding the full impact of any legislation that he brings into this House. This Treasurer is actually maximising the uncertainty inherent in business and taxation planning. This Treasurer is actually destroying business confidence. This Treasurer, the Government, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are destroying the incentive and the initiative that should be existing in Australian business. This Treasurer is actually undermining and destroying future investment in Australia and, whether he likes it or not, his attitude, his policies and the uncertainty that he is introducing are simply undermining Australia's future. He ought to be in this chamber to answer that accusation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms FATIN(Brand)(4.45) —We have just heard from the Opposition a testament to the double standards it practised while it was in government and the hypocrisy it has brought to its whole period in opposition. The thing that appals me most of all is the low estimation that members opposite have of the intelligence of the Australian electorate. Hour after hour we have to sit in this chamber and listen while members of the Opposition repeat their half-baked ideas about issues that they really know nothing about. All the time we know, and the Australian people know, that the Opposition all but destroyed this country while it was in government. How dare honourable members opposite come into this chamber and talk about the Hawke Government creating uncertainty. How can they have the gall to talk about this Government damaging the community or failing to provide assistance for low and middle income families? All I can say is that, if the Opposition wants to talk about tax, we on this side of the House are very happy to do so. We will discuss tax any time of the day or night just as we will talk about jobs, industrial relations, or any other matters in which this Government has shown the Opposition how to implement successful policies. Because, of course, in all these areas, this Government has the runs on the board. This Government picked up the mess, the chaos left behind after Fraser and Howard had had their turn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Brand will refer to honourable members by the electorate or the position they occupy. Ms FATIN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very tempting to go into some of the details of the frightful legacy bequeathed to us by Mr Howard and Mr Fraser. But the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), has chosen tax as today's subject and I and my colleagues on this side of the House are more than pleased to concentrate on this aspect of our Government's policy. It is not really surprising that the Opposition never shows the same willingness to focus attention on its taxation policy. At the moment, of course, it is understandable that it is unwilling to have its taxation proposals subjected to any kind of scrutiny. There is a very good reason for this. It is simply, as we all know, that it does not have a policy on taxation. This in itself, of course, brings a certain consistency and uniformity to Opposition policy-making. Members of the Opposition do not actually have a policy on anything, although they are certainly quite well advanced in knowing how they will market a policy if one ever comes to hand. What about the Opposition's record in the past? Are there clues to be gained from the way in which a Liberal-National Party government approached taxation? Certainly there are. The people of Australia read these clues. They watched the way in which Mr Fraser's failed Treasurer ducked and wove his way through the holes in the taxation system. They watched and they threw him out. (Quorum formed) The Opposition has accused the Government of creating uncertainty with its tax package. One thing can be said with certainty: There was never any uncertainty about the way the Liberal-National Party handled taxation matters. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the integrity of the Australian taxation system was all but destroyed. It became a standard joke to talk about how little tax one was able to pay and how one could get away with it. Tax avoidance was elevated to the level of a national sport. Why reform the system when it was operating so nicely in favour of one's political colleagues and supporters? Why lower the very high marginal tax rates when so few actually paid tax at those rates, anyway? Why try to restore integrity to the system when to do so would cost votes and dollars-votes and dollars that were being accrued only because the system was breaking down under the pressure of the cheats. There was never any uncertainty about the Opposition's attitude to these cheats. Time after time Opposition members have come into the Parliament and refused point blank to vote in favour of legislation which would see the tax avoiders and evaders pay what they owe. Let us ask ourselves who has ultimately suffered from the Opposition's refusal to take any firm stand on tax evaders. Who are the real victims of the Howard legacy of a crippled, outmoded tax system? The answer, of course, is that it is precisely the same group of Australians whom the Opposition is hypocritically defending here today. Someone had to make up the shortfall left by the tax cheats and the burden fell fairly and squarely onto the shoulders of the same low and middle income earners about which the Opposition now pretends to be concerned. It was those people and their families who saw their tax payments increase while the top few per cent of wealthy wheelers and dealers perfected their aims at the bottom of the harbour. It was those people, those low and middle income earners, who were amongst the very first people to receive direct assistance from the Hawke Government. Let us look at what this Government with the assistance, I should add, of the world's best Treasurer has done for low and middle income earners in the reform of tax relief. First, there was the $7.60 tax cut in November 1984. Secondly, there was the enormous saving for low and middle income families when Medicare started in February 1984. Thirdly, there is the drop in marginal tax rates scheduled to take effect in September this year. Fourthly, there is the further reduction in marginal tax rates scheduled for July next year. What we are talking about are the biggest tax cuts in Australia's history-$4.5 billion worth of tax relief to ordinary Australian income earners. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and his shadow Treasurer are having trouble putting together their policies on tax. What do they offer as an appetiser? How are they planning to convince the Australian people that they could do better than $4.5 billion worth of tax relief? For a start, under the Opposition we know that there will be no wage indexation. That means no cost of living increase for income earners. There will also be no prices and incomes accord. That means no industrial peace and no social wage. There will be no Medicare, which means that health costs will once again go through the roof, especially for low and middle income earners. There will be no superannuation benefits which will put Australian workers back at the bottom of the heap compared with other industrialised countries. Most serious of all there will be no tax reform. We will be back in the mess in which we found ourselves in 1983 when the bulk of the tax burden fell squarely on the shoulders of the low and middle income earning families. The truth is that the Opposition is totally discredited, both in this place and in the wider Australian community. Its members would do well to study the tax package before they dare to come into this chamber and criticise the Government on such empty and spurious grounds. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program in the years 1986 and 1987. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the House today. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $0.823m in each of 1986 and 1987. I commend the Bill to the House and provide an explanatory memorandum for the benefit of honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to supplement grants to government and non-government schools in the States and Northern Territory, in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's programs for schools. These arrangements provide school systems and authorities with the confidence to plan ahead in the knowledge that grants will be maintained in real terms. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $23m in 1986, $10m in 1987 and $11m in 1988. I commend the Bill to the House and provide an explanatory memorandum for the benefit of honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, for Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(4.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 provides grants to the States and the Northern Territory for financial assistance to universities and colleges of advanced education for the 1985-87 triennium, and for technical and further education for 1985 and 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to supplement these grants in accordance with the Government's agreed procedures to make adjustments for cost increases. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $98.43m, comprising $66.67m in 1986 and 31.76m in 1987. I commend the Bill to the House and provide an explanatory memorandum for the benefit of honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1986 which is now before the House contains significant amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains 10 Schedules which incorporate changes, firstly, initially introduced by Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice and subsequently proposed in this House as Customs tariff proposals; secondly, introduced directly by Customs tariff proposals; or, thirdly, which are being introduced by this Bill. Schedule 1 to the Bill is operative on and from 1 July 1985 and provides the mechanism for the restoration of duty free admission of certain parts used in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels. The Government's October 1984 decision on the Australian shipbuilding industry provided for the removal of the 2 per cent revenue duty on imports of such ships' parts, making them duty free. This was intended to assist shipbuilders to hold down costs of inputs and improve their competitiveness against imported new vessels, which are duty free. At that time most ships' parts were admissible at 2 per cent under a Customs by-law. This by-law subsequently lapsed on 1 July 1985 when the old commercial by-law system was terminated. By ceasing to be eligible for the 2 per cent duty rate provided for by the Customs by-law they thus lost their eligibility for the further duty free concession. This nullified the intent of the shipbuilding assistance package. The amendment in this Schedule re-instates the eligibility of the parts for the 2 per cent duty and consequently they will again become free of duty in accordance with the Government's shipbuilding assistance decision. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from the 2 August 1985, provides for the wool content level in the pile of carpets from New Zealand eligible for duty free entry to be reduced from 80 per cent to 78 per cent by weight. This relaxation of the wool content requirement has been agreed with New Zealand under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement and takes effect from the date set out in the exchange of letters between the relevant Australian and New Zealand Ministers. Schedule 3 to the Bill, operative on and from 21 August 1985, complements the Subsidy (Grain Harvesters and Equipment) Act 1985 which was passed in the 1985 Budget sittings. This schedule removes the 15 per cent general tariff rate previously applicable to grain harvesters and certain parts for these machines. Also included in this Schedule is a consequential amendment to maintain the duty treatment applicable to certain metal parts. The changes contained in Schedule 4 to the Bill are operative on and from 11 October 1985 and implement most of the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's report on telecommunications and related equipment and parts. The changes arising from this report are the first stage of the two-stage plan to revitalise Australia's communications equipment industry for growth into the 1990s and beyond. Under this first stage, the Government has accepted the IAC's recommendation that tariffs on most imported telecommunications products and components be reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. These reductions are being phased in over a four-year period. The IAC's report on the industry had recommended reductions over a two-year period for most products. In agreeing to a four-year phased reduction, the Government has sought the co-operation of the local industry in developing a comprehensive strategy to address the industry's long term problems. This strategy is expected to be announced by the middle of 1986. Issues which need to be addressed to enable the local industry to become more internationally competitive, export oriented and innovative include: The relatively small size of Australian companies; insufficient commitment to local research and development; fragmented market efforts; and restrictive regulatory procedures which act as a disincentive to growth. These broad issues will be tackled in the later package of measures. From the Government's side, the package would largely entail improved co-ordination of existing government activities, particularly in the areas of government purchasing, offsets, technology programs, regulation and trade strategies. The Government's decision to handle the question of assistance in two stages was the result of extended consultation within government departments, with industry groups and other interested bodies, and with the Government's tripartite advisory council on the electrical, electronics and information industries. These groups are continuing to be actively involved in developing the package of industry development measures, within the framework of general Government policies. As part of its decision on the IAC's report, the Government has accepted the recommendation for a 25 per cent value added production bounty to be paid on modems and multiplexors generally used with computers. This bounty is to apply from 1 July 1986 and the duty applicable to equivalent imported goods will be reduced to minimum rates from that date. In addition, preforms used in the manufacture of optical fibre are to be subject to a general tariff rate of 20 per cent from 1 July 1986. The relevant tariff changes are contained in Schedule 9 to this Bill. Schedule 5 to the Bill is operative from 22 November 1985 and comprises most of the legislation to implement the Government's decision on the IAC's report on re-import concessions. The Government's decision results in considerable simplification of the provisions governing the concessional entry of goods which have previously been exported from Australia. Goods and parts of goods which are returned to Australia without any change to the identity they possessed when they were exported are eligible for duty free entry. Unlike the previous concession, there is no requirement that the goods have not entered the commerce of another country; no time limit after which they are not eligible for duty free entry or that their ownership has not changed. The requirement that all Commonwealth taxes and charges due at the time of exportation from Australia have either been paid and not refunded, or, if refunded, are paid again prior to duty free entry being granted, does, however, remain. A new provision is being inserted into the Customs Tariff Act to allow the duty free admission of goods repaired overseas, or replaced, under a specific warranty applicable to previously imported goods. One of the Government's decisions is not included in this particular Schedule to the Bill. Goods exported for repair or renovation which cannot be performed in Australia are to be eligible for duty free entry under commercial tariff concession orders made by the Comptroller- General of Customs. New provisions are being inserted into the Customs Act 1901 by the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 to enable such orders to be issued on and from 1 July 1986. The consequential amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 is contained in Schedule 9 to this Bill. A minor amendment is being made to the remaining provision relating to the concessional entry for goods returned to Australia after having undergone repair or renovation overseas. Provided that the goods retain the identity they possessed when they were exported, the duty payable on their return will be assessed on the value of the repair or renovation only, at the ad valorem rate applicable to the parent goods. In line with the IAC's recommendation, this provision does not apply to goods subjected to alteration overseas. Schedule 6 to the Bill puts in place tender quota provisions associated with the post-1984 arrangements for passenger motor vehicles. This Schedule is operative on and from 1 December 1985. Following amendments made last year to the Customs Act 1901 it is now possible to depart from a rigid 12-month period for tender quota allocations. Accordingly, a period of 14 months is being provided for the one year quota to allow a one-month anticipation before the start of the calendar year and a one-month carry over after its conclusion. Similarly, the four periods involved in the four-year tender will each run from 1 December in a year to 31 January, 14 months later. Vehicles imported under the single period tender quota scheme attract a general tariff tender quota rate of 81.5 per cent, a premium of 24 percentage points over the base quota rate. For the four-year tender quota scheme the tender quota rate is 68.5 per cent, 11 percentage points higher than the 57.5 per cent base quota rate. Schedule 7 to the Bill is operative from 1 January 1986 and contains a variety of amendments. The amendment of Schedule 1 to the principal Act removes Portugal from the list of countries eligible for developing country preference. This action coincides with Portugal's becoming a member of the European Economic Community. Similar action was taken when Greece joined the Community. This Schedule puts in place the 1986 developing country preference and tender quota arrangements applying under the Government's textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy. Included in these amendments are arrangements to allow for extensions of validity for textiles, clothing and footwear tender quota allocations. Also included in this Schedule are amendments removing redundant phasing rates of duty from Schedule 3 and Part II of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. This action has enabled further tariff simplification to occur as certain tariff classifications are amalgamated. In a similar vein, redundant phasing provisions in Schedule 5 to the principal Act, which covers New Zealand imports, are being removed. The final amendment in Schedule 7 amends item 23 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. This item was inserted in the Customs Tariff Amendment Act (No. 2) 1985, which was passed in the 1985 Budget sittings. It has been found that the item is deficient in that it does not provide concessional admission for parts of the components designated in the item. Such parts for components were eligible for bounty payment under the previous assistance regime for heavy commercial motor vehicles and thus should receive the benefits of the provisions of item 23. The amendment of the item will achieve this objective. Schedule 8 to the Bill, operative on and from 18 February 1986, provides for the application of the principles of the Government's decision to implement a revised system of tariff preferences for developing countries to the goods covered by the Industries Assistance Commission's report on tableware and other goods of ceramics. The Government decided that, in accordance with the IAC's recommendation, the general tariff rate for the goods under reference should remain at 20 per cent. I will outline the principles of the new developing countries preference scheme when I come to Schedule 9 of the Bill but in regard to goods of tariff item 69.11, covering tableware and other goods of porcelain or china, all developing country imports will receive a five percentage points margin. For tableware and other goods not being of porcelain or china-tariff item 69.12-the Republic of Korea and Taiwan Province will remain ineligible for the 15 per cent developing country rate until 1 July 1988. Schedule 9 to the Bill contributes most to its size. Its operative date is 1 July 1986. This Schedule implements new preference arrangements for developing countries and for forum island countries. Under the revised developing countries preference scheme, the developing country rate will be five percentage points below the general tariff rate, where that general tariff rate is 5 per cent or greater. For goods subject to other than an ad valorem rate a margin equivalent to five percentage points is being provided. The new scheme will not apply to goods where there is no protective rate, or where goods only attract duties identical to Australian excise tariff rates. For goods incurring both excise and protective rates the new scheme will apply to the protective component but such rates have been structured so that in no circumstance will the rate be lower than the equivalent excise rate. Developing country quotas will be abolished except where they relate to textiles, clothing and footwear products where quotas will continue until 31 December 1988. Under the new scheme there is no provision for graduating either products or countries from it. As a transitional measure, where action has been taken to exclude countries from the present scheme for particular products in the three years prior to 1 July 1986, they will continue to be excluded for a further two years. The scheme will apply to products covered by the textiles, clothing and footwear industries plan from the end of the current plan on 31 December 1988. It will apply to goods covered by the steel and motor vehicles sectoral policies from 1 July 1986. However, the current exclusions of certain countries for some cold-rolled steel products will continue until the end of the present steel plan on 31 December 1988 and quotas already allocated for the importation of motor vehicles will be continued at the existing margin of preference. The existing developing countries scheme has distorted Australian industry policy, increased disparities in tariff assistance between like goods and created uncertainty about assistance levels for local manufacturers thereby hampering restructuring and business planning. It has also led to increasing friction with Australia's developing country trading partners. The revised scheme will be administratively simpler, more certain in application, and focus attention towards more constructive industry development and trade goals. The Government recognises that, as a result of the changes, preference margins will be created in some areas and increased in others. Overall this will be offset by significantly reduced margins in other areas of industry. The Government considers that the application of a five percentage points margin of preference would not be large enough to cause any major difficulties for industry. However, reference to the Industries Assistance Commission remains where an industry is experiencing difficulties competing against imports from any source. The Government's decision follows a thorough review of the system of granting preferential access to developing countries. As part of this review Professor Helen Hughes of the Centre for Development Studies at the Australian National University was commissioned to report on the scheme and her recommendations form the substance of the new approach. In the review the Government rejected such options as abandonment of DC preferences or adoption of trigger mechanisms to automatically graduate countries or products out of the scheme. The option adopted reaffirms Australia's commitment to the concept of developing country preferences. Australia was the first country in the world to introduce such preferences, which are now accorded by most developed countries. The new scheme represents a significant improvement over the existing scheme. The new scheme provides Australian industry and all Australia's trading partners, both developed and developing, with a settled framework for development of investment and trading plans. Under the new system the developing country tariff rate and the general tariff rate will be set as a package and industry planning can proceed in this knowledge. Australian industry seeking to complement local production with external sourcing can plan with greater confidence than exists under the present arrangements. In discussions most of the developing countries in the Australian region have welcomed the broad thrust of the new system which incorporates important principles endorsed by the developing countries generally. Some disappointment has been expressed at the reduction that will be entailed in existing margins of preference for some items and a larger margin of preference than five percentage points was generally desired. The Australian Government considers that any disadvantage arising from margin reductions will be offset in the longer term by the guarantees of margins at any volume of trade in the situation where Australia's tariffs are moving towards lower levels of assistance. The other initiative in regard to Australia's trading relations contained in Schedule 9 is the new Forum island preference scheme. Australia undertook a major review of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement in 1985. Following this review the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced at the 1985 South Pacific Forum meeting in the Cook Islands that Australia would introduce a new scheme which would expand the duty free access entitlement for Forum island countries on and from 1 January 1987. The Prime Minister announced that duty free unrestricted access would be granted for all exports from Forum island countries, other than for those goods to which sectoral policies apply. The goods covered by these sectoral policies are textiles, clothing and footwear, steel, passenger motor vehicles and sugar. In addition, those products on which excise is levied when they are produced in Australia will be subject to a customs duty at the same rate as the excise duty. The Government has now decided that, with the exception of passionfruit products, the introduction date of the new scheme will be brought forward to 1 July 1986 to coincide with the commencement date of the new developing countries preference scheme. The changes in regard to passionfruit products will take effect from 1 January 1987. The original operative date for passionfruit products is being maintained to allow a transition period for local producers because virtually all imported passionfruit products come from the Forum islands and these islands have a penetration of the Australian market in excess of 10 per cent. Schedule 9 also includes those changes to operate from 1 July 1986 which arise from the Government's decision on the IAC's report on telecommunications and related equipment and parts. Certain modems and multiplexors are to become dutiable at minimum rates and optical fibre preforms are to be dutiable at a general tariff rate of 20 per cent. An amendment is being made to item 3 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act which presently provides duty free entry for goods imported for the personal or official use of the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, a member of the family of the Governor-General or the Governor of a State or a member of the staff of the Governor-General or the Governor of a State, being a member of the staff who is not an Australian citizen. This concession goes back to the time when Governors and their staff were mostly appointed from outside the country. As this is no longer the case there is no justification for continuing concessions in relation to goods for personal use. The concession is accordingly being restricted to goods for the official use of the Governor-General, the Governor of a State or a member of the family of the Governor-General or the Governor of a State. No concessions will be available for members of the staff of the Governor-General or the Governor of a State. The final amendment required to implement the Government's decision on the IAC's report on re-import concessions is also contained in Schedule 9. Item 31 in Part I of Schedule 4 is re-drafted to allow the issue of commercial tariff concession orders for goods exported for repair or renovation which cannot be performed in Australia in the normal course of business. The opportunity has also been taken in this Schedule to remove all redundant phasing rates from the various Schedules to the principal Act. The final Schedule to the Bill, Schedule 10, is to operate seven days after royal assent to the legislation. This Schedule inserts a new legal note, note 12 to chapter 84 in Schedule 3 to the Principal Act, defining the term `of the track-laying type', which is used in connection with tractors and tractor bases. Special provisions for goods of the track-laying type at minimum rates of duty have appeared in the customs tariff for many years. The concept of equipment incorporating tractor bases of the track-laying type attracting a separate duty on the tractor base arose out of an IAC report in 1974. It has always been considered that the provision only applied to the traditional tracked vehicles that can only operate when their tracks are attached. A recent ruling by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has applied the term in question to a loader which was imported with tracks which go over the wheels of the vehicle but which can operate as a wheeled vehicle without the tracks. This extension of the term has had the effect of lowering the level of assistance intended to be accorded the local manufacture of such machines. The major local manufacturer has made representations to the Government concerning this loss of assistance. After consideration of this matter, the Government accepts that the intended assistance levels should be restored and, accordingly, an amendment is being made to the Customs Tariff Act. Financial Impact On 27 March 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his statement on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report on taxation expenditure, pointed out that the revenues raised by Customs duties are incidental to their prime purpose of assistance to industry. With this qualification in mind, it has been possible to make some estimates in regard to changes to Customs revenue for some of the changes contained in this Bill. The removal of the duty on grain harvesters and certain parts is expected to reduce revenue by $4.1m in 1985-86 and $8.25m annually thereafter. The general reduction in tariffs resulting from the Government's decision on the IAC's report on telecommunications and related equipment and parts is not expected to reduce government receipts. This conclusion is based on the knowledge that over 70 per cent of imported telecommunications equipment enters under concessional arrangements and that projected increases of dutiable imports of telecommunications equipment will more than compensate for the reductions in tariffs. In the case of outgoings the complementary amendments to the Bounty (Computers) Act in regard to modems and multiplexors is expected to cost $3.5m in 1986-87. This increase in outgoings is expected to be partly or fully compensated by increases in the level of dutiable imports of telecommunications equipment. The changes made as a result of the Government's decision on the re-import concessions IAC report are basically designed to improve the administration of the concessions rather than vary their scope to any great degree. Thus, any financial impact will be minor. Similarly, the Government's decision on the IAC's report on tableware and other goods of ceramics is revenue neutral. It is difficult at this stage to quantify the financial impact of the revised system of tariff preferences for developing countries. It has, however, been estimated that, overall, the revised scheme will result in a slight increase in assistance. Estimates of any additional revenue to be gained by such an increase in assistance could only be calculated on existing import trends. In order to speculate on any such increase, an assumption would need to be made that these import trends will continue after the introduction of the revised scheme. The Government is not in a position, at this stage, to so speculate. The proposed removal of tariffs on imports from the forum island countries is not expected to have a significant impact on revenue. Australian imports from the relevant countries amounted to only $217.5m in 1984-85 and 98 per cent of these were accorded duty free entry. In addition, the forum island countries have limited capacity to displace third country suppliers to the Australian market. All the other changes in the Bill are also expected to have minimal financial impact. There are no significant administrative costs associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each schedule to the Bill has been prepared. Copies are available from the Table Office. With extreme regret, I draw to the end of the speech and table the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The House will recall that it agreed to a cognate debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1986, and the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. These Bills were debated when the House met this morning. After the cognate debate concluded, the House agreed to the second and third readings of all three Bills. It has been drawn to my attention that the third Bill in this group-the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986-was received from the Senate on 8 April and its second reading was made an order of the day for a subsequent sitting. Subsequently, the second reading should have been moved by a Minister but this did not occur. Therefore, when the order of the day for this Bill was called on earlier today, the second reading should have been moved by a Minister. This was not done. To ensure that the Bill is properly considered by the House, I believe the appropriate motions and questions on this Bill should be put again. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-agreed to: That the resolutions of the House this day on the Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 be rescinded and the order of the day for the second reading be called again. Consideration resumed from 8 April. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) agreed to: That the Bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial)(5.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the Australian National Maritime Museum. This exciting Museum will take its place alongside other collecting institutions operated by the Commonwealth such as the National Library, the National Gallery and the National Museum of Australia. In November 1985 the Government agreed to provide $30m to enable the construction and fit-out of the building for the Australian National Maritime Museum on a site at Darling Harbour provided by the New South Wales Government. The Federal Government will own and operate the Museum which will be the first national collecting institution to be located outside Canberra. The Government is committed to the Museum opening its doors to the public in 1988. When the Labor Government first came to office in 1983 there were before us the proposals in the report of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections-namely, that Australia should have three national collecting institutions-the Museum of Australia, the National Maritime Museum and the National Aviation Museum. Some time ago we made the decision, as the House will be aware, to establish the Museum of Australia, now to be known as the National Museum of Australia, in Canberra. We have now made a decision to build the Maritime Museum in Sydney. I am hopeful that in the foreseeable future we will implement the third leg of the Pigott report and establish a national aviation museum, probably in Victoria. I digress from my prepared speech to say that the site selected for the National Maritime Museum at Darling Harbour is one of the most stunning sites in the world, and will be involved in the brilliantly conceived Darling Harbour redevelopment proposals which are now in the process of being completed by the New South Wales Government. I can tell those who have not seen the proposal that this is one of the great visions of the age. I commend the New South Wales Premier for his foresight in proposing that development authority. I am delighted that the Maritime Museum will be located there. Mr Hodgman —Hobart would be a very nice site. Mr COHEN —I would say to the honourable member for Denison that there are many nice sites. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Including Perth. Mr COHEN —Yes, and Perth. If the Canberra bureaucrats had had their way, it would have been at Lake Burley Griffin. It is sad that all these national institutions cannot be located in 10 different sites, but a site has to be selected and this site is brilliant. Already the conceptual design by the architect Philip Cox has been prepared, and if the final building is anything like the conceptual plans it will be stunning. Mr Hodgman —Will you be putting the Australian Antarctic museum in Hobart? Mr COHEN —I do not usually answer interjections, but that was a good one. I mentioned earlier that there are three museums-two we now have under way, and I hope that the aviation museum will be added. I have said in a number of speeches recently that there is enormous pressure now on the Government for museums all over the country. These buildings are extremely expensive-we are talking of sums of $30m, $40m, and in some cases $100m. There are now proposals before the Government for two Antarctic museums, for a museum for sport, for an immigration museum, and for a motor museum in South Australia. They are only the tip of the iceberg. As a Government, we would love to be able to undertake all of them and, hopefully, in time that will happen. But this Government in a short space of time has probably done more in the area of national collecting institutions than has any other Government in history. So although one would want to follow up what the honourable member for Denison interjected about in respect of an antarctic museum, people must realise that there is a limit as to what we can do. So it is in the future, yes, but not the immediate future. The need for an Australian National Maritime Museum, reflecting the significance of maritime activity in the history and cultural life of Australians, was recognised over a decade ago in the Pigott report. Possibly no other country has relied more on the sea and acknowledged this debt less. The present Government has affirmed the need for an institution to provide Australians with a central and comprehensive record of their past and present dependence on the sea. The Australian National Maritime Museum will provide a focus for our maritime history and an insight to its visitors of a major facet of our cultural tradition, until now little acknowledged. The Bill will establish the Museum as a body corporate and its functions will be to develop Australia's national maritime collection; to preserve, acquire, recover and maintain maritime historical material and exhibit that material which is in the national maritime collection or otherwise both in Australia and overseas. The Museum will also be able to conduct, and assist in, research and to disseminate information relating to Australian maritime history. Maritime historical material is defined in the Bill to mean material relating to Australian maritime history-which no doubt will come as a great shock to everybody present. Australian maritime history is widely defined to include the natural history of Australia, the history of the interaction of human beings with the Australian marine environment, and the history of sea travel for every purpose. The reference to Australian marine environment includes the sea above the continental shelf and the sub-soil of the continental shelf adjacent to the Australian coast. It also includes the environment of the lakes, rivers and internal waters of Australia. This allows the Museum effectively to acquire any material of a maritime nature provided it has a connection with Australia. A Museum Council is established by this Bill and the Council will ensure the proper and efficient performance of the Museum and determine its policy, subject to ministerial direction. I will speak shortly about its constitution. The Bill empowers the Museum to develop a national collection of maritime historical material which shall be determined by its council as being included in the national maritime collection. Any such determination by its council shall be based upon criteria and made in accordance with guidelines approved by the Minister. The Bill provides for the Museum to purchase historical and other relevant material. It will accept gifts and bequests and it will acquire and operate vessels of historical interest and significance. It will collect maritime information in various forms, such as books, charts, manuscripts, log books, films, video tapes and sound recordings. The Museum will be subject to the law of copyright and to the laws relating to the preservation and use of archival resources, and to the rights of the public to have access to official documents of the Commonwealth Government and its agencies. Much of Australia's historical material reflecting the involvement of its people with the sea has never been exhibited on a large scale. The creation of this Museum will correct that. The Government intends that the displays for the Museum will be based on a series of exciting and dramatic themes dealing with particular aspects of our links with the sea and Australian waterways. It will not be a mere collection of inanimate objects. I see that the honourable member for Denison has returned to the House. It might be worth mentioning to the people of the honourable member's State that simply because the museum is located in Sydney does not mean that exhibitions of the maritime museum cannot be displayed in part or in whole in other cities. Some of the ships may well be displayed, as with some of the other material collected, in Hobart or other cities. Mr Hollis —It will be a floating museum. Mr COHEN —Absolutely. Mr Hodgman —I was not being rude; I was just fixing up the Antarctic museum with your colleague the Minister for Science. Mr COHEN —As long as the Minister for Science is paying for it out of his Department, the honourable member can go for his life. The Museum will be a place of public education, participation and enjoyment for all who enter-a dynamic, living complex of activities and interests. The Bill is expressed to apply not only to the Australian mainland but also to its external territories, past and present. This is to ensure both the comprehensiveness of the national maritime collection and the respect accorded the heritage and culture of Australia's external territories. Material of significance from Australian external territories in the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans and Antarctica would only be transferred to the national maritime collection after consultation with the Minister for Territories or the Minister for Science, as the case may be, and the local governing body of the relevant territory. Whilst the Museum as a Government institution will be funded through the annual budgetary processes, the Bill also provides for the establishment of a National Maritime Museum Fund which will consist of money, or money from the disposal of gifts, bequests and the assignment of property-otherwise than on trust-to raise money for disbursement in accordance with the functions of the Museum. The Museum will be able to charge an admission fee and to operate a broad range of commercial activities. The Museum is required under the proposed legislation to prepare annual estimates of expenditure and shall not enter a contract for an acquisition exceeding $100,000 without the Minister's approval. The Museum will be subject to audit by the Auditor-General and will also be obliged to prepare an annual report by virtue of being subject to certain provisions of the Audit Act 1901. I am reminded of the fact that only a few weeks ago we made our first major purchase, by purchasing Ken Warby's Spirit of Australia for some $200,000, part of which was donated by Speedo Australia. Mr Hodgman —You will not get any maritime Blue Poles for $100,000. Mr COHEN —No, but if I do I will make sure that the honourable member is up one of them. The Museum will not be subject to taxation under Commonwealth or State law. The Museum will be able to operate a restaurant and catering facilities on vessels or property which the Museum owns or controls, and for this reason the Bill provides for the Museum to supply liquor, so the honourable member will be able to visit it and feel at home. The Council of the Museum, which I referred to earlier, shall consist of a Chairperson, the Director and other members, appointed by the Governor-General, to be no fewer than seven nor more than 10. An appointed member is to be a person having knowledge and experience with respect to matters relating to Australian maritime history or such other areas of knowledge relevant to the affairs of the Museum. The day-to-day management of the Museum will be conducted by a Director who shall also be appointed by the Governor-General for a period of up to seven years. The Director shall have all the powers of a secretary of a department in relation to the staff of the Museum who will be employed under the Public Service Act. The management of the Museum by the Director will be subject to directions given, and policies formulated by, the Council. The Museum will be encouraged by the Government to adopt an entrepreneurial outlook in organising its activities. For example, I would expect that the theatre proposed to be included in the Museum will be available for use by outside groups for film screenings, seminars and lectures. A publishing program will be developed and the Museum shop will sell books, toys and a whole range of quality goods and souvenirs. Might I add here that I think that one of the great benefits of travelling overseas and visiting many museums is to see how entrepreneurial many museums are, particularly those in the United States. I am somewhat critical of our own museums for not following the example set by American and continental museums. Largely because many of these museums have not depended on substantial government funding, they have had to be more entrepreneurial. We also have a problem in our own set up in Australia where some of the museums being run by government simply lose the benefit of entrepreneurial activities because Treasury and Finance take it away from them. So there is not a lot of encouragement. That has happened under a Liberal administration and it has happened under our administration. I really think that it is something we need to look at in detail to encourage the management and councils of museums to be more entrepreneurial. As I have said, some of the museums in America-the Metropolitan, the Washington Museum and the American Museum of History-are just staggering in their entrepreneurial activities. These museums raise a very large proportion of their running costs from their own entrepreneurial efforts. In addition to the Museum's attraction and affect on tourism, it also will support a number of people in related professions, trades and services. Its establishment and work will help to revive traditional maritime crafts and provide opportunities to pass on skills which would otherwise be lost. It is the Government's intention that the Museum place special emphasis on the young. This will be reflected in the practical exhibits. Educational and other facilities, in the focus of a section of the library on material for younger readers and on the goods for sale in the Museum shop. The Museum's curatorial and conservation laboratories will also be designed so that visitors can view the activities there, to see not only the skills required in preservation and in mounting displays, but also to appreciate the effort and expense incurred in preserving our maritime heritage. I would like to stress the national emphasis of the Maritime Museum; it will neither compete with existing institutions in the States or Territories nor duplicate their efforts. Rather, it will complement the collections of those institutions. If I may digress once again, I also anticipate that we will develop a very substantial `Friends of the National Maritime Museum', because there are many people, such as those now working in the Sydney Maritime Museum, who do an enormous amount of work gratis for the preservation of our maritime history. I hope that that institution will become absorbed into our new museum and that these people play the same role with the National Maritime Museum that they have done in the past with the Sydney Maritime Museum. The establishment of the Australian National Maritime Museum by this Bill is a further development in this Government's unequalled record of achievement in the preservation and display of Australia's heritage. This record reflects the aspirations and concerns of the Australian people and their enhanced pride in their history and development. The National Maritime Museum will take its place alongside our other national cultural institutions as a lasting, living, record of the richness and diversity of our past and present achievements as a maritime nation. I want to say that if I was asked a question about my proudest achievement in three years as a Minister I would say the preservation of our heritage. In three short years I have managed to achieve a start on the National Museum of Australia, the Maritime Museum and the National Film and Sound Archives. I am hopeful in the foreseeable future that I will be able to add to that with the National Aviation Museum. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Debate resumed. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.51) —I re-iterate the comments I made prior to the suspension of the sitting at 12.45 p.m. today. I am very reluctant to support this legislation which requires the Federal Government to pay out of Consolidated Revenue almost $125m to a number of oil refiners. The fault lies not with the oil refiners but with the Government. It is with a great deal of trepidation that I find that I have no choice but to support this legislation for the simple reason that the oil refiners were forced by the Government to incur a loss. It is a loss made not because of their commercial ineptitude or misjudgment or because of variations in the market, but because of the import parity pricing policy which forced them to purchase Australian crude oil at the world price and to sell it at a newly set domestic price. This Government's worshipping of import parity pricing at the high altar of taxation has led to a draining of $125m from Consolidated Revenue, an utterly unnecessary payout due entirely to the regulation imposed by this Government on the oil industry of this country. I ask the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones): Can he assure the Parliament that this situation will not occur again in the future? I think that he cannot. It may well be that another dramatic drop in the world price of oil will mean further stock losses by oil refiners. Of course, this is predicated on the assumption that the Government will pass on such a drop to Australian motorists, farmers and fishermen in the first place. Certainly, if this Government's track record is anything to go by, that is a faint hope. The Government needs to move towards deregulation and a free market so that, firstly, taxpayers are not again forced to compensate the oil companies in this fashion and, secondly, lower international oil prices can be enjoyed by Australians. The bottom line is that Australians are paying too much for their petrol. They are needlessly paying an inflated price simply because of this Government's dependence up on the oil taxation excise revenue. Until the Government moves away from such heavy reliance, it will continue to be locked into the import parity pricing formula. It is my belief that the drop in international prices can be passed on to Australians in full. But it will require a number of hard decisions by this Government. It will need to look at its monetary policy-its wages policy and its fiscal policy. In regard to fiscal policy it needs to look at its social security and social welfare programs. It needs to look at health. It needs to look at the waste and duplication. Whether it be the payout of over $1m for International Year of Peace projects, Priority One, the Community Employment Program, the drugs program, or the expansion of the public sector, waste and duplication are the highlights of these glossy, much publicised, self-promoting programs of this Government. So it is not true to say that this Government runs a tight ship. It is a Government bloated by excesses and unnecessary expenditure. The Government must realise by now, if not some time ago, that Australia's competitiveness in international markets is declining. Sadly, it may well be that by 30 June 1986 our trading deficit will have hit $14 billion. None of us should take any delight in the embarrassment and hardship that that will cause the Government because it means, as a result, that Australia's standard of living is inexorably dropping. The Government needs to realise that the bulk of our export industries, which involve mineral extracts and primary produce, depend heavily on fuel as a means of keeping their prices down. For instance, it is estimated that 40 per cent of off-farm costs-not to mention on-farm costs-are related to fuel. Transport and handling charges are also a major component, but almost half of off-farm costs relate to fuel. It is impossible to exaggerate or overestimate the importance of the price of fuel to our trading industries and thereby our international competitiveness, which by and large sets the standard of living in this country. It is true to say that fuel is not the only factor which relates to our international competitiveness. Obviously, one must look at monetary policy which-it seems to me this has been admitted by most Government members-has been squeezed as far as it can. The result of the monetary policy of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is record high interest rates. That also may well prop up the Australian dollar for the moment, but it is something which adds further to our decline in international competitiveness. We need to look at the wages policy, a rigid and inflexible system which not only hurts our international competitiveness but also shuts out the unemployed, including the young unemployed. In regard to fiscal policy, the Treasurer says that he seeks to achieve $1.4 billion in savings by 30 June. Yet, if Press reports are to be believed, the Government can find savings of only $300m. Our trade promotion is a ridiculous joke. Fuel-the object of the legislation that is before the House-is of paramount importance to this nation, which is basically a trading nation. In my electorate of Gippsland one of the principal towns, and one of the centres of east Gippsland, is, of course, the city of Sale, which all members would know is the centre for the Esso operations in Bass Strait. It is often said that every cloud has a silver lining. Sadly, for the city of Sale, the recent drop in international fuel prices-however marginal it may have been, however unsatisfactory to motorists it may have been and however much it denies them their full entitlement-has meant a tightening of belts at Esso. It means that Esso has shelved the major proportion of its exploration program. This is having an effect on the city of Sale. The city of Sale is not dependent on Esso alone. It has, after all, a Royal Australian Air Force base. It has a number of service industries. It has a very large rural hinterland. Sale will however suffer hardship to a significant degree. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.58) —in reply-I will summarise some of the points that have been made in the debate by restating that this piece of legislation has been introduced to cover what we regard as an exceptional situation. Between the period from January to May-tomorrow being 1 May-the import parity price will have fallen 57 per cent. In January the IPP was $43.71, on 1 March it was $27.09, on 1 April it was $20.99 and the estimated price for tomorrow, 1 May, is $18.90. So from January through March there was a 38 per cent fall, from March to April a 22.5 per cent fall and from April to May a 10 per cent fall. When this happened and Australian producers were stuck with fuel that had been lifted, as they say, during a period of higher IPP, a commitment was given publicly by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in a joint statement in February 1986, that the oil producers would not be stuck with the higher prices. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) asked me a question. He is no longer here but perhaps his friends can pass the answer on to him. He asked for an assurance that what is contemplated in this legislation will not recur. Of course, no categorical assurance can be given. I simply say that stock losses in April and May will be recovered from the market-place; that is, if the Prices Surveillance Authority is persuaded by the industry argument. But the Government certainly does not regard this payment as a precedent. The size of the change, that is, a fall of 57 per cent since January, for which compensation is being paid, is quite beyond the everyday commercial swings and roundabouts. When prices were going up, the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and now the Prices Surveillance Authority did not permit oil companies to increase their wholesale prices until the lower priced stocks had been run down. I simply put it to the House that it would be inequitable, at a time when prices are going down, to force companies to bear the costs attributable to the higher priced stock. Although it may be very difficult to persuade people out in voter land of this, from an international point of view Australia is really delivering comparatively cheap fuel. Of 15 nations listed in a table that I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard, most of them industrialised nations, the cheapest petrol price in terms of Australian cents per litre is in the United States of America where it is 42c a litre. In Australia the figure is 47c-that, of course, is the city price-which is the same as in Canada. The price here is considerably below that of the leaders on the list. In Italy, which is an oil producing nation, the price is 114c; in Japan, which is not an oil producing nation, the price is 110c; in Norway, which is a significant oil producer, the equivalent price is 102c. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- INDICATIVE INTERNATIONAL RETAIL PRICES OF PETROL (a) (Australian cents per litre) (b) Italy... 114 Japan... 110 Norway... 102 France... 91 Austria... 89 Sweden... 88 Netherlands... 81 United Kingdom... 80 Spain... 79 Greece... 75 Federal Republic of Germany... 67 New Zealand... 67 Canada... 47 Australia... 47 United States... 42 (a) Australian prices are indicative for the first week in April. International retail prices are based on latest information received from Australian overseas posts and, for most of the OECD countries, are late March/early April indicative prices. (b) Prices are for the most commonly used grade of petrol in that country at `full-service' prices and have been converted using 1 April 1986 exchange rates. Mr BARRY JONES —But, should the current level of oil prices persist, there would be very serious implications for the oil search industry in this country. It may be better for the consumer in the short term but in the long term it could have very serious effects. If the current level persists, the level of petroleum exploration and development activity will decline substantially below the historically high levels that have been achieved under this Government's policy in the last three years. It is the Government's objective to ensure that the exploration and development industry remains in a healthy state throughout the current period of low prices in order for it to be in a position to respond when prices again rise. The Minister for Resources and Energy has indicated that there will be a review of the Government's petroleum taxation arrangements. The submission that the Minister has received from the industry indicates that the focus of the review should be the replacement of production based taxes with profit based taxes, such as the resource rent tax for off-shore areas and the resource rent royalty for Barrow Island. That in turn means that taxation of on-shore petroleum discoveries through crude oil excise and State and Northern Territory royalties, both essentially production based, require careful examination. I repeat what I have said in some earlier debates on similar subjects, that the current low world oil prices and, perhaps more importantly, the continuing state of uncertainty in the market are beginning to have substantial impact on the petroleum exploration and development plans of companies. I do not mean just here in Australia; I mean globally. Activity is being disrupted as companies wait for some order to return to world oil markets before finalising and implementing revised exploration and development plans. Companies have already deferred some activity because of reduced cash flow and uncertainty about the short to medium term prospects for a recovery in oil prices. On that basis, the Bureau of Mineral Resources has estimated that activity could fall by 40 per cent compared with the record low levels achieved in 1985. I remember when Jean-Claude Paye, the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was here some months ago, he indicated with great apprehension that there would be a very dramatic fall in oil prices world-wide, which at first people would welcome but this would then lead to an even more dramatic fall in the amount of exploration going on, which might then be followed by a series of short, sharp shocks with prices oscillating very rapidly, which could result in profound instability which could have very serious global consequences. I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(6.08) —It is highly unusual for the House to have to retrace its steps and to debate legislation of this nature. In the past we have had ministerial laws and regulations and matters relating to customs and excise, tariffs and so forth regularly before the House. But it is quite extraordinary that tonight we are debating once again, as we did in May 1984, legislation to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act. However, there is a significant difference. When the House debated the original legislation, it was for an interim protection; in other words, the legislation contained a sunset clause. Under that provision, which was passed by the House, it was proposed that the legislation would cease to operate as of 24 June 1986. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, was the Minister who introduced the original legislation. Back in May 1984 he emphasised that the very essence of the legislation was its interim character. It had been introduced into the House principally to make up the difference between a gap, as the Government then saw it, in the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites and Aboriginal property and the fact that there was no land rights legislation at the Federal level. It must be remembered that this Labor Government went to the people at the last election, and the first election at which it was endorsed by the nation, with a clear and concise policy for national Aboriginal land rights. No member of this House, and I certainly know that no member of the Aboriginal communities throughout Australia, will ever forget the commitments which were made by this Minister and by his Government and which have now been totally abrogated. I think it is significant that, when that interim legislation was initially brought in, it was essentially as a means of enabling the parliamentary Australian Labor Party and, in particular, the Minister, to go to the forthcoming Australian Labor Party National Conference and say: `Ladies and gentlemen, we have done something specific. Yes, it is only interim legislation, but we have filled the gap. We have kept our promise'. I think it is most interesting that here we are, almost two years later to the month, debating once again exactly the same legislation because the Minister, once again, having failed to put into place his national Aboriginal land rights legislation, is desperately looking for a cork to put in his political bottle so that he can go off to the July conference and say: `All is well. I have a marvellous deal with all the States. I do not have a national Aboriginal land rights legislation but I have the next best thing. Everything is marvellous and, to boot, we also have the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legislation covering their heritage and it is in place for all time'. I want to go on record as emphasising the fact that the coalition parties, both in government and in opposition, have continually made clear their concern for the need to protect significant sacred sites. We believe that there is equally a need to preserve the integrity of Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal history. It was specifically for that reason that the Northern Territory's land rights legislation, which is the responsibility of this Parliament unlike so-called national legislation, includes specific references for the protection of Aboriginal sites. Regrettably, the Bill before the House does not refer to sacred sites and the areas around them which may need to be protected. I am shocked that the opportunity which was afforded the Minister and the Government to amend seriously this legislation to achieve the very objectives which the Minister claimed were built in has not been taken. As I said earlier, we have the shortest explanatory memorandum I have ever seen attached to any Bill introduced into this chamber. Essentially, all it consists of is the removal of the word `interim' and repealing section 33 which limited the duration of the present Act to two years. This was an opportunity which has been missed. When the Minister could have looked at the major problems which the legislation has failed to address he could have considered, for example, the fact that there was a lack of definition of a significant Aboriginal area in the Bill; that there are no guidelines to define such an area; and, equally, that there are no limits on the size of such an area as gazetted. Aboriginals are not required to demonstrate traditional affiliation with the area under application. Certainly there is gross, excessive, discretionary ministerial power on the influences and effect on entry and on land use. This, in turn, is demonstrated by the Bill's lack of appropriate cover of inadequate notification and review procedures and no compensation provisions. Perhaps the most significant point of all is that is overrides State powers. In fact, when we go further we see that it unnecessarily supplements existing State and Federal legislation. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister is well aware of the record on this matter. Every State of the Commonwealth now has in place Aboriginal heritage legislation. It may not be exactly the same and often that is for very sound reasons because conditions do vary State by State. In Queensland, for example, we have the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act. In the Northern Territory we have the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. In Western Australia we have the Aboriginal Heritage Act and the same title applies to the legislation in South Australia. In Tasmania we have the Aboriginal Relics Act, in Victoria the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act and in New South Wales the National Parks and Wildlife Act. I show the Minister almost an inch of legislation on the books of the various Australian parliaments-legislation which adequately covers precisely the subjects which allegedly were the reasons why this legislation was put on the statute books some two years ago. Yet the Minister has failed utterly to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Opposition why there is a need to continue this legislation in its current form, having made no attempt whatsoever to redefine, redirect or improve what was at that stage a grossly unsatisfactory Bill. The only reason is clear; it is a political reason. It is a last desperate effort to say to the Aboriginal people: `Okay, we failed to get in place national land rights but at least we are doing something to protect your heritage'. It is a sleight of hand. It is little more than an advertising gimmick, but one more gimmick of a government which, in the last year in particular, has approached all its policy issues and problems through gimmickry. But the Aboriginal people of Australia are not fools. They know the difference between a government that is genuine and serious about its intentions and one which believes that it can overcome problems by stratagems of this nature. For that reason the Government's manifest weaknesses and failures in its policy towards Aboriginal people will carry far more weight than the mere simplistic approach that it has taken to the reintroduction of this legislation. I shall not be introducing amendments to the Bill in this House, but the Opposition will certainly be moving them in the other place. It is important that the opportunity be taken in the House of review to try to solve some of these essential weaknesses that I have already outlined which are contained in this legislation. Nevertheless, the Opposition will certainly be voting against this legislation in this chamber, as we did when it was originally introduced, and obviously for exactly the same reasons. As I have said, the Act was initially introduced as an interim measure to fill what the Government claimed to be a legislative gap pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation dealing with Aboriginal land rights and heritage protection. All that is history; it has all passed. The Government's record stands and it stands condemned. The opposition to the legislation has been manifestly obvious. We have had opposition from the Australian Mining Industry Council, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, the Australian Archaeological Association, Aboriginal communities and many others. When the legislation was originally introduced, the Minister's response was to send copies of the Bill to the States and other interested parties, virtually at the eleventh hour, and present them with nothing more than a fait accompli. I have no doubt that he well remembers the fact that he was swamped at that time in criticism of this legislation. But let him not think that the relative silence on this occasion represents anything except the fact that most people are unaware that the Bill is being reintroduced in this form in the chamber tonight. The criticisms which were voiced so clearly then remain today as real as they were on that occasion. As I said earlier, regrettably the Minister has failed to take this opportunity to consider the substance of those issues and to bring to the House a responsible set of amendments to the original Bill. For that reason we remain opposed to this legislation. The development of the legislation, characterised as it has been by secrecy, insensitivity and virtually a total lack of concentration is but typical of the Government's approach to most Aboriginal matters. The legislation was rejected by the Cabinet when the Minister first brought it forward. Unfortunately it was ultimately passed. The indecent haste with which it was introduced then and the total inability of the Minister to make the necessary amendments now have brought into question whether the Minister and this Government are in the slightest bit interested in meaningful discussion and consultation with anybody about legislation of this type. As I said, it has to be seen in the context of the gross political failure of the Government in putting into legislative form the promises and commitments it made to the Aboriginal people in relation to land rights. We have warned the Government for three years that in a federation one has to live with political realities, that land management is essentially a State responsibility. But no, the Government knew better. It could ignore all of that. It proceeded with a totally irrational approach which ultimately saw the entire legislative package founder on the rocks of its own incompetence. Our most fundamental objection to this legislation is that it usurps the responsibilities which the States have already more than adequately provided for. All the States and the Northern Territory have legislation which protects Aboriginal cultural heritage. In New South Wales we see an interesting illustration of this. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 protects sites in New South Wales. Its major provisions are that it protects relics and Aboriginal places. Anyone who discovers a relic, whether it is the property of the Crown or not, must report it to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is illegal to disturb, damage or destroy a relic or Aboriginal place without the Director's prior written consent. Then there is the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which requires a review of environmental factors or, in many cases, an environmental impact statement prior to development. It also provides a mechanism for local and regional environmental planning. That process enables the Service to advise local councils on the existence of and management requirements for any sites in their areas. In addition to that, there is the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, which allows for claims on vacant crown land not needed for essential public purposes. But it does not protect sites, nor does it allow them to be claimed by Aborigines. All the States and the Northern Territory have similar legislation which adequately protects Aboriginal sites. This is more than adequately demonstrated by the fact that the Acts have been used at the Federal level only once. Surely the question the Minister has failed to answer is why Federal legislation in this area is necessary in view of the coverage already provided by the States. The Opposition believes that adequate Commonwealth legislation also renders the Act of little value. The Minister will recall when he introduced recently into this House the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985 which the Opposition was pleased to support. It also gave adequate protection not only to Aboriginal but to all Australian movable cultural heritage. This Bill duplicates the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 which provides for the protection of sites of Aboriginal significance. The Opposition believes that the Government is acting outside its constitutional authority. It must be remembered that until the 1967 referendum the Commonwealth was denied the power to legislate in relation to Aborigines. The yes case for the referendum was unequivocal in stating that the power would be used only in consultation with the States. Yet, legislation of this type manifestly and obviously contains no effective consultation. There has been no change to the way in which the Minister either in 1984 or now has approached this legislation. When the legislation was initially introduced the States were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the Bill. For example, Mr Wilson, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Western Australian Labor Government said: The State Government was not convinced and it remains unconvinced of the need for this legislation. It continues to have doubts and concerns about the lack of consultation between the State Government and the Commonwealth with respect to this matter. There are a number of defects in the Act which was very badly drawn up as a stop-gap measure and which is now being permitted to continue in this most unsatisfactory manner. The most fundamental defect is in section 4 which sets out the purposes of the Act. It states: The purposes of the Act are the preservation and protection from injury or desecration of areas and objects in Australia and in Australian waters, being areas and objects that are of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aborigine tradition. This provision is important because the Act leaves a great deal of discretion in the hands of the Minister. He has no obligation to balance any other interests against those of the Aborigines. Whilst there is provision in the legislation for those who wish to make nominations to note any other interests, there is no provision in the Act which requires that those considerations be taken into account, nor is there any provision which enables the review of the Minister's decision to give other people who may be so influenced the opportunity to present their case. All we are told is that once the Minister is satisfied that a significant Aboriginal area or object is under threat of destruction or injury the Minister has a total unfettered discretion to issue a declaration to prevent that injury occurring regardless of competing interests. Another defect of the Act is the unsatisfactory definition of the word `Aboriginal', which we are told means a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia and includes descendants of the indigenous inhabitants of the Torres Strait Islands. But there is no provision in the original Act which draws a distinction between what may be the view of an Aboriginal community on the one hand in relation to the protection of an area of relevance to the community and, on the other hand, the position which may be adopted by individual Aboriginals or even a group of Aboriginals working outside the agreed position of the community. Yet, as the legislation stands, even an individual Aboriginal has the right to come forward and claim that there has been a breach or a possible breach of an interest which that person as an individual may claim to have, irrespective of the position taken by the community which he may be a member of. These are essential issues which the Minister should have approached and should have been prepared to consider in relation to amendments to this legislation. But, as I said, the effort was not made and the Minister has had the temerity to come into this chamber and ask us to extend this dubious piece of legislation simply as a means of getting him off the hot seat at the next July conference of the Australian Labor Party. Section 3 of the Act defines whether an area should be considered under threat and makes frequent reference to the need for the Minister to pay attention to Aboriginal tradition. Section 3 (1) defines `Aboriginal tradition' as `the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or a particular community of Aboriginals and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships'. But this definition does not require that tradition or belief should have any religious or mystical basis whatsoever and any belief held by any group of Aborigines would apparently seem capable of forming part of Aboriginal tradition for the purposes of this Act. Frankly, this is a dubious definition. I refer to sacred sites, a term not used in the legislation-I emphasise that point-but clearly one of the most important elements of the issue of land rights. A site may be declared sacred and may well be sacred while there are Aboriginals who believe that site is sacred, but with the effluxion of time and the loss of traditions we will probably reach the stage when subsequent generations will say: `That site was sacred to my ancestors' and the archaelogists may well say: `That site is an archaeological site of significance'. However, we are running the very real risk of presuming that a site is sacred indefinitely when there are no living communities in that vicinity which accept that the site does have that sacredness and traditional relevance to that community. Traditional relevance by itself is not necessarily an indication of sacredness. These are very important issues; they are issues which are often difficult for a Western educated person to fully grasp. If there is an attempt to put them into legislative form, it is the responsibility of a government to try to get it right. I am intrigued as to why this legislation, which talks about areas, does not mention the term `sacred sites'. The legislation is opposed by the Opposition because it is also confrontationist. As I have said, the Minister has the power, in clause 9, to override State control, and such intervention by the Federal Minister would be an obstacle to consultation and resolution of sacred sites issues between Aboriginals and State governments. It serves to further confuse and complicate the procedures for achieving protection of areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginal communities. The confusion and the conflict inherent in competing Federal, State and Territory heritage laws are obviously wasteful of both public and private resources and a further example of excessive government regulation. The competing interests of heritage protection and economic development are not going to pass; they are with us. The States, through their own legislative processes have achieved a modicum of success in facing this difficulty. Yet here we see the Commonwealth, by a back door, essentially by a political strategy, trying to apply at the eleventh hour the continuation of some Federal jurisdiction which, up to now, it has failed to apply in respect of a national approach to Aboriginal land rights. The legislation has a far broader application than sacred sites as it relates to the protection of significant Aboriginal areas, but there is no definition in the Bill as to what an area really means. The Bill fails to define guidelines upon which the Minister is supposed to assess the significance of an area. Surely this is a dubious element of this legislation which the Minister has a duty to fully explain to this House. Under the legislation the Minister has the power to prohibit people from entering the land or to limit its use in a manner that amounts to acquisition; yet there is no proposal that the land be purchased by the Commonwealth and there is no proposal that compensation should be paid by the Commonwealth. However, the legislation does propose that it is the responsibility of the owner of that land to fence it, to protect it and to keep everybody else out; and, at the end of the day, he can say: `I have nothing. I have lost whatever economic usage I may have had for this land simply because this Commonwealth legislation has put the onus of protection on me and has left no responsibility on the Commonwealth'. Clearly, the compensation provisions underlined in the Constitution are real and if the Crown, through its government, wishes to reduce the capacity of individual or corporate citizens to utilise their land I think there is a responsibility on the government of the day to see that adequate compensation is paid. There is no limit to the land that can be claimed under the legislation and, to this degree, it could be used as surrogate land rights legislation. I have emphasised that throughout my speech. I deeply believe that is the political purpose of the decision by this Minister to remove the sunset clause from the Bill. The legislation also suffers from inadequate review procedures for ministerial declarations and the excessive discretionary powers which have been awarded to the Minister. The legislation applies to all land and there is no adequate protection of private interests. Surely this was an opportunity for the Government to let the interim Act expire, to make significant amendments to it or at least to have the decency to continue with the interim arrangements for a period of, say, another two years. None of those alternatives was seriously considered. As I said, for political reasons we are now debating this legislation for the second time. The extension of the Bill has the potential to adversely affect all land owners including pastoralists, farmers, miners and even urban populations by depriving them of access to or use of their properties without, as I said, adequate compensation. It is important that the first attempt to use the Act, in the Harding River controversy, proved that the legislation was badly drawn and would result in great conflict. Western Australian Aboriginals placed an application under the Act to stop the construction of a $13m dam. The application was made when the dam was two-thirds completed-not at the beginning and not when the plans were prepared-which clearly demonstrated that the national interest had been ignored by those who proceeded to use this legislation clearly for political ends. At that stage the white advisers of the Aboriginal Legal Service complained on behalf of two of the tribes involved. The application was rejected by the Department as an application should have been made prior to construction reaching the stage of ultimate finality. It is significant that the Act has engendered a number of frivolous and vexatious claims. These include the Stradbroke Island mining application of July 1984 by Judith Wright to stop small sand mining leases on an island that had already been extensively mined. The Daintree application was rejected because no significant site was under immediate threat or injury. An application was made to stop the Swan River boat ramp and gas pipeline due to the belief that a mythical serpent lived in a cave under the river. Fortunately this claim was also rejected. We can only be thankful that the Minister has rejected all but one of the applications and that the Minister has had only one opportunity to exercise his unfettered discretion-and even then it was rather dubious. The history of the Act raises further issues about the possibility of exploitation, particularly by white extremists as in the Harding River dam case. The extent of ministerial discretion is simply too great. It is not acceptable that persons potentially adversely affected by its application have no protection from the ministerial whim. It is significant that out of 21 applications made under the legislation all but one have been settled outside of a ministerial declaration. The one application that required a declaration was over the sale of sacred items at a Sotheby's auction in 1985. It is worth noting that of the collection, which would now be covered by the subsequent legislation, lot 198 was referred to by the Sotheby's gentleman as follows: The Government should be better informed concerning the rarity of such items. Had it been so, it would not have mistakenly included an item from Vanuatu . . . in the injunction. The Government's approach to the protection of Australia's heritage is therefore largely limited to rhetoric. It seems that it has great difficulty in having legislation which is effective and at the same time protects Australian States rights. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(6.39) —As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) indicated in his second reading speech, the effect of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill will be to make permanent an interim scheme to protect the heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This will be achieved by repealing section 33 of the existing legislation, the sunset clause of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984. That legislation was introduced on an interim basis to preserve and protect places, areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginals and for related purposes. I believe it is relevant to note that 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. As the Minister indicated in his second reading speech, the recording of the location of Aboriginal sites is simply one step towards later possible decisions as to which sites are to be protected. The basis for such decisions in the Northern Territory, for example, has normally centred on issues relating to university research on Aboriginal matters, although on other occasions such decisions appear to have been based on the aesthetic and educative value of the site. This applies particularly to rock art sites. There is a clear indication within our community that Aboriginals and Islanders want a commitment that areas and objects which are particularly significant to them will be preserved and protected. One important aspect of the legislation now under debate is that it provides a means whereby Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can have decisions by State and Territory governments reviewed. The legislation gives the Commonwealth authority to bring affected parties together to conciliate, mediate and negotiate in order to remove the 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. A scrutiny of the provisions of the existing legislation, particularly sections 9 and 10, shows that they are clear in their intent: The declarations can be made by the Minister only where he is satisfied that either the area or the object is a significant one. I emphasise `significant'. Without in any way suggesting that there are weaknesses within the legislation as it now exists, it is important to note that during the period of almost two years that it has been in existence it has not been necessary to make any declarations in respect of areas. However, the Minister has on one occasion used such a declaration in relation to significant objects. Notwithstanding that on 21 June 1985 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made a declaration in respect of a number of significant Aboriginal objects which were held by Sotheby's of Sydney for the purpose of sale by auction, negotiations continued between the auctioneer and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and subsequently on 29 July, some six weeks later, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council confirmed that it had acquired the objects. The fact that this issue was satisfactorily resolved, as was the case with many other applications, is clear evidence that the legislation is generally operating satisfactorily. To date 21 applications have been made under the provisions of the legislation. Seventeen of the applications sought protection for significant areas perceived as being under threat of desecration; two related to the protection of skeletal remains and sought the return of those remains to the Aboriginal community; and the final two sought protection of significant objects. The issue to which I have already referred is the only action on which the Minister found it necessary to make a declaration. When this legislation first came before the House back in May 1984 strong objection was taken to it by such organisations as the Australian Mining Industry Council, the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. They were supported in their objection quite strenuously by many of those opposite. It is interesting to note in hindsight some of the observations made in May 1984 by members of the National Party of Australia. I quote from Hansard what the shadow spokesman for Aboriginal affairs at the time, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), said in this House: The next question is what area of land can the Minister declare under this legislation. In fact he can use this Bill as if it were land rights legislation and make a declaration as to unlimited areas of land within Australia. He went on further to say: Not only is all land claimable under this legislation but there is no limit on the amount of land that can be claimed. Of course it has been shown since that Aboriginal and Islander people are responsible in making applications under the legislation and that the Minister in his role has been likewise responsible in assessing whether the criterion of significance to Aboriginals has been made out, and that is important in this regard as the key aspect of this legislation is the criterion of significance to Aboriginals rather than to other sectors of the community. So the predictions of gloom cast over this legislation by the honourable member for Barker at the time of its introduction into the House have not eventuated, but if the rantings of the honourable member have been proved to have no base, they pale into insignificance compared to the comments made by none other than the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) during that same debate. The Deputy Leader of the National Party made reference to the legislation in the following terms: The draconian provisions in this legislation vest in the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs extraordinary powers over the property rights of Australian citizens and in this society they are precious and important rights. These property rights range from a farm to a suburban allotment to a mine on a mining tenement. This legislation has the potential to inflame racial differences between Australians, black and white, and in certain areas could cause a racial backlash against Aboriginal people. He went on further to say: This legislation affects or could affect many Australians. I believe it is an attack on our most cherished democratic right; that is, the property right of people. This legislation is riddled with blatant attacks on the rights of Australian people. The powers of the Minister to make declarations on sites and objects are retrospective. He is unfettered in applying these powers to existing farmland-- the farms come in for special mention again- farm buildings, mines and all other objects on any land. Now that the assumptions raised by so many of those opposite in the initial debate have been shown to be totally baseless, as a matter of fairness they should support the Bill before the House. Nowhere in Australia has farmland been affected, mining properties resumed or houses repossessed, and in fact no claim has been either made or acknowledged on the Melbourne Cricket Ground or the Sydney Opera House, as was adverted to at the time by another honourable member opposite, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). The value of such legislation-that is, the reserve power in the Commonwealth-is readily apparent. A number of States have commenced reviewing their legislation and determination of matters such as how decisions on protection and management are taken. Aboriginal communities themselves are considering with greater care what is to be preserved and why, and are in a responsible manner seeking to extend these matters in a way which conveys wide respect and will gain support in our community. The preservation and protection of significant Aboriginal areas and objects, as now formally recognised, is a response to the views of many parts of the community and not simply the view of the Government. This legislation will allow for reasonable, rational and responsible implementation of such a process. In conclusion, I make reference to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It is clear from the tenor of his contribution to this debate that those opposite would not be in favour of implementing any legislation whatsoever if they were ever to be in government to protect the rights of Aboriginals. It is another indication of their stepping back from their responsibilities. The previous speaker, in speaking at such length in relation to possible amendments when it was quite clear that the Opposition would not introduce amendments, was trying only to mislead the Aboriginal community. As I said, it is interesting to note, and it should be placed on the record, that those opposite see no reason for such legislation. I believe that they are to be condemned for taking such an approach. It is with pleasure and with no hesitation that I commend the Bill to the House. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(6.50) —I cannot speak for the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), but the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) reads me aright if he believes that at least I on this side of the House am not in favour of such legislation. When this matter first came before this chamber, complete with a sunset clause, in May 1984 the legislation caused a lengthy and acrimonious debate which lasted until the early hours of the morning. Mr Hand —It need not because everything you said was wrong. Mr EVERINGHAM —Why don't you sit down and bag your head. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr EVERINGHAM —At that time honourable members on this side of the House warned that such high-handed Commonwealth action would cause disunity. Mr Hand —Everything you said was wrong and it will be wrong again. Mr EVERINGHAM —Oh, go plant yourself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr EVERINGHAM —We on this side of the House warned that this high handed Commonwealth action would cause disunity and resentment between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has sought to confuse that issue by deliberately misrepresenting the Opposition's stand in his remarks to this House, claiming that the Opposition predicted that there would be thousands of applications under the relevant Act. I was not in the House at the time, but I have checked the record and can find no reference to such a claim. The Minister, adopting his unique moral stance on matters politic, revealed during the inquiry into Richmond City Council, has again sought to win his case by misrepresentation. The facts are that this Government was warned then-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will stick to the legislation and will not cast aspersions on other members of the House. The Standing Orders provide that the Chair should intervene. Will the honourable member withdraw the remarks he made about the Minister? I think he should. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, what remarks are complained about? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not required that the Minister object. The Chair has an obligation to see that decorum reigns in the House. Will the honourable member withdraw? Mr EVERINGHAM —Could I be advised, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the remarks? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member can take my advice and withdraw and then he can get on with what he wants to say. Mr EVERINGHAM —What should I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do not play word games with me. The honourable member knows what he is required to withdraw. Mr EVERINGHAM —I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what I am requested to withdraw. Mr Holding —Perhaps I can assist. I take objection to the use of the words `peculiar political morality' and ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw them and get on with it. Mr EVERINGHAM —Unique political morality- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will withdraw. Mr EVERINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am afraid I will not withdraw those words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for the Northern Territory places the Chair and himself in a most difficult position if he does not withdraw. I think it would be in the best interest of both the honourable member and the House if the honourable member withdrew and then continued with his contribution. Mr EVERINGHAM —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am not prepared to withdraw those words. They were said in a considered fashion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Standing Orders provide that the Chair shall intervene when members cast aspersions on other members. When the Chair does that and calls upon a member to withdraw, the usual practice is that the member withdraws. If the member does not withdraw, the Chair is then placed in the invidious position of having to deal with the member. I do not think that I would like the honourable member for the Northern Territory to be the first person that I put out of the House. I would ask him not to put me in that position. I ask him to withdraw and then he can continue with his remarks. Mr EVERINGHAM —I said those words in a considered fashion and I therefore feel unable to withdraw them. I see absolutely no reason why they can be taken exception to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has taken exception to the remarks made by the honourable member. The Chair has asked the honourable member to withdraw. Mr Holding —I rise on a point of order which might assist the honourable member. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to indicate to the honourable member that if any member finds a remark offensive and asks for it to be withdrawn, it is within the Standing Orders that it be so withdrawn. I therefore suggest that the honourable member, who is new to this House, comply with the Standing Orders and avail himself of that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member withdraw or not? Mr EVERINGHAM —I will not withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the honourable member for the Northern Territory be suspended from the service of the House A division having being called for and the bells having been rung- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, in an endeavour to avert what will otherwise flow, I shall draw to the attention of the House the words used by the honourable member for the Northern Territory and ask for the indulgence of the Minister as there may have been a misunderstanding. I now have those words and I wonder whether they could be put to the House. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs may appreciate the manner in which they were put and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, may be prepared to vacate your naming of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The problem the Chair has is that the Chair asked the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw the remarks and he consistently-one would think it could have been in a considered manner-indicated that he would not heed the advice given to him when called upon by the Chair, which then put the Chair in an invidious position in that, rather than being a matter of responding to the remarks of the Minister, the honourable member for the Northern Territory has now decided that he will not heed the remarks of the Chair. I have pointed out to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the last thing I want to do is to suspend him. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory would like to put a point to the House, the Minister may not proceed with the naming. I think the easiest way out for everyone is for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw the remarks and continue with his contribution. That would get us over this rather ridiculous impasse and allow the honourable member to continue with his remarks and the House to get about its business. Does the honourable member for the Northern Territory wish to comment? Mr Everingham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have made my attitude quite clear. I cannot withdraw those remarks that the Minister has a unique moral stance. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory has made his position quite clear. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, will you please hear me on the point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair will hear the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is a very simple one: If the words used by the honourable member for the Northern Territory are not unparliamentary, there is no power to suspend him. I am aware of the convention about withdrawal. I see that the Special Minister of State is in the chamber. In the interests of averting what would be a wrong ruling, I put to you that the words that he used to indicate that they are not unparliamentary, and therefore the honourable member cannot be suspended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison would be well aware by now that it has gone past the stage of the Chair making rulings. It has got to the stage where the honourable member for the Northern Territory, for reasons which may be best known to him, has decided to defy the Chair on the matter. I will now put the question. Mr Hodgman —A point of order again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison is out of order and will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, I request the right to put the point of order. An honourable member is entitled not to withdraw when he has not breached the Standing Orders, and he has not breached the Standing Orders. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House is in the middle of a division. It is not competent for honourable members to make points of order in the course of a division. The Chair was trying to provide the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the House with a way out of the impasse. I now put the question. Question put. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Dubios, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. 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. (Teller)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. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M. Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodges, J. C. Beale, J. H. Hodgman, W. M. Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. 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 Watson, DavidGoodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Hurford, C. J. Shipton, R. F. Darling, E. E. Wilson, I. B. C. Campbell, G. Fisher, Peter Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours in accordance with standing order 305. The honourable member for the Northern Territory thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr Reith —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice as to what the practice of this House ought to be or should be. In so doing I draw attention to standing order 78 which reads: When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to words used, he shall determine whether or not they are offensive or disorderly. I also respectfully draw your attention to page 459 of House of Representatives Practice which refers to the fact that the determination as to whether words used in the House are offensive or disorderly rests with the Chair. My query follows from the practice just adopted by you which essentially was to accept the definition of `disorderly or offensive' as alleged by a member and to proceed without the Chair himself or herself making a declaration. It seems that that places a flaw in the procedure we have just adopted. It would be of considerable advantage to members if the practice of this House could conform to the Standing Orders, and I seek your declaration on it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not raising a point of order; he is seeking advice from the Chair. If the honourable member further reads the Standing Orders, he will find that the Chair does not give advice. I call the honourable member for Lowe. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(7.11) —Tonight we are dealing with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. Several years ago in this House we had an extensive debate on the original Bill, which contained a sunset provision. Tonight the House has heard from other speakers, particularly from the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), on the workings of this interim legislation and how only one order was ever made under the legislation, and how that order was to protect certain Aboriginal historical items and artefacts that were coming up for auction in Sydney. I feel it is quite significant that all of the hysteria that came forth in the original debate some years ago was proved to be wrong; that there were no outrageous, mischievous and nuisance claims or allegations. In fact, the legislation has worked very well. Tonight the Bill is being debated so that it can become a permanent piece of legislation to give the Minister responsibility for protecting items that are of great historical significance to Aboriginal Australians and items that are irreplaceable. I was sorry to hear the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who led for the Opposition, say that the States could cover this area. This legislation before the House tonight is certainly in the nature of an appeal court; it sets up an appeal court where the Aboriginal community can take their complaints if they are not happy with what the States are doing. There have been, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said in his second reading speech, a number of instances where Aboriginal communities have come to the Federal Government and there has been negotiation. Various complaints have been handed to me and I have copies of them. The Albury and District Aboriginal Land Council sought protection of a burial site near Albury. That burial site was to be used as a quarry. Any Australian who knew that his forebears were buried in a certain area, perhaps in an old cemetery, and who heard that the cemetery was to be bulldozed and turned into some sort of sporting arena or something like that would complain and object. Why should not Aboriginal Australians come forward and complain to ensure that their burial sites, perhaps where their forebears have been for hundreds if not thousands of years, are buried, reserved as important areas for them? The Opposition says that the whole issue should be left to the States. On 27 May 1967 the Australian people in a rather extraordinary and overwhelming fashion gave the Commonwealth jurisdiction over all Aboriginal affairs. Much to the surprise of everyone who had been involved in public life at that time a referendum was passed. The feeling was that the Australian people would vote against anything put up to them. On that occasion two questions were put to the Australian people: One was to break the nexus between this House and the Senate, which was overwhelmingly rejected. At the same referendum the Australian people voted to hand over all powers in constitutional matters, in all matters relating to Aborigines, to the Federal Government. Yet tonight we have the Opposition putting forward an extraordinarily weak argument that these matters should be looked after by the States. The Australian people have spoken on that issue, and let us have nothing further in that direction. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in his second reading speech has highlighted the actual nature of the legislation. A key aspect of the legislation is the criterion of significance to Aboriginals rather than to other sectors of the community. The nature of the legislation is to give the Minister power to protect the areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginals which are under threat of injury or desecration. It does not replace existing State or Territory laws, but is designed to be used where those laws are not providing-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.15) —Recently a document was delivered not only to my office but also to all offices of members of this Parliament. I might say that it is quite a scurrilous document and one in which I figure quite prominently, as do my colleagues the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). Why, might I ask, do we three members figure quite prominently in this document? It is because we have had the audacity to stand up and talk for a persecuted and a tortured minority in the world today. That minority is the Tamils of Sri Lanka. The three of us have spoken up on this matter. Surprisingly, a group in Queensland-a very shadowy and strange group, I might say-called the Queensland Association for Sri Lankan Unity has taken offence at what the honourable member for Lowe, the honourable member for Hotham and I have said. The members of this group, I suppose at great expense to themselves, have produced this document. One might well ask where the funding came from to produce this document in which the three of us figure quite prominently. In the document the group talks about the coverage that the Tamil minority receives in this country and hints that the Tamils are being very well funded. If the Tamil minority had been so well funded and had received wide publicity, there would be no need for members of this House to draw attention to the denial of human rights and the atrocities that are being committed against these people. I have never before had such attention devoted to any of my speeches in this House. Members of this group have gone through various adjournment speeches I have made. They have actually analysed them. They have also republished some correspondence I exchanged with them. They have very selectively quoted from my speeches, as they have selectively quoted what I wrote to them. If honourable members care to look at copies of Hansard they will see that when I speak on the Tamil situation I always say that I will always condemn violence wherever it occurs and will always speak up against the denial of human rights, whoever may be denying them. The members of this group did not bother mentioning that in this document. They also seemed to take offence at something I said when I called on the Sri Lankan High Commission to stop its stooges-I repeat, to stop its stooges-photographing Tamil people protesting against the denial of human rights in Sri Lanka. They ask where this has occurred. I will tell them where it has occurred. It has occurred at the last three meetings of the Australian Labor Party at annual conferences in Sydney, at which I have organised Tamil groups to hand out literature. It did not happen last year because the preceding three years the stooges directed by the Sri Lankan High Commission here in Canberra had arranged for these people to be photographed. They were mostly students in this country. I do not know what the Sri Lankan High Commission does with these photographs, but they were probably sent back to Sri Lanka where these people have families. One may well ask what will be the fate of these families. I repeat that this group quotes very selectively. It does not mention anyone who is in favour of the Sri Lankan Government, but it goes on to make a serious attack on Amnesty International. Many members of this House are members of the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International. I find it outrageous that this shadowy group in Queensland should attack a world-wide organisation devoted to the protection of human rights in the way that it has. Far from silencing me, such attacks will only strengthen my resolve to continue to speak out for the persecuted minority-that is, the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. Rather than silencing me, they have only strengthened my resolve to speak out, and I will continue to speak out while ever the denial of basic human rights continues in Sri Lanka. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.20) —We are living in most difficult times. I feel constrained to speak tonight in this Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia and to make the comment that, in view of recent events, there is no doubt in my mind that Indonesia regards our current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a 1986 version of Neville Chamberlain. For some ten years in this Parliament I have warned and warned again that a policy of appeasement of Indonesia will not work. I believe our Prime Minister and the Government must now clearly understand that a policy of appeasement of Indonesia will not work and that he who licks the boots eventually and inevitably gets kicked in the face. The Prime Minister's outrage over current issues is most commendable. I refer specifically to the outrageous action of Indonesia in cancelling the tourist visas of Australians who were scheduled to travel to Bali last week and the more recent action of the Indonesian Government within the last 24 hours of refusing entry to Indonesia of two Australian-born but Washington-based reporters travelling with the Press entourage of President Reagan. Whilst I concede that the Prime Minister's outrage over current issues is most commendable, I must ask rhetorically: Where was his outrage over the slaughter of over 150,000 innocent East Timorese by Indonesian military butchers, right on Australia's back doorstep, less than half an hour's flying time by military aircraft from Darwin? I believe the Prime Minister must now demand that Indonesian strongman, the armed force commander, General Benny Murdani, unequivocally withdraw his provocative statement that Indonesia would certainly take further retaliatory steps in reaction to the Sydney Morning Herald article. For the information of the Prime Minister and of the House I now refer to a report which appeared in the Straits Times, a Singapore newspaper, of 22 April. The remarks of General Murdani are found in an article by Yang Razali Kassim, the Jakarta correspondent of the Straits Times. The heading reads: `Row over Sydney Morning Herald articles-Murdani blasts Aussie paper'. The story is by Yang Razali Kassim, Jakarta correspondent, and was filed in Jakarta. I will read the article to the point which I think will emphasise how serious the situation has now become. It reads: Armed forces commander General Benny Murdani has broken his silence to condemn the Sydney Morning Herald for interfering in the internal affairs of Indonesia. Press reports quoted the tough-talking military chief as saying that `we are deeply hurt and very offended' by the Herald's articles which alleged corruption by President Suharto. Mr Deputy Speaker, the next words are important: The general confirmed-- I repeat that this article is dated 22 April-- that Indonesia `would certainly' take further retaliatory steps in reaction to the offending articles. The reports did not elaborate. General Murdani issued his broadside while attending a military ceremony in Yogyakarta, a city that in 1948 had to be heavily defended by the army of the then infant Indonesian Republic against a Dutch attempt to retake the country. The general described the Herald's articles as a smear campaign against the head of state and his family. Mr Deputy Speaker, listen to these words: Comparing this attempt to the Dutch attack, Gen. Murdani said: `As in the case of 1948, the Indonesian armed forces also feel obliged to defend the honour of the Indonesian head of state and his family'. So General Murdani is telling the Press of Asia-the Straits Times, one of the most reputable in Asia-that the armed forces of Indonesia stand by, as in 1948, to defend the honour of the Indonesian head of state and his family. If I or any other Australian were to ignore remarks such as those made by General Benny Murdani, strong man of Indonesia and chief of the armed forces, we would do so at our peril and at the peril of the defence of this nation. I think that is a most provocative statement. I call on the Prime Minister of Australia to stand up for this country and demand that General Murdani unequivocally withdraw his remarks and apologise for them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(7.25) —Last Wednesday evening it was my pleasure to attend the annual general meeting of the Leisure Coast Tourist Association Ltd in Wollongong. Tonight, I am very pleased to be able to sing the praises of that organisation, which over the last three years has gone a great deal of the way to ensuring that the tourist potential of the Illawarra region has been recognised not only within the Illawarra but also in the wider sphere. It has also been a driving force behind stimulating the development of tourist activities on the coast, as my friend the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) would no doubt attest. In fact, 1985 has seen the consolidation of the activities of the Leisure Coast Tourist Association. About 1.5m people visited the Leisure Coast during that year and spent something like $150m. The visitors Information Centre located in Wollongong recorded over 54,000 counter inquiries and something like 17,800 telephone inquiries during that year, which represents about a 20 per cent increase over the figures for 1984. Interestingly, it has also been shown that during 1985 the promotion of Wollongong as a conference centre has been most successful. Conference business increased by about 10 per cent over the 1984 figures. Accommodation figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics clearly indicate a very healthy increase of about 51 per cent for the Leisure Coast in the 1984-85 fiscal year. Quite clearly the promotion of the Illawarra region by this organisation has been most spectacular and has been helped by the development of a number of major tourist activities during 1985. I refer also to those that will commence in 1986. Some $3m worth of development is being carried out on the Wollongong Surf Leisure Resort, which is in my electorate. Extensions to Blackbutt Motel in the electorate of the honourable member for Throsby will amount to half a million dollars. The sum of $50,000 is being spent on the Open Hearth Hotel redevelopment at Warrawong. The Macarthur Estate Winery, again within my electorate, is being developed at a cost of $0.5m. Onkel Toms Hutte at Jamberoo, again in the electorate of my friend the honourable member for Throsby, is spending $750,000. That has all happened during 1985. During 1986 we will see the redevelopment of the Fisherman's Co-operative at Belmore Basin at a cost of $1.5m, the development of the Kiama Harbour Side Hotel at a cost of $3.5m,. and Easts Beach Motel in Kiama at a cost of $4.5m. The redevelopment of the Centre Plaza in Crown Street, Wollongong, will cost $4.5m, and so it goes on. Quite clearly, these figures demonstrate that the tourist industry in the South Coast is being well and truly serviced by an influx of capital development, catering purely for tourists who come on day trips from the local area and for those who want to come to the South Coast for an extended period to take advantage of all the marvellous attractions there. We will probably see during the coming year that the facilities that are being developed will increase the attractiveness of our area. In order to promote the area, the Leisure Coast Tourist Association is planning a great number of tourist promotions during 1986. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that during this year there will be an exhibition at Woden Square in Canberra showing all the activities and the various tourist facilities available on the Leisure Coast. I certainly ask all honourable members to take the opportunity to go along and have a look at that exhibition. For so long the image of the Illawarra region has been somewhat detrimental to encouraging tourists and visitors to go there. In recent times we have seen that this has gone well and truly by the board. People who come there see the great benefits of the area. I would like particularly to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Association, Mr Harold Hanson, and his hard working committee members; to the Wollongong City Council, which contributes annually $90,000 for the ongoing costs associated with this Association; and, of course, to all the various local government representatives. Shellharbour Municipal Council has also contributed in a monetary sense, as has Kiama Municipal Council. I pay tribute to all the hard working people on the Association from right across the spectrum of local government representatives, those from private industry and those associated with the tourist industry itself. Mr Hollis —And the local member. Mr MARTIN —Of course, the local members must also be congratulated for their ongoing support for this august body. That has been clearly demonstrated in this report. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(7.30) —It is more with sadness than with anger that I rise to speak about the statement on economic and rural policy presented by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on Tuesday, 15 April. If the Government was ignorant of what is happening in rural Australia I could understand, but not excuse, the Minister for putting out such a policy. But it is not ignorant of the problems and this makes its digressions unforgivable. This Government is prepared to sacrifice rural Australia on the altar of its misguided monetary policy and its need to keep the iniquitous so-called accord in place. In other words, it is willing to consider as its constituents only the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It leaves the rest of the population, including farmers, small business people and those who depend on those groups for a living, to shoulder the load of Government mismanagement on their own. I followed the self-congratulatory though misguided statement of the Minister through its 42 pages. Out of that, only a few paragraphs would have been of interest to rural Australia. Rural Australia is where Australia traditionally gained its character of toughness, resilience and honesty and the code of mateship which means caring for one's neighbour. Obviously, these characteristics have not passed on to the Government of the day. I know that most people in rural Australia are proud people who do not lightly let others know of their problems. But I am sure they will not mind if today I put their cases before the Parliament to show how useless are these latest measures by which the Government will return to them $110m-and take five years to do it-from the $444m that has been taken from them since this Government came to office. Let us look at the first case, which occurred in the Coleambally irrigation area, an area that has been built on hard work and enterprise by many dedicated farmers. I will quote from a letter forwarded by a bank to a young enterprising farmer in the area. It is typical of some of the letters that are being received. It states: I am the Solicitor for the . . .- it names the bank- and I have been instructed to write to you in connection with your failure to comply with the terms of the above notice. I am now to take the legal action necessary to obtain vacant possession of the property being . . . it names the property- and then to submit same for sale at public auction. You are therefore given notice that unless you quit and deliver up possession of the property within 14 days of the date hereof, steps will be taken to have you ejected according to law. I would warn you against removing or in any way interfering with fixtures or fittings on the property as the Bank is entitled to same under and by virtue of its mortgage. The keys of the dwelling should be handed to the Manager of the Bank's . . . It then names the branch. How many members of the Government who have young families have received an eviction notice to quit a property that has taken years of their parents' and their own toil to obtain? I will bet that not many of these Bollinger socialists have been in that position. Prior to receiving this notice, the young farmer had written to the Minister asking for help. In his reply the Minister blamed everything except the Government's heavy taxes and charges and its artificially propped up interest rates. I wonder how impressed my friend in Coleambally is with the latest 42-page statement by the Minister. Another young couple north of Griffith who are in financial trouble approached me and asked for assistance. They had been turned down by the Rural Assistance Board and were very depressed. It took me a few weeks to investigate the situation and when I rang them back I was saddened to find that they had already been forced off the farm. Then there is the farmer who was developing a mixed farming property in Yenda. This man and his wife are noted as efficient and capable farmers who had responsibly planned their finances. Along came this present Government's high interest rates and we now find that this family cannot meet the interest payments. One son at university has had to return home to seek work and it is doubtful whether the younger children at home will be able to continue to Higher School Certificate level. Another case is of a young Victorian couple who came to the irrigation area full of hope and endeavour with $200,000 to invest. They acquired an irrigation property and planted a crop. Unfortunately, the crop failed and then along came this Government with high interest rates. The wife now lives in town with the two children and works part time to pay for food. The husband hardly leaves the property, working from daylight to dark. The debt is now greater than the $200,000 with which they started. Although farm has been up for auction, there have been no bidders. The interest rate is accumulating and the couple's health is deteriorating. They have nowhere to turn. Imagine how the farmers south of Nyngan who are presently receiving food parcels must feel as they sit reading the Minister's 42-page statement. I am certain that they would not gain any comfort either. Last Sunday I visited a wine grape grower who for some years has been gradually trying to develop his property. This young man, his wife and four children and the whole family have worked on the property. Because of a downturn in the price of grapes and other commodities that he was growing, the farm has run into financial difficulty, but the main cause of the problem is this Government's high interest rates on his mortgage payments for the block. This farmer works wherever and whenever he can. His wife has worked in the field beside him and knows every vine planted. She has had hardly left the block in the last six months because the family cannot afford the fuel for their old vehicle- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(7.35) —Honour- able members should be aware from the outset that this is a tragic human situation. I first came into contact with Mr Rodney Groux, a constituent of mine, in August 1983 when I was the member of the House of Representatives for Diamond Valley, when he phoned my office for help. At that stage his life had been threatened by some people whom I presume he had informed upon. The people who issued the threats were never detected. He was under 24-hour police protection at his house because of his involvement as a crown witness in the royal commission into the meat substitution racket. He was destitute, having lost jobs since that time because there were people who were content to make sure that he never worked again and hence drive him into financial ruin. His telephone had been disconnected because obviously without money he could not pay the bill. I checked out his story with the Australian Federal Police and was able to arrange for his phone to be reconnected, mainly for security reasons, if nothing else. I obtained for Mr Groux his rights from the Department of Social Security and gave him some money from my own electoral allowance to put some food in his cupboard. At that stage his wife was pregnant and he had a young son who was one or two years of age, so he was in a desperate situation. Over a considerable period, with a lot of work by my staff and me, we were able to help him to regain some security and stability in his life. I believe we did no more than an ordinary representative in this House would do, in trying to protect and help their constituents as much as possible. We gave him some money on other occasions when the demand was very great. I believe that Mr Groux was very seriously disadvantaged in not being able to obtain a livelihood because of his service to the Crown as witness. I wrote to the Government to see whether it could find some way in which it could help this person to find a job which would be secure from outside interference. Obviously every person needs work to maintain himself and his family, and Mr Groux was certainly in that category. In order to help Mr Groux to regain some of his self-esteem and because he wanted to help, on some occasions we allowed him to work in the office. He felt very obliged to me in that respect. Over time, unfortunately, despite his well intentioned sincerity, he made continual promises to me about a variety of things, such as reading or writing things for me, but they were very rarely fulfilled. The organisation of parcels of food for poor people in the electorate was one such promise which was never fulfilled. That subsequently led me to question his reliability-not that I doubted his sincerity in what he wanted to achieve, but he was unable to deliver it properly. On every occasion, the people around Mr Groux and the people in this Government have tried very hard to help this person who was in trouble through no fault of his own but because of his role as a crown witness helping the Government and the people of Australia. As I have said, this is a tragic case. His behaviour subsequently is really a matter for separate consideration. This is a tragic case made even more tragic by the predilection of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) for crawling in sewers. Mr BURR(Lyons)(7.40) —I have received what I consider to be a disturbing letter-it is disturbing to me-from Mrs Jennifer Willans who is the Secretary of the St Mary's District High School Parent and Friends Association. I point out that St Marys is a small township with a population of about 1,500 on the east coast of Tasmania and about 150 kilometres east of Launceston. I think the crux of the concern of Mrs Willans and her association is summed up in the first paragraph of her letter, which states: Our Association is concerned about the opportunities for our students to continue their education beyond Grade 10 and the disincentive that the availability of unemployed benefits has on encouraging young people to pursue their education. I point out that the St Mary's District High School offers courses only to Grade 10 and if students wish to pursue their education beyond that they must then go to Launceston to pursue Grades 11 or 12 or go to a technical and further education college and pursue a technical course. The parents at St Marys are very concerned that the availability of the unemployment benefit is acting as a disincentive for the young people in that district to pursue their further education opportunities. Further in the letter Mrs Willans points out: Fifty nine students left school at the end of 1985. Of these students, only 12 have proceeded to senior secondary or T.A.F.E. colleges. She points out further: Twenty three students (40 per cent) are unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits. I point out that this is in a depressed rural area where there are very few employment opportunities. What Mrs Willans and her association are trying to point out to me, to the Government and, through this speech, to the House, is that we must recognise that the availability of the unemployment benefit is a positive disincentive for young people to continue with their education opportunities, whether they live in country areas or whether they live in city areas. The fact that young people, at the conclusion of Grade 10, have the opportunity to apply for and receive the unemployment benefit must be a disincentive for them to pursue further education opportunities no matter where they live in Australia. I think all honourable members in this House should be big enough in their minds to recognise that this is terribly detrimental to the future prospects of this country. We all should recognise that if we are to progress in this country and if we are to develop the skills that are available in this country, we must fully develop the educational capabilities of our young people. It is essential that we use every possible opportunity to encourage young people to pursue their education to the maximum extent of their abilities. We have great difficulties in persuading young people in country areas of Tasmania because not only is there a lack of opportunities available in their local district but also there are difficulties in their going out of their local area and living away from home which, at times, presents a great financial burden to their parents, in order for them to pursue their further education opportunities. On the other side of the coin, constantly available to these young people and to their parents, many of whom are experiencing difficult economic times, is the unemployment benefit. It is very easy for those young people, in some cases with encouragement from their parents, to go along and apply for social welfare, receive it and have no prospect of pursuing their educational capabilities. This is particularly so in depressed areas where there is little prospect of their finding useful employment. In the last paragraph of Mrs Willans's letter she gives us food for thought when she says: Our Association believes that serious consideration should be given to making an allowance similar to unemployment benefits available to all students after grade 10 or alternatively, raising the age from which unemployment benefits can be received. I am aware of the budgetary problems that the Government faces and the impossibility of broadening the availability of the unemployment benefit, but I believe we all have a responsibility to acknowledge the second point that Mrs Willans raises and that is raising the age at which young people can apply for the unemployment benefit and therefore giving them more incentive to pursue education. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(7.45) —It was a pleasure for me last week to visit the Western Australian Fire Brigade and present the 1985 Workfit Award for Western Australia. The award was established in 1982 in conjunction with Rydge Publications and the Commonwealth Department of Health and it recognises the efforts of those organisations which have a real concern for the health and wellbeing of their employees. Employee health is an important issue and those who run businesses should realise that it can be to their benefit to pay attention to employee health. The major causes of ill health in our population and, indeed, in our work force are largely preventable. The work place provides a unique opportunity for health promotion delivery. I am glad to say that the Western Australian Fire Brigade has taken the opportunity to provide that sort of assistance to its employees. The benefits of this are significant. There is increased staff morale, reduced absenteeism and an increase in productivity and efficiency of the employees. This Government is aware of the preventive role in health and it has established the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission as a statutory body. Our hard working Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, was also responsible for the initiation of the Better Health Commission which will report on the major preventable health problems in the Australian community and will suggest strategies to reduce illness caused by these problems. Indeed, this Government recognises for the first time the role of prevention. The Western Australian Fire Brigade has had an integrated approach for improving the health and welfare of its employees for a number of years. It pays attention to two particular aspects of the working environment-work place safety and the health and fitness of its employees. Not only must firemen be very fit to fulfil their tasks but office staff, administrative and ancillary staff are also involved in the program. The Brigade employs a full time fitness officer, Mr Rob Pickard, and his work has led to the Brigade's success in the award. The Fire Brigade provides first class facilities and it has initiated lectures on diet, lifestyle and other aspects of health and fitness. Other features of the program include the repetition strain injury prevention program for typists and keyboard operators and the counselling services which are provided in conjunction with the union, to which employees can take their problems. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Western Australian Fire Brigade for winning the award for the third successive year. While I am talking about preventative measures, perhaps I should mention the enlightened approach of the Western Australian Government in its smoking and health policy. On 28 April that Government launched its third `Quit' program which will be co-ordinated by the Western Australian Health Department's smoking and health project group. This program will take five weeks and it will encourage improvement of the health status of Western Australians by giving up smoking. Over the past two years 50,000 Western Australians have quit smoking as a result of this program. Of course smoking is the major preventable cause of disease, morbidity and mortality in this nation and it is implicated in the premature deaths of 12,000 Western Australians annually. Yet 25 per cent of smokers still believe that their habit causes no illness or harm. I might add that the news media-the Press, radio and television-will be involved in this program but it is not possible to beat people over the head to convince them of the benefits of giving up smoking. However, we can provide the sophisticated sales and promotion techniques of the cigarette companies and I believe that this program does so. I congratulate the Western Australian Government. No doubt the `Quit' program for this year will be even more successful than it has been in the past. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.50) —In September and October 1985 the fate of the Royal Australian Air Force german shepherd guard dog named Sheriff captured the imagination of the public of Victoria. The matter was raised on a number of occasions in the Parliament. Now, several months later, I have a number of questions to ask of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) regarding the present state of Sheriff. I last spoke on this matter on 9 October last year. In my adjournment speech I warned the Government that if the so called inquiry that had just been announced by the Minister for Defence was nothing more than a sham, the matter again would be raised in the Parliament. Sadly, that so called inquiry by which the Minister sought to allay the fears of hundreds, if not thousands, of people amounted to nothing more than a sham. I wrote to the Minister for Defence on 29 October and asked him a series of questions about who participated in the inquiry, the terms of reference of the inquiry, who gave evidence to it, and whether Mr Brendan Prendergast, the handler of Sheriff, or his family had the opportunity to put forward independent advice or even expert evidence. The reply received from the Minister on 12 November simply said that it was not appropriate to conduct an inquiry along the lines I had suggested and that instead it was an internal RAAF matter. I predicted on 9 October 1985 that if the Minister only asked the RAAF for advice on the fate of Sheriff, I could tell him what advice he would receive because it would be the same as I had been receiving for several weeks, that is, that the dog could not be released into the care of Brendan Prendergast on his leaving the RAAF. However, that matter belongs to the past. We know that whatever the cynicism and dishonesty of the Minister- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER — Order! The honourable member knows that he cannot say that. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the words `dishonesty of the Minister'. Nonetheless, the cynicism and political opportunism of the Minister meant that the dog Sheriff was not put to sleep but was unable to be released into the care of Brendan Prendergast. I now ask the Minister: What is the location of the dog Sheriff? What are the plans for his future? What deprogramming has been initiated in regard to Sheriff? In what manner is he used at present? Who is handling the dog? I ask these questions because of the concern of Brendan Prendergast and his family as to the present fate of the dog Sheriff. It is difficult to get any information in regard to the dog's fate. It must be remembered that a large number of people are concerned about the fate of the dog. I have one further question: How was the dog Sheriff transported to his present location? I am advised that a Hercules aircraft was especially sent to the Sale RAAF base to transport the dog to Toowoomba. I would be pleased to know from the Minister whether or not such an expensive form of transport was provided. I ask these questions because the Government realises the depth of feeling in regard to the fate of this dog and the emotions it has stirred up. It has been at pains all along to act only with an eye to the political repercussions of the matter rather than with any genuine interest in the fate of the dog or in the feelings of his handler, Brendan Prendergast. I would be grateful if the Minister would address himself to these questions and provide me with a comprehensive statement as to the location, fate and plans for the dog Sheriff so that I am able to advise not only my constituent Brendan Prendergast but also the great many Gippslanders and those further afield who still remain vitally interested in this issue. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.55) —Last night, in an adjournment speech, my colleague the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) used his five minutes to attack Mr Mark Baker, a journalist from the Melbourne Age. As my name was brought into the matter, let me say that Mr Charles's statement was somewhat inaccurate and most unjust, as, to my knowledge, Mr Baker's reports were accurate. To put the record straight, I wish to state that I have a high regard for Mr Baker's integrity and I regret the unprovoked and unjust attack on him by my colleague. However, I would now like to turn to the fact that from time to time honourable members on both sides of the House rise during adjournment debates to criticise-and rightly so-the human rights situation in the Soviet Union, 15,000 miles away. I rise today to draw the attention of the House to human rights violations only a couple of hundred miles from our border, in West New Guinea, now called Irian Jaya. It seems odd to me that while so many of our members are so eager to raise their voices in response to human rights violations in countries far from us, so few are willing to protest against the cultural genocide being committed against the Melanesian population in Irian Jaya by the Indonesian Government. As a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I visited Papua New Guinea last week. When the report of the Committee is tabled in this House, I certainly intend to voice my opinion about events which occurred on our visit. However, as an individual member of this Parliament, I am bound by my conscience to raise the plight of Melanesian refugees from West New Guinea at the first opportunity. There are more than 10,000 refugees in camps in Papua New Guinea who fled because of the brutality of the Indonesians. Until now, many of my colleagues have been delighted to refer to those thousands of people as `boarder crossers'. It amazes me that the same colleagues of mine do not call the Afghan tribesmen who crossed into Pakistan `border crossers'. They call them-quite rightly-refugees. Yet, when it comes to the unfortunate Melanesians, whose very existence is threatened by the Indonesians, they are referred to as `border crossers' to appease the Indonesian Government. We visited two camps on the Indonesian border and I spoke to the so-called `border crossers'. Let me assure the House that they are not some wandering tribesman, but villagers-men, women and children-who abandoned their meagre possessions and ran for their lives from Indonesian brutality. They are refugees alright. They are the product of Indonesian brutality and the Javanese transmigration. The Indonesian Government embarked on a policy to transfer hundreds of thousands of Javanese into West New Guinea so that they will outnumber the indigenous Melanesian population in a few years. The Javanese are taking over the land that has been inhabited by the Melanesians for generations, without any provision for compensation by the Indonesian Government. The Indonesians completely disregard the Melanesian culture and traditions. The indigenous population, the Melanesians, regard the land as a communal possessing which provides insurance for the survival of present and future generations. The land also links them with their ancestors and is part of their daily life. To deprive them of their land is to deprive them of their past as well as of their future. To forcibly break the Melanesians' ties with their land is an act of cultural genocide against them. The transmigration program is actually the Javanese colonisation of West New Guinea, and together with the brutal oppression of Melanesians by the military and the police, it is the main reason why these people have had to abandon their serene way of life and flee across the border to Papua New Guinea. It is obvious that, as long as Indonesia persists with its policy of colonisation of West New Guniea and the oppression of the indigenous Melanesian population, we will have a growing refugee problem right on our borders. It will also create tensions between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. However, I reject the contention that the problem is basically one for Indonesia and Papua New Guinea to resolve alone. When human rights violations occur, it is the duty of the civilised countries-and we count ourselves amongst them-to speak out and protest against it. It is time that we showed more concern for the fate of our fellow human beings in West Irian, no matter what colour their skin is, and that we raise our concern, firstly with the Indonesian Government, and, if necessary, in world fora so that pressure is brought on the Suharto regime to respect human rights and stop the cultural genocide of the Melanesian people in West New Guinea. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 8 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984, and for related purposes. Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian National Maritime Museum. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 30 April 1986: Customs Act-Notice-1986-No. 3. Defence Act-Determinations-1986- No. 18-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance. No. 19-Education Assistance Overseas and Complementary Allowances Payable to Members Serving on Duty Overseas. No. 21-Child Allowance and other allowances. Excise Act-Notice-1986-No. 4. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 17, 24. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 525) Mr Duncan asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Is there an absence of tax concessions to persons who are financially supporting elderly parents or relatives in nursing homes and does this represent the Government's policy. (2) Has his attention been drawn to a form of blackmail which sometimes applies whereby people who are financially supporting elderly parents or relatives are advised that those people in care will be evicted unless payments in addition to the nursing home benefits are met; if so, what steps can the Government take to alleviate the situation. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are at present two taxation provisions providing assistance to persons who are financially supporting elderly parents or relatives. These are the invalid relative rebate and the parent rebate. For 1985-86 the maximum value of these rebates is set at $376 and $749 per annum respectively. An invalid relative rebate is payable in respect of a person who is 16 years of age or more and who is a child (including a step-child, adopted or illegitimate child), brother or sister of the taxpayer and who is in receipt of an invalid pension (or equivalent rehabilitation allowance) or certified permanently incapacitated. For the purposes of the parent rebate the definition of parent is taken to cover the parents of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse and includes the parents of a de facto spouse. As in the application of all dependent rebates, the actual value of these rebates is reduced where in a particular case the separate net income of the dependent person exceeds $282 per annum including, generally, income from social security pensions. I would also point out that substantial assistance is provided by the Government on the outlays side of the Budget in respect of the elderly and infirm and those residing in nursing homes (eg age and invalid pensions, domiciliary nursing care benefits and the Commonwealth nursing home benefit mentioned below). (2) In relation to this part of the honourable member's question I have sought advice from my colleague, the Minister for Community Services, who has provided the following response: ``All patients are required to pay at least a statutory minimum patient contribution towards the cost of their nursing home care, in addition to the amount of nursing home benefit. This statutory minimum patient contribution is equivalent to 87 1/2 per cent of the sum of the maximum single rate pension plus supplementary assistance. To ensure that patients retain the benefit of the Commonwealth nursing home benefit, and to prevent proprietors charging unwarranted levels of fees, the Commonwealth has, since 1973, been approving the scale of fees to be charged patients. Nursing home fees generally reflect the cost structures of individual nursing homes. Where an individual nursing home's fees are in excess of the sum of the statutory patient contribution plus the maximum Commonwealth nursing home benefit, the patient is responsible for meeting the excess. Individual cases where patients are being unduly pressured, or where fees in excess of the approved scales are being charged, should be brought to the attention of the State Offices of the Department of Community Services.'' (Question No. 1634) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the The Australian of 5 August 1985 reporting that the Western Australian Government had announced a feasibility study into the establishment of a privately funded international university. (2) Has the Minister been approached by the Western Australian Government with a request to provide assistance with (a) the feasibility study or (b) the establishment of the university; if so, (i) what was the nature of the assistance requested and (ii) has the Minister agreed to provide assistance. (3) What control does the Federal Government exercise in relation to the establishment of private universities. (4) Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the establishment of private universities does not put pressure on (a) the provision of free tertiary education for Australians and (b) the existing subsidised overseas students program; if so, what actions will be taken. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) No. (3) The role of the Commonwealth in higher education in the States and Northern Territory is, by agreement with them, related primarily to funding. As universities are established under State Government legislation the Federal Government has no direct power to prevent the establishment of private universities. (4) (a) and (b) The Commonwealth Government has decided not to support the establishment in Australia of private institutions for the marketing of education overseas. The Government will, however, further consider the possibility of private support for existing institutions. Adequate safeguards would need to be established to prevent the quality of higher education in Australia being threatened and the social and foreign policy implications of bringing large numbers of overseas students into segregated, specialised colleges to pay high fees for limited courses would need to be examined. Existing policy allows for marketing of award courses at full cost to overseas students in Commonwealth funded higher education institutions. Places provided under these arrangements will be additional to subsidised places provided under the Private Overseas Students Program. Access to higher education in Australia for Australian students will continue to be on the basis of merit. Commonwealth funded institutions will not be able to market full-fee higher education courses to Australian students. (Question No. 1687)) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: In view of (a) the recent events associated with the Associated Transport Insurance Company and its effect upon truck drivers and (b) the fact that there are at least 130 underwriting agents for unauthorised overseas insurance companies who have received exemption under section 113 of the Insurance Act 1973, will he take steps to ensure that maximum security is extended to policy holders by proposing amendments to s. 113 of the Insurance Act to ensure that (i) any person seeking to represent an unauthorised overseas insurer must seek and be granted an authority to carry on insurance business in Australia as an ``underwriting agent'', (ii) only a body corporate can be granted an underwriting agency, (iii) a body corporate wishing to act as an underwriting agent must have a minimum paid up capital of $500,000, (iv) a condition of authorisation of an underwriting agent is that the recipient has satisfactory professional indemnity insurance, (v) the underwriting agency agreement between the Australian agent and an overseas principal has to be lodged with the Insurance Commissioner, (vi) a condition precedent to an unauthorised overseas insurer being permitted to undertake insurance business in Australia through an underwriting agent is that the principal would have to agree that a condition of each contract taken out on an Australian risk is that the insurer would agree to be a subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Australian court, (vii) if an overseas principal for any reason refuses to pay a claim, the insured has a right of action against the underwriting agent representing the overseas principal, (viii) an authorised underwriting agent is required to make annual returns to the Insurance Commissioner similar to those made by Lloyd's of London and to produce proof of continuing ``satisfactory commercial solvency'' including the maintenance of free paid-up capital of a minimum of $500,000, (ix) that assets in Australia either equal all liabilities or at least 40% of gross premiums plus the amount of outstanding claims, (x) that the Commissioner is empowered to revoke all exemptions, (xi) that the Chief Executive Officers and the Directors of the underwriting agent are subject to the same `fit and proper' person provisions as Chief Executive Officers and Directors of authorised insurance companies, (xii) that the agency has a Principal Officer, and (xiii) the overseas principals are assessed by the Commissioner before authorisation as an underwriting agent is given; if not, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The possible amendment of existing insurance legislation along the lines proposed by the Insurance Council of Australia, as set out in the honourable member's question, was discussed at the last meetings of the General and Life Insurance Consultative Committees. As a result of those discussions, representatives of the insurance industry and insurance employees agreed in principle to the development of provisions to improve public awareness of the risks taken where insurance is placed overseas with insurers not controlled by Australian insurance laws. Consideration is being given to the question of whether cost-effective measures could be developed to protect consumers in this area by amending the Insurance Act 1973 and the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 to require closer oversight of the activities of insurance intermediaries who place insurance business overseas. This work will take into account the suggested requirements outlined in the honourable member's question. (Question No. 1999) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) Which are the 12 designated security airports. (2) Who appoints the members of the security committees at these airports. (3) What are the (a) names of the members, (b) powers and (c) frequency of meeting of these committees. (4) How often is the airport security program reviewed and by whom. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honour-able member's question is as follows: (1) Adelaide Hobart Brisbane Melbourne Cairns Norfolk Island Canberra Perth Coolangatta Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Darwin Townsville (2) Air Navigation Order 99.1 specifies that the Airport Security Committees shall consist of representatives of each Australian airline operating at each airport, or their nominees, and of representatives of the airport administration. The Department of Aviation Airport Director, Manager or Officer-in-Charge, or his nominee, acts as Chairman of the Committee and may invite representation on the Committee from other organisations. (3) (a) The membership of the Airport Security Committees vary from airport to airport and from time to time. All Committees comprise representatives from the Australian airlines, the Department of Aviation, the Australian Federal Police, and the respective State Police Force as well as Customs, Immigration and international airlines if based on the airport. (b) Develop, implement and keep under review overall security measures and procedures at the airport and ensure that the requirements of ANO 99.1 are implemented. (c) As required. (4) The Airport Security Program is continuously reviewed and updated as necessary by the members of the Airport Security Committee. (Question No. 2196) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) Are there any rules or criteria covering the provision of discount air fares for groups such as sporting teams; if so, who (a) established the rules, and (b) polices them. (2) What role has the Independent Air Fares Committee had in the matter. (3) Has the Committee been or is it contemplating becoming involved in the issue; if so, in what way. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Prior to the establishment of the Independent Air Fares Committee (IAFC) in 1981, the Minister was responsible for approving all domestic air fares and associated conditions. Since its establishment in 1981, the IAFC has been the sole Commonwealth authority responsible for air fare approvals. Group fares for sporting and other groups introduced prior to 1981 were Ministerially approved fares. Late last year the IAFC approved common interest group fares which replaced the previous Ministerially approved discount fares for sporting and other groups. (2) and (3) The present legislative arrangements governing domestic aviation were introduced in 1981 by the previous Government. The Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981 gives responsibility for approving all commercial air fares and discounts to the IAFC. Under the provisions of the IAFC Act, the initiative rests with operators to propose discount fares for approval and the Committee is required to approve, or reject, a proposal in the form as submitted. Before approving a request from an airline operator for a discount fare, the IAFC must be satisfied that (a) The proposed discount fare is likely to improve the profitability of the operations of the applicant (b) The proposed discount fare is unlikely to result in economy air fares of any trunk route operator being increased (c) The proposed conditions (if any) are reasonable and will be applied without discrimination between persons or classes of persons who can comply with the conditions. I understand that in July 1985, following receipt of legal advice to the effect that certain ministerially approved discount fares were no longer valid, the Committee requested Ansett and TAA to initiate action to bring the ministerially approved Apex and group fares within the provisions of the IAFC Act. Both airlines took the opportunity to seek changes to the existing group fares and IAFC approval was given in December 1985 for the new terms and conditions for common interest group discount air fares. The airlines have advised me that the new common interest group discount fares offer a number of advantages over the previous group discount fare, including for travel by sporting and charitable groups. In particular, the minimum number of passengers required to qualify for the group discounts has been reduced from 15 persons to 10. While the fare previously available to sporting and charitable organisation officials travelling individually will no longer be available, there is now a greater range of discount fares available than at the time the previous group discount fares were introduced. The new discount fares, which include Apex, Flexi-Fare/Excursion 45 and standby, offer reductions of up to 45 per cent in the cost of air travel on the domestic airlines' networks. This means there is now greater opportunity for people to travel at substantially less than economy fares, particularly when they have advance knowledge of their travel requirements. I have referred the representations I have received on this matter to TAA and Ansett for their consideration. (Question No. 2310) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983/84 and (b) 1984/85. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so (a) who provided the assistance (b) what payments were made and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Public relations expenditure for the Primary Industry portfolio in 1983/84 and 1984/85 is as follows: Agency (a) 1983/84 Expend- iture (b) 1984/85 Expend- iture $ $ Department of Primary Industry... 227,026 263,424 Australian Apple & Pear Corporation... 7,400 10,000 Australian Dairy Corporation... 160,715 321,440 Australian Honey Board... 5,330 3,898 Australian Meat & Livestock Corporation... 39,102 38,812 Australian Wheat Board... 268,646 506,132 Australian Wine & Brandy Corporation... 5,674 5,439 Australian Wool Corporation... 109,000 115,000 Pork Promotion Committee... 70,489 164,292 (2) The nature or subject of the public relations expenditure for the Primary Industry portfolio is as follows: DEPARTMENT The expenditure consists of salaries and administrative overheads for the Department's Public Relations Section, the printing, distribution and postage of media statements and other primary industry information, World Food Day Campaigns, general advertising and the costs of an ADP based medialink. The public relations expenditure relates to the Department's responsibility to communicate the Government's policies and decisions concerning Australia's primary industries to the people associated with those industries and to the public generally. The Public Relations Section of the Department is also required to assist with providing information about primary industry and the operations of the Department to Members of Parliament, the media and the general public. The increased expenditure in 1984/85 is principally attributable to the transfer of responsibility for plant and animal quarantine from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry in December 1984. AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION The expenditure relates to several activities including fruit donations to schools and national organisations, displays at Royal shows and festivals, circulation of promotional material and production of specific display and conference materials. The Corporation also held a media breakfast in Sydney to launch the 1984 season and a trade launch and special promotion in 1984/85 to promote Packham Pears. AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION The expenditure largely consists of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference Publicity Program, assistance to the Dairyfarmer magazine, a dairy photographic assignment and the provision of industry ties. The large rise in expenditure in 1984/85 was caused by a significant increase in the Corporation's sponsorship of the Dairyfarmer magazine. AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD The expenditure relates to costs involved with Australian Honey Board meetings and production and printing of the Annual Report. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION The expenditure relates to industry communication and information and press releases to media, both in Australia and overseas. AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD Australian Wheat Board public relations expenditure is classified as follows: local representation involving entertainment of people associated with AWB activities; promotions and displays involving expenditure on a mobile display unit which primarily visits rural shows, seminars to wheat growers, media activities and photography, and metropolitan show displays; printing costs involving annual reports, Wheat Australia, Chairman's letter, school project material, and media releases and diaries; and standard sample establishment which concerns the setting of wheat quality standards in New South Wales and Victoria. The large rise in expenditure in 1984/85 was caused by a significant expansion of AWB public relations activities, including an increased number of promotions and displays, improved local representation and increased printing costs. AUSTRALIAN WINE AND BRANDY CORPORATION The expenditure relates to industry and media communication and information, and the provision of hospitality for representatives of the wine industry and the media. AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION The nature and subject of the public relations expenditure involves the calling of press conferences, the provision of press releases, entertainment of visitors to the Corporation from within Australia and overseas, and publicity material and sponsorship. PORK PROMOTION COMMITTEE Expenditure on public relations includes payments of fees and expenses to public relations consultants and costs incurred by the Committee in undertaking public relations activities designed to increase public awareness of pork products. The significant rise in 1985/86 expenditure was caused by an expansion in sponsorship and competitions, the production of videotapes and the publication of a producer newsletter. (3) The Department of Primary Industry did not obtain outside assistance for public relations. The following Statutory Authorities within the Primary Industry portfolio obtained outside assistance for public relations: AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION (a) and (b) 1983/84-New South Wales Department of Agriculture $6,000; Dennis Rutzou PR Sydney $9,000 (c) The public relations activities involved a need for expert local advice and organisation. AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION (a) Mr Rick Altman (b) 1983/84, $3,834 (c) A dairy photographic assignment. Specialist photographic knowledge and experience was required. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION (a) and (b) Assistance Sought 1983/84 1984/85 $ $ Chris Le Gras and Partners Pty Ltd ... 13,750 15,000 Eric Pringle and Associates ... 25,352 23,812 Total ... 39,102 38,812 (c) Chris Le Gras and Associates expertise was sought to produce industry information and news bulletins via radio tapes and broadcasts aimed at producers, exporters and various sections of the Australian meat industry. The assistance of Eric Pringle and Associates was obtained to provide information on press and air media reports of meat and livestock aspects in Malaysia and Singapore, and to provide to South East Asian markets any replies or rebuttals required by the Corporation. PORK PROMOTION COMMITTEE (a) 1983/84, Burson-Marsteller Pty Ltd, Foodwatch (consultant dietitian/nutritionists). 1984/85, Burson-Marsteller Pty Ltd, Welbeck Public Relations, Foodwatch. (b) 1983/84 $70,489; 1984/85 $60,373 (c) Professional public relations consultants are engaged by the Pork Promotion Committee to undertake specialised public relations activities on their behalf and to tie in with the planned promotional program. (Question No. 2316) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so, (a) who provided the assistance, (b) what payments were made and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Aviation (1) (a) 1983-84 $719,700; (b) 1984-85 $702,800. 1983-84 1984-85 $ $ Salaries... 489,400 535,200 Overtime... 6,000 8,100 Travel... 30,800 30,600 Professional Services... 32,000 44,000 Office Requisites/ Incidentals... 161,500 84,900 (3) Outside assistance was obtained during two years as follows: 1983-84 1984-85 (a) Burke Marketing (b) $16,775 (c) Survey of Public Attitudes to site of second Sydney Airport (a) International Public Relations (b) $15,000 (c) Study of Melbourne Airport Master Plan and Role of Essendon Airport (a) Dougherty Communications (b) $44,000 (c) Consultancy Services-site of second Sydney Airport (a) Dougherty Communications (b) $2,500 (c) Assessment of Departmental Communication Plan Independent Air Fares Committee (1) Nil. (2) Not Applicable. (3) Not Applicable. Australian National Airlines Commission (1) The Commission regards the release of information on this question as commercially confidential and as such the Commission does not wish to divulge any information. (2) Costs associated with the Commission's Public Relations Department for publicising the Airline's policies, Commercial and Operational activities and those of its associated companies; advice to Senior Management on various subjects which impact upon the Commission's public image; generally publicising and promoting Domestic Air Transport and Australian Tourism. (3) As per the reply to part one of the question the details requested are regarded as commercially confidential. Qantas (1) (a) 1983-84 $1,259,472; (b) 1984-85 $1,277,585. (2) Net costs associated with the running of the Public Affairs Branch. (3) No. (Question No. 2338) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Advertising expenditure for the Primary Industry portfolio, categorised by individual subject or program, in 1983-84 and 1984-85 is as follows: Subject or Program (a) 1983-84 (b) 1984-85 $ $ Department of Primary Industry Income Equalisation Deposits - media... - 33 926 - post office advertising... - 11 668 National Quarantine Publicity, regulatory signs... - 43 904 Plant Quarantine Publicity, regulatory signs... - 80 639 Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Promotion of apple and pear produce... 148 952 521 285 Australian Dairy Corporation Product Advertising - butter... 1 316 000 2 512 000 - cheese... 3 064 000 3 639 000 - milk... 776 000 740 000 - other... 562 000 143 000 Health and Nutrition... 492 000 1 103 000 Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Promotion of Australian dried fruits... 351 153 304 478 Australian Honey Board Promotion of honey... 118 016 138 473 Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation - Australian advertising of meat ... 1 200 000 1 366 000 - Overseas advertising of meat ... 1 034 448 936 496 Australian Wool Corporation* Communications Department advertising... 10 000 15 000 Pork Promotion Committee Advertising and promotion of pork... 2 005 453 1 597 117 Total Primary Industry Portfolio... 11 078 022 13 185 986 * Advertising expenditure of the Australian Wool Corporation's Product Marketing Group is excluded as it is commercially sensitive. (2a) The Department of Primary Industry or the relevant statutory authority was responsible for initiating each advertising campaign. The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation co-operated with the Western Australian Farmers and Graziers Association and the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South Australia in the initiation of advertising campaigns promoting apple and pear consumption. (2b) Details relating to the conduct of advertising campaigns within the Primary Industry Portfolio are as follows: DEPARTMENT The Department of Primary Industry obtained the assistance of the advertising agency of Fountain Huie Fish Pty Ltd for the national and plant quarantine publicity campaigns. The Department conducted all other advertising campaigns. AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION The Corporation sought the assistance of the advertising agencies Ogilvy and Mather and Val Morgan in 1983-84, and Ogilvy and Mather and D'arcy McManus Masius in 1984-85. AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION The Corporation's Health and Nutrition Campaign was conducted by Hammond Advertising and all other campaigns by D'arcy McManus Masius. AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CORPORATION The Australian Dried Fruits Corporation's advertising is conducted by the Corporation with assistance from the Australian Trade Commission and import agents. AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD The Board sought the assistance of Barry Banks Blakeney Advertising in 1983-84 and Market Australia in 1984-85 in the conduct of its advertising campaigns. AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION The Corporation's advertising campaigns were conducted by Monahan Dayman Adams Ltd in 1983-84 and the Campaign Palace in 1984-85. AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION Under the direction of the Corporation, corporate campaigns were conducted by Monahan Dayman Adams Ltd. PORK PROMOTION COMMITTEE The Committee's advertising campaigns were conducted by Forbes, Macfie and Hansen. (3) The Government's policy is that all Australians have a right to equal access of information. The role of Government information programs, including advertising campaigns, is to inform Australians in the most efficient and cost effective manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities and matters deemed of national importance. The necessity of an information campaign is determined according to these criteria. In this context, advertising campaigns are also conducted by Primary Industry statutory marketing authorities in furtherance of their legislated responsibility to promote the public perception, sale and consumption of a wide range of primary products both in Australia and overseas. (4) The basis of remuneration by the Department of Primary Industry to Fountain Huie Fish Pty Ltd was in accordance with the Commonwealth advertising system formula. The basis of remuneration by statutory authorities is determined by individual contractual agreements with respective advertising agencies. In this latter respect it should be noted that Primary Industry statutory authorities are not budget dependent, being funded by levies paid by primary producers, and as such are not obliged to follow the Commonwealth advertising system. (5a) The Information Co-ordination Branch provided assistance in all the Department of Primary Industry advertising campaigns listed above. Assistance was not obtained from the Information Co-ordination Branch for any of the statutory authorities advertising campaigns. (5b) No. (Question No. 2421) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Which Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) offer nurse education courses. (2) How many teaching positions have been created in CAEs as a result of the movement of nurse education courses from hospitals to CAEs. (3) How many of the teaching positions have been filled by staff (a) transferring from hospital-based teaching institutions, (b) from within the CAE and (c) recruited from outside both the CAE and the hospitals. (4) Do the current CAE nurse training courses offer both a general and a technical education for nurses. (5) What emphasis has been given to geriatric training in the courses. (6) What is the estimated cost to the Commonwealth of the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to CAEs in terms of (a) capital costs to CAEs, (b) recurrent costs to CAEs and (c) TEAS paid to students. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The following advanced education institutions offer nurse education courses: Catholic College of Education, Sydney Cumberland College of Health Sciences Hawkesbury Agricultural College Macarthur Institute of Higher Education New South Wales Institute of Technology Riverine-Murray Institute of Higher Education Institute of Advanced Education, University of Wollongong Phillip Institute of Technology Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences Footscray Institute of Technology Queensland Institute of Technology Western Australian Institute of Technology Tasmanian State Institute of Technology South Australian Institute of Technology Darwin Institute of Technology Armidale CAE Kuring-gai CAE Mitchell CAE Nepean CAE Newcastle CAE Sydney CAE Canberra CAE Northern Rivers CAE (2) and (3) This information is not available to the Commonwealth. (4) If the word `technical' is taken to mean `clinical' education, then all CAE courses incorporate clinical experience. Completion of this clinical experience is essential for a graduate who wishes to obtain registration as a nurse. Clinical experience will be gained in a range of settings, not only in hospitals. Registration is, of course, a State government responsibility and details of CAE curricula are subject to agreement between CAEs and State government authorities. (5) The Commonwealth does not have details of particular geriatric training components in courses but basic nursing courses could be expected to cover all stages of the life span. Emphasis on specific areas of nursing care will continue to be provided in appropriate post registration courses. (6) Nurse education is a State responsibility with the Commonwealth providing financial assistance to the States over the transfer period to the end of 1993. (a) There will be no capital cost to the Commonwealth in States' plans for the transfer. States will continue to meet the capital costs associated with the education of nurses. (b) The initial Commonwealth offer to the States announced on 24 August 1984 involved recurrent assistance of $1,500 per student per year for a projected total of about 90,000 students through the CAE system by the end of the transfer period. This amount is being indexed according to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's recurrent funding arrangements for colleges of advanced education, resulting in an actual figure of $1,630 in 1985. The estimated cost of the student throughput of 90,000 is $147.6 million on 1985 prices. The Commonwealth will also provide one-off development grants of $2.34 million. The Commonwealth's contribution to recurrent costs will be determined by the timing of the transfer in individual States and any fluctuations in the program that may occur. (c) The costs of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) payments to student nurses in 1985-86 is estimated to be $4.95 million. By 1993, assuming 18,050 student nurses in CAEs, TEAS payments at present rates of assistance, would be of the order of $19 million. (Question No. 2665) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 November 1985: (1) What proportion of the staff of the Minister's Department in Australia are employed in policy-making divisions. (2) What are the main policy sections and branches of the Minister's Department. (3) How many staff are employed in each of those policy sections and branches. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Approximately 22 percent of the staff of my Department in Australia are employed in policy making Divisions (in the sense of proposing policy). (2) and (3) The main policy Sections and Branches in those Divisions and the number of staff employed in each Branch are as follows: Branch Section Average number of staff in the branch during 1985-86 Entry Regulation Enforcement 1 Enforcement 2 Enforcement 3 International Movement Custody & Support 42 Citizenship & Support Services Citizenship Policy & Development Citizenship Management & Operations Support Services 35 Population & Research Population Policy and Planning Population Research Studies & Evaluation 16 Migrant Entry Policy & Projects Skilled & Business Family 19 Refugee & Humanitarian Policy & Projects Africa/America Europe/Asia D.O.R.S. 25 Co-ordination & International International Systems Management Program Management Co-ordination & Projects 17 Temporary Entry & Instructions Policy & Projects Temporary Residents Visitors Instructions 21 Education Information Research & Evaluation Program Management & Support Services Educational Planning & Development Policy & Planning 19 Ethnic Affairs Community Affairs Community Welfare Women's Desk Policy Planning Policy Projects 26 Settlement Language Services Welfare Services Finance Works & Property Settlement Policy and Services Migrant Centre Policy 32 Not all staff employed in the above Branches are involved in policy work: some staff are involved in administrative and support service functions. It is roughly estimated that 60 staff years are involved in proposing policy. (Question No. 2786) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 November 1985: (1) Does the Reserve Bank of Australia still require statistics of trading bank activities on a weekly basis; if so, do these statistics cover (a) overseas or offshore borrowings and (b) State bank as well as non-State bank offshore borrowings. (2) What amount has been paid to overseas lenders, in addition to the original loan total, in the form of exchange rate adjustment in the 6 months to 30 November 1985. (3) Is he able to say whether our trading banks are embarrassed financially by the fall in the value of the Australian dollar earlier in 1985. (4) Does he expect interest rates to remain high until the trading banks have recouped any losses sustained as a result of dollar manipulation. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Trading banks, including State banks, provide the Reserve Bank each week with a statement of their foreign currency assets and liabilities. Foreign currency liabilities include deposits by residents and non-residents, other borrowings and balances due to related corporations. Aggregate statistics are published monthly in the Reserve Bank Bulletin (Tables C7 and C8). (2) The effect of depreciation of the Australian dollar on the $A cost to borrowers of repayment of foreign currency loans depends on many factors, including the extent of movement in the particular currency concerned and whether forward cover or other hedging has been taken out. The overseas lender receives the same amount of foreign currency he lent and therefore gains no additional receipt from depreciation of the $A. (3) Australian banks have sizable assets in foreign currencies which substantially match their foreign currency liabilities. Their net exposure to potential loss (or gain) from currency fluctuations is therefore quite small. The Reserve Bank monitors the foreign currency exposures of the various banks. (4) See answer to Question 3. The future course of interest rates depends on a wide range of factors, such as interest rates abroad, the Government's economic policies and general economic and financial conditions. (Question No. 2886) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1986: (1) Is there evidence of lower rates of price increases of products which have been subject to surveillance by the Prices Surveillance Authority, compared with products not subjected to surveillance. (2) Can this evidence be quantified; if so, in what ways. (3) Is there evidence that surveillance by the Prices Surveillance Authority has resulted in a lower rate of increase in prices than would have been the case in the absence of such surveillance. (4) If so, what is the nature of that evidence and can it be quantified. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) There is no reason to expect that prices for goods and services subject to surveillance should necessarily show lower rates of increase than other goods and services. Prices for individual goods and services are influenced by factors such as the costs of raw materials and other inputs, the relative intensity of their use of capital and labour, and conditions of demand and supply in product markets. These affect different goods and services differently so that, over any given period, prices of some goods and services can be expected to be changing more rapidly, and others less rapidly, than the average rate of price change throughout the economy. Goods and services selected for surveillance need not be ones experiencing lower than average cost increases; indeed, the opposite may well apply. The role of the Prices Surveillance Authority is not necessarily to reduce prices or proposed price increases, but to scrutinise prices in areas of the economy where effective competitive disciplines are absent and where price or wage decisions have pervasive effects throughout the economy. The Authority is bound by its statutory guidelines to have particular regard to the need to maintain investment and employment, to discourage the abuse of market power, and to discourage cost increases arising from breaches of the wage fixation principles. It is the Government's intention the Authority should encourage price restraint in areas that are not currently subject to surveillance, as well as in areas that are. The Authority monitors pricing behaviour in some major areas of the economy and the knowledge that excessive price increases could lead to declarations under the Prices Surveillance Act should act to discourage companies from taking advantage of market power in setting prices. In addition, the ``Guidelines for Pricing Restraint'' which the Authority promulgated in August 1985, offer a voluntary framework that businesses in both the public and private sectors may adopt. (3) and (4). It is not possible to say with certainty how prices for goods and services currently subject to price surveillance would have moved in the absence of such surveillance. Proposed price increases notified to the Authority are likely to be influenced by the knowledge that they are subject to examination by the Authority and proposals may therefore be lower than they would otherwise have been. Nevertheless, some price increases endorsed by the Authority have been lower than those proposed by the companies or public authorities concerned, and some price reductions have been effected following public inquiries by the Authority: The maximum wholesale ``marker'' price of motor spirit set by the Authority in June 1984 was approximately 1.27 cents per litre lower than the average of the maximum prices for the individual oil companies previously established by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. On two occasions since then, reviews by the Authority have resulted in maximum wholesale prices for motor spirit lower than the companies proposed. In public inquiries into the principal charges of Telecom and Australia Post in 1984, the Authority broadly accepted the approach to pricing taken by each of the Commissions, but rejected the anticipation of anomaly-based wage increases and recommended lower increases in certain charges than those that were proposed. These recommendations were accepted by the Commissions. In November 1985, in an inquiry into cigarette prices, the Authority proposed that the manufacturers reduce their average wholesale prices exclusive of excise or customs duty by 0.5 per cent and that the adjustment be applied when the companies next submit cost-based notices of general price increases. The Authority also indicated an intention to adjust future excise over-recoveries by an imputed interest factor. (Question No. 2915) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What was the increase in real terms of funding for (a) pure research and (b) applied research in (i) universities and (ii) colleges of advanced education in 1985-86 over 1982-83. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) and (b) (i) The Commonwealth makes a substantial contribution towards research in universities in the form of both recurrent grants and funds allocated for specific activities, provided through the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Acts. The internal allocation of general recurrent grants is a university responsibility and so total expenditure on research and the nature of that research is a matter for them to determine. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) uses the widely accepted measure of Total Identifiable Research Expenditure (TIRE) to assess the total research effort of universities. TIRE includes research funds provided from Commonwealth sources other than the CTEC and from non-Commonwealth sources. TIRE measures that expenditure which universities are able to identify as having been incurred directly on research activities, such as the scholarships, research equipment and maintenance expenditure on research projects. However, TIRE does not include any imputed amounts for the research component of such significant items of expenditure as the salaries of teaching-and-research staff. Moreover, the CTEC's data do not attempt to distinguish between pure and applied research. Commonwealth grants to universities and university records relate to calendar and not financial years. In 1984, the latest year for which figures are available, TIRE from Commonwealth sources amounted to some $194.5m in comparable cost levels (estimated December 1984), the figure for 1982 was $170.7m. (ii) The Commonwealth does not provide specific funding for research in colleges of advanced education. CAEs were, however, eligible to apply for funding from the $1 million provided under the Key Centres of Teaching and Research program introduced in 1985. (Comparable data on total identifiable research expenditure for the advanced education sector is currently being collected for the first time). (Question No. 3121) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Have there been any cases of air crew on duty on Australian civil aircraft being intoxicated during any of the last 10 years; if so, what are the details. (2) Are air crew breath tested before coming on duty; if not why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However that answer must be qualified in relation to the use of the word ``intoxicated''. The relevant Air Navigation Regulation 247, makes it an offence for a pilot to be a crew member whilst his capacity to act is affected by alcohol, to consume alcohol within a period of eight hours immediately preceding a flight, and to consume alcohol whilst crewing an aircraft. However the Regulation does not provide a blood alcohol content limit or a definition of intoxication. A pilot could therefore commit an offence under this regulation without needing to have a blood alcohol content approaching the levels commonly used as a measure of intoxication in motor transport legislation. Departmental records for the past 10 year period show that there were eight occasions in which an accident to an aircraft or an incident involving its operation occurred where the capacity of the pilot was impaired to some degree by alcohol, although this impairment may not have been the prime cause of the accident. Three of the accidents involved fatalities. During the same period eight successful prosecution actions were taken against pilots for contravention of Regulation 247 and action was taken against a pilot's licence in four cases. These figures are not cumulative in that in some cases the pilot involved in the accident was subject to both prosecution and/or licence action. (2) No. There is no legal power under the Air Navigation Act or Regulations to conduct such tests nor is there a blood alcohol content specified against which such a test could be applied. However my Department is undertaking a general review of the legislation in this area and as part of that review is studying recent changes in the United States. These include the introduction of a defined acceptable blood alcohol level for pilots but do not provide for breath testing prior to flight. As part of its review my Department will be consulting widely with overseas aviation authorities, State Motor Transport Authorities, the Aviation Industry and the appropriate industrial organisations. (Question No. 3165) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Did (a) he or (b) any of his staff disclose details of the November 1985 trading figures. (2) Did this disclosure result in a rumour throughout money markets and foreign exchange dealers. (3) Is he able to say who the Canberra economic adviser was who reportedly made the comments about the current account deficit being approximately $850 million or less, at a Tuesday lunch meeting of business economists as reported in The Australian of 12 December 1985. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (b) No. (2) Not applicable. (3) See answers to parts (1) and (2). (Question No. 3179) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: (1) Are mess uniforms supplied to female members of the armed forces; if not, (a) why not and (b) does this represent discrimination against women. (2) If mess uniforms are not supplied to females will he run a competition to select appropriate dress. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mess dress uniforms are not currently supplied to female members of the Defence Force. However, each service is giving consideration to how the requirement for mess uniforms for women in the Defence Force can best be met. (2) It is not planned to run a competition to select female mess uniforms. However, I am prepared to pursue this suggestion should the honourable member so desire. (Question No. 3244) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Is Australian taxpayers' money being expended on training New Zealand residents at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). (2) How many residents from other countries have been trained at the AIS in the last 3 years and from which countries were they. (3) What funding has been received from other countries towards the costs of training students in the last 3 years. (4) To what extent did funding from Australia's overseas aid program contribute towards training students from developing countries in the last 3 years. (5) Did Auckland tennis player Edith Tatana (a) train at the AIS and (b) tour overseas with an institute team; if so, how were expenses met for her training and touring. (6) Will he investigate the 1986 application for entry to the AIS of Queensland junior tennis player Neil Borwick and, if funds are available, endeavour to have him included in the 1986 intake. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) When New Zealand athletes attend the AIS their personal costs are met by sources other than the Institute. (2) The following teams and individuals have used the Institute's training facilities in the last three years China: 2 tennis coaches Fiji: 1 soccer coach, 1 basketballer India: 1 gymnastics coach Jamaica: 1 netball coach, 1 soccer coach Kenya: 1 weightlifter, 1 track and field athlete Kiribati: 1 basketball coach New Zealand: 2 netball teams, 1 basketball team, 2 gymnastics teams, 3 tennis players, 9 weightlifters Nigeria: 1 track and field athlete Norway: 2 track and field athletes Papua New Guinea: 1 track and field athlete Singapore: 2 swimming coaches Sri Lanka: 1 weightlifter Sweden: 13 track and field athletes Tonga: 1 soccer player Uganda: 1 track and field athlete USA: 1 track and field athlete Zimbabwe: 1 track and field athlete (3) In many of the cases listed above, reciprocal arrangements exist for AIS athletes when they tour overseas. There has been no other funding contribution from overseas countries towards training overseas athletes at the AIS over the past 3 years. (4) In 1984/85, $85,000 was received from the Department of Foreign Affairs for training athletes of developing Commonwealth countries. That Department contributed $170,000 in 1983/84. In 1982/83, the appropriation for the expenses of the AIS included $83,300 for this program. (5) (a) Yes. (b) Yes, but all touring expenses were paid by her or the NZ Tennis Association. She also contributed 25% of her tournament winnings to the AIS. (6) Neil Borwick applied for entry to the AIS in 1986. Although making the short list of applicants he was unsuccessful in obtaining a scholarship. Unless vacancies occur in the current number of tennis players on scholarship at the Institute he will not be further considered for a scholarship in 1986. Should a vacancy occur selection will be based on merit. (Question No. 3256) Mr Slipper asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) What was the cost, in each area, of changing the bicentennial colours from blue and gold to gold and green (2) In view of the Budget deficit, was this expenditure approved by the Government. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Australian Bicentennial Authority has advised the estimated cost to the Authority of the colour change was: $ (a) Bicentennial Community Kits, Endorsement Kits, Community Sales Kits... 127,456.06 (b) Office Signage... 1,728.00 (c) Promotional Materials and Stationery... 107,632.45 (d) Licensee Compensation... 5,222.10 (e) Product Replacement... 12,522.18 Total... 254,560.79 The Authority's estimates for 1984-85, which were agreed by the Government and passed by the Parliament, included sufficient funds to cover the cost of the colour change. (Question No. 3259) Mr Aldred asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics housed at 2 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, is to be relocated in the Rialto Towers in March 1987; if so, what expenditure has been approved for the relocation. (2) Is it a fact that (a) one section of the Bureau is being temporarily moved to 292 Flinders Street, Melbourne, in April 1986 and (b) that office is being refurbished to provide for an 11th month occupancy; if so, what are the costs of the planned refurbishment. (3) Is it proposed to refurbish the office at 2 Elizabeth Street to accommodate the Bureau, until March 1987; if so, what costs will be incurred in the refurbishment. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bureau of Statistics is to be relocated from 2 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne. As the matter is still subject to negotiations, I am not yet in a position to provide you with details on location, timing or cost. The relocation will be funded from my Department's new lease and fitout program. (2) (a) Yes. (b) The building has been refurbished by the owner at his cost. (3) Refurbishment of 2 Elizabeth Street is under consideration but the extent will be dependent on the timing of the proposed relocation mentioned in the first part of my answer. (Question No. 3266) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Did UN General Assembly Resolution 38/161 welcome the establishment of the World Commission on Environment and Development. (2) What is the nature of the work of the Commission. (3) Will the report of the Commission be submitted to the UN General Assembly in 1987. (4) Is Australia a participant in the works of the Commission; if not, what action does he propose to take to facilitate Australian Government involvement in and support for the work of the Commission. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The work of the commission is directed towards achieving the following objectives: (i) to re-examine the critical issues of environment and development and to formulate innovative, concrete and realistic action proposals to deal with them; (ii) to strengthen international co-operation on environment and development and to assess and propose new forms of co-operation that can break out of existing patterns and influence policies and events in the direction of needed change; and (iii) to raise the level of understanding and commitment to action on the part of individuals, voluntary organisations, businesses, institutes and governments. The Commission is also expected to consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more effectively with environmental concerns and define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and a long-term agenda for action during the coming decades. (3) Yes. (4) Australian support for the Commission is currently being considered. Discussions are continuing between my Department and the Commission concerning a proposal for an Australian analytical contribution to the work of the Commission. (Question No. 3294) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) What information is available to the Government on the extent of the use of antibiotics to influence growth of livestock and poultry in Australia. (2) Is he able to say whether any research is being done on the consequences of the use of antibiotics in animal and poultry feed for (a) the animals and (b) humans. (3) What regulations are in force in Australia to control this use of antibiotics. (4) Is he able to say what methods of regulating the use of antibiotics in animal and poultry feed are in use in other countries. Mr Kerin —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) The only significant use of antibiotics in stockfeeds in Australia is in the intensive animal industries involved in production of poultry and pigs. The exact extent of use in these industries is not known. (2) A vast amount of research has been carried out overseas during the last 15 years but no clearcut answers have emerged. In the absence of any clearly defined evidence of a significant human health hazard, regulatory authorities have deemed it prudent to assume that a hazard exists and to institute appropriate precautions. (3) Only a small range of selected antibiotics may be purchased over-the-counter for growth promotant use. The antibiotics approved for open sale must have a low propensity to induce resistance and must not be used in human medicine. Antibiotics used for prevention or treatment of animal disease are available only on veterinary prescription. The antibiotics approved for open sale do not leave detectable residues in meat when used in accordance with the directions on the registered label. Veterinarians understand that they should prescribe feed antibiotics for prophylactic or therapeutic purposes only when their use is clearly indicated. Although stimulation of growth may be obtained as a fringe benefit, the antibiotics should not be prescribed primarily for this purpose. Use of approved growth promotant antibiotics in accordance with approved conditions of use is a perfectly legitimate exercise and does not need to be discouraged in any way. Regulatory control is mainly directed towards the prevention of misuse. This is achieved principally by means of State legislation governing availability, labelling and advertising. The Commonwealth plays a coordinating role through the agency of Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. (4) Other countries regulate the use of antibiotics in animal and poultry feed in much the same way as Australia. The range of approved antibiotics may vary slightly from one country to another but will generally approximate the recommendations made by FAO/WHO. Penicillin and tetracyclines are still permitted in the United States but have been disallowed in Australia for some 6 or 7 years. All feed additive use of antibiotics for growth promotion was banned in Sweden from 1 January, 1986. This was not a bureaucratic decision but was the result of an initiative taken by Swedish farmers themselves. (Question No. 3304) Mr Jacobi asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Will he investigate allegations that (a) the President of Libya is engaged in negotiations to purchase a large number of plastic pistols which are said to be virtually undetectable by airport and other security staff, (b) the weapon is a 9mm Glock 17 pistol made in a village near Vienna, Austria, (c) a United States security expert has alleged that this weapon twice passed through security controls undetected at a United States airport and (d) the plastic pistols can easily be smuggled past airport security as only the barrel, spring and one other small part are metal. (2) Is he able to say whether European and United States anti-terrorist squads believe President Gaddafi will supply the Glocks to Abu Nidhal's terrorist and Palestine Liberation Organisation gunmen. (3) Is he also able to say whether the Austrian Government is reluctant to block the sale as President Gaddafi has suggested that he might purchase Austrian-made tanks and artillery. (4) Will he take steps to investigate the allegations. (5) Will he formally lodge an objection with the Austrian Government asking them to take action to ensure that these weapons are not produced and exported, particularly to terrorist organisations or to countries which support terrorist organisations. (6) Will he draw the matter to the attention of (a) international organisations which deal with counter-terrorist investigations and activities and (b) all security organisations at shipping, airport and other embarkation ports to ensure that surveillance equipment and practices will be able to cope with the logistics of this weapon. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) I am advised that the 9mm `Glock 17' semi-automatic pistol is manufactured by the Austrian company, Glock. I am advised also that the Glock company has stated that it would not export the ``Glock 17'' pistol to Libya. Exports of the pistol are subject to the normal export controls of the Austrian Government. Tests carried out on the `Glock 17' pistol by Austrian authorities and the United States Federal Aviation Administration have shown that the weapon cannot pass undetected through airport x-ray screening devices. I understand that tests were conducted on a prototype of the pistol by the Austrian authorities prior to its commercial manufacture. The pistol is 83 percent steel and 17 percent polymer and as a result is readily detectable under x-ray screening. Were the steel parts to be removed, scanning devices would still indicate an x-ray outline of a pistol. (6) Australian security authorities have the question of possible terrorist threat to Australia and consequent preparedness under constant review. This process includes wide consultation with security agencies of foreign governments who share Australia's concern about international terrorism. (Question No. 3370) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) How many persons in Western Australia receive a part Australian pension and an overseas pension. (2) What is the cost of administering (a) payment of a part Australian pension to recipients of overseas pensions and (b) provision of Pensioner Health Benefits and concession cards to pensioners in receipt of Australian and overseas pensions who regularly lose their eligibility for the card due to fluctuations in the currency exchange rates. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of pensioners in Western Australia at 13 December 1985, who were receiving less than the maximum rate of Australian pension and had income from overseas pensions, was 7767. (2) (a) Approximately 4 staff years are required in Western Australia to administer the payment of a part Australian pension to recipients of overseas pensions. Approximately 26 staff years are required to do this throughout Australia. Administering costs would be in the order of $0.1m and $0.7m respectively. (2) (b) The information is not available. (Question No. 3391) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that the increase in engineering construction in Australia over the previous year was 19.3%, 31.1% and 10.3% in 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, respectively. (2) Is it also a fact that it declined by 16.9% and 10.1% in 1983-84 and 1984-85, respectively. (3) Is engineering construction estimated to fall by 12.8% in 1985-86. (4) Do the figures indicate a continuing loss of confidence by the construction industry in Government policies as compared to the policies of the Liberal-National Party Coalition Government of 1980 to 1982. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes. Figures quoted are derived from the quarterly Australian Bureau of Statistics' survey of Engineering Construction Activity by Contractor, which covers about 40 per cent of total engineering construction activity (the remainder is undertaken primarily by public sector workforces). The changes are expressed in real terms. (3) The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors in the February 1986 edition of its ``Construction Industry Prospects'' publication forecast a 12.8 per cent fall in engineering construction work done by contractor in 1985-86. The Construction Forecasting Committee, on which the Federation is represented, has forecast a 7 per cent real fall in 1985-86. This forecast, which is a consensus of the views of all members of the Committee, was published in the December 1985 report ``Prospects for the Non-Residential Construction Industry''. Both the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors and the Construction Forecasting Committee have forecast that the decline in engineering construction activity by contractor will bottom out during the course of 1985-86. Neither forecast includes engineering construction activity undertaken by public sector workforces. This major component is forecast by the Committee to fall by 3 per cent in 1985-86. (4) The surge in engineering construction activity that peaked in 1982-83 reflected the so-called ``resources boom'' in mining, mineral processing, electricity generation, and related infrastructure. The optimistic forecasts issued by the then Federal Government played a significant part in whipping up the ``boom''. In the event, there was no boom, world economic conditions and commodity prices deteriorated. Engineering construction activity fell, and this Government was faced with restoring the fortunes of the engineering construction industry. As an immediate response, the present Government greatly increased expenditure on capital works, both directly and through programs such as the National Roads Program. In the case of my own Department, around 90 per cent of works are undertaken by private contractors. Through these actions, the present Government, ensured that conditions facing engineering construction contractors were less severe during this difficult period. The Government also put in place sound economic policies that have laid the foundations for sustained economic growth. The Government welcomes the signs that, as a result of these policies, the engineering construction sector will experience renewed growth in 1986-87. (Question No. 3406) Mr Conquest asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Has action been taken to reduce concessional expenditure rebates for (a) education in respect of children under 25 years and (b) self-education; if so, why. (2) Is a more equitable approach to the granting of sales tax exemptions to students purchasing equipment and materials for use in their courses in higher education being considered; if not, why not. (3) Is it a fact, as claimed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, that applications for sales tax exemptions for microcomputers are taking up to 4 weeks to process; if so, will he ensure that the delays are reduced. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Prior to 1 July 1985 certain expenditure on the education of a student under 25 years and on self-education, up to a maximum of $250 per student, qualified as concessional expenditure for rebate purposes. The concessional expenditure rebate, which was available at a rate of 30 per cent, only applied to that part of total qualifying expenditure in excess of $2,000. Because of this requirement only a small proportion of taxpayers (approximately 6 per cent in 1983-84) gained any direct benefit from the rebate. On 17 July 1985 I announced, as part of the Government's tax reform package, that it had been decided to replace, from the 1985-86 income year, the concessional expenditure rebate with a medical expenses rebate. From 1 July 1985 expenses relating to education, therefore, ceased to qualify as rebatable expenditure. In announcing this decision I indicated that the rebate has been of benefit to only a small section of the community, comprising mainly those on higher incomes, and the Government considered it no longer represented an equitable or efficient form of assistance for the items it covered. In relation to education expenses I specifically noted that: `...[to] provide more effective assistance to education, the Government has already significantly increased direct funding of schools and tertiary education, and has entered into long term commitments to further expand direct funding in these areas.' This and other tax reform measures introduced by the Government are part of a major restructuring of the tax system designed to improve its equity, efficiency and administration. The measures will also contribute towards financing the substantial reductions in personal income tax rates which form part of the tax reform package and which will benefit all taxpayers. (2) The Government is not considering providing sales tax exemptions to tertiary students for equipment and materials purchased for use in their courses. A conditional exemption of this type would rate poorly on equity grounds and would be difficult to administer in a way which confined exemptions to the purpose intended. Sales tax exemption is generally not the most equitable way of providing assistance. It is of greatest benefit to those with the means to spend most on the taxable goods in question. It does not assist those who purchase second-hand goods. There are real difficulties in administering an exemption for a particular purpose for a particular class of persons in relation to goods that have a variety of uses or which are used in a variety of contexts. In particular, it is close to impossible to prevent abuses in the form of people gaining student status, perhaps as a part-time student, simply in order to acquire goods free of tax, or in the form of students purchasing goods for relatives or friends. (3) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that it is possible that the processing of applications for sales tax exemptions for microcomputers may take up to four weeks. There are situations, however, when the applications are processed in a shorter period of time. He advises that some delays are caused by the large volume of correspondence handled by the Australian Taxation Office and at other times because of a need to gather more information to substantiate the validity of applications received. The Commissioner has informed me that he has considered means of reducing the time taken to process these applications and at present new procedures have been adopted in some Branches with the result that the processing time is being reduced. (Question No. 3483) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to confirm that the Soviet Union has now deployed more than 135 SS-20 intermediate range missiles in central Siberia and East of Lake Baikal. (2) What is the range of the SS-20. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Soviet Union does not normally make such information about its forces public. The Government has seen statements to this effect by a number of senior United States Administration officials and has no reason to dispute them. (2) No information is available from Soviet sources but publications such as the SIPRI Yearbooks, the United States Defense Department's Soviet Military Power and NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons (NATO Information Service 1984) place the range of the SS-20 in the vicinity of 4400-5000 kilometres. (Question No. 3496) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has the Dag Hammarskjold Library at the United Nations Headquarters been under the charge of Soviet directors since 1964. (2) What proportions of the $15,085,000 budget does the Australian Government pay for the upkeep of the Library. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. There have been four Soviet Directors of the UN Library since 1964. While there have been gaps of up to six months between these directors, no other nationals have been appointed to the position in the period. (2) Australia contributes 1.66 percent of the 1986/87 UN Budget of which the costs of the UN Library form a part. Australia therefore pays a notional 1.66% of the budget of the UN Library. (Question No. 3497) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to allegations that the UN Dag Hammarskjold Library has been exploited and misused for Soviet purposes; if so, is there any substance in the allegations. (2) Are there 39 listings under democracy and 110 under communism in the subject catalogue. (3) Is he able to confirm that under Freedom of Speech nothing is listed for the Soviet Union, but under Freedom of Speech-Israel the catalogue lists one title, Restrictions on the Freedom of Expression of the State Employee in Israel, and under Freedom of Speech-United Kingdom the catalogue lists The Recent Decline and Fall of Freedom of the Press in English Law. (4) Under the subject catalogue heading of Peace are there twice as many listings for the USSR than for the United States, while under the heading of Chemical and Biological Warfare there are more than twice as many listings for the United States than for the USSR. (5) If so, what action will he take to ensure a more balanced and objective collection of library material. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. A Soviet Director would be in a position to influence Library policy, but I am not aware of convincing evidence to support these allegations. Of the 63 professional positions in the UN Library, 23 are filled by United States citizens and 8 by Soviet citizens. (2) I am informed that there are 65 listings under `democracy' and 41 under `communism'. According to the UN Library, its data bases, catalogues and indexes reflect the agenda items and resolutions of various UN bodies. Subject index items are decided by a Committee comprising the following nationalities: Chinese (1), French (1), Jamaican (1), Japanese (1), Soviet (1) and United States (7). (3) Yes. (4) There are 6 references listed under ``Peace: United States'' and 13 under ``Peace: USSR''. There are 11 references under ``Chemical and Biological Warfare: United States'' and 6 under ``Chemical Warfare: USSR''. (5) The policy of the UN Library on the selection and retention of material is determined by a panel of professional staff on which Western countries are well represented. There are no Soviet representatives on the Monographs or Serials Committees which decide acquisitions and retention policy. This suggests that allegations of deliberate bias are not well founded. (Question No. 3547) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) On what basis (a) was he able to express an understanding of the interception of an Egyptian aircraft conveying suspected terrorists by American airforce planes and (b) did he deplore the recent Israeli airforce planes' interception of Libyan aircraft suspected of conveying terrorists. (2) Is he able to say how the interception of a civil aircraft in international air space can be justified. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Government was able to express understanding of the interception of an Egyptian aircraft on a non-scheduled flight by American airforce planes following the Achille Lauro incident on the basis that the United States was apprehending and helping to bring to justice persons known to have just committed specific acts of terrorism against United States citizens on the high seas. (b) I deplored the interception by Israeli airforce planes of a Libyan civil aircraft suspected by Israel of carrying persons whom the Israelis suspected of having committed acts of terrorism, on the basis that such action could be regarded as a precedent jeopardising the lives and safety of perfectly innocent passengers and crew, which is our paramount concern. (2) It is not possible to state in a general way how or when the interception of a civil aircraft in international air space may be justified. Much will always depend on the prevailing circumstances at the time. (Question No. 3549) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether Libyan intelligence operatives are active on islands in Oceania. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Libyan officials have visited the South Pacific on a number of recent occasions. I am not able to give precise information about their status or activities, although I understand that part of their purpose has been the development of links with the New Caledonian Kanak independence movement (FLNKS). The Australian Government has publicly expressed its concern about Libyan links with the South Pacific. It has made it very clear to Libya and the FLNKS that Australia and others in the region would look with considerable disfavour on any training or other activity which would pose a threat to the present peaceful political process in New Caledonia. The Australian Government will remain particularly concerned about any action which would lead to the use, or threat of use, of violence and terrorism in New Caledonia or elsewhere in the region. (Question No. 3560) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has he or his Department received a copy of the publication entitled The 72 Hour Document: The Sandanista Blueprint for Constructing Communism in Nicaragua. (2) Does he accept the authenticity of this document. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the US' State Department's view that it demonstrates that, from the time of the revolution, the Sandanistas were intent on converting Nicaragua into a Marxist-Leninist State closely aligned with the Soviet Bloc. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The publication, produced by the United States Department of State, is of a document originally entitled ``Analysis of the Situation and Tasks of the Sandanista People's Revolution''. It is an analysis along Marxist lines of Nicaraguan history and events leading up to the overthrow of the dictator Somoza. It also sets out to identify the tasks ahead of the ruling party, the FSLN, in maintaining power and improving its organisational base. (2) I am not in a position to be able to verify the authenticity of the document. Its contents indicate that it probably is authentic and I am not aware of any attempt by the Nicaraguan Government to disown it. (3) Yes. (Question No. 3563) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether in recent months Sandinista armed forces have intensified military activities in the northern quarter of Nicaragua and the south-central region against democratic resistance forces. (2) Is he also able to say whether the Soviet manufactured MI-24 HIND-D attack helicopter has been introduced in the Sandinista offensive. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Fighting between the Nicaraguan armed forces and anti-government Nicaraguan insurgents known as Contras intensified in the first quarter of 1986. The fighting has been concentrated in the northern part of Nicaragua, near the Contra bases across the border in Honduras. The intensification of the fighting appears to have been part of a Nicaraguan offensive designed to drive the Contras back into Honduras. Contra activity has also been reported in the Central Nicaraguan provinces of Boaco and Chontales. (2) The Nicaraguan Armed Forces possess several MI-24 (HIND-D) helicopters. I understand that these aircraft have been used in action against the Contras. (Question No. 3564) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Further to his answer to my question No. 1730 (Hansard, 30 November 1985, page 4066), which specific Central American Governments have a worse record on human rights than the Nicaraguan Government. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is generally considered that Guatemala and El Salvador have a worse record on human rights than the Nicaraguan Government. While there have been improvements recently and while the return to democratic governments is encouraging, the history of politically motivated killings and disappearances in Guatemala and El Salvador is atrocious. (Question No. 3567) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Journal of Defence and Diplomacy of September 1985 stating that Vanuatu is offering military assistance to the Kanak independence movement. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. I am not, however, aware of any evidence to substantiate the report. (Question No. 3584) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has the peace movement had some striking recent successes in (a) the shooting down of the MX missile test assistance proposal and (b) the forcing of the Government to support the freeze resolution in the UN. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member's question is based on wrong assumptions. The answer to (a) and (b) is no. (Question No. 3656) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 1682 (Hansard, 11 October 1984) pages 2217-8 concerning allegations that Iraq has used nerve gas and mustard gas in the war against Iran, is it a fact that a recent report from a team of United Nations investigators has confirmed Iraq's use of these toxic gases. (2) If so, is this the first occasion that a country has been named for violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical weapons. (3) Will Australia condemn Iraq's actions in the strongest possible terms at appropriate international forums. (4) Will he seek an agreement with other relevant governments to ban the export of chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons by Iraq. (5) Will he call upon the United Nations to request the investigatory team to visit countries involved in the conflict to enable verification as to whether stocks of chemical weapons exist and to seek the support of these governments in allowing access. (6) Will he call upon the governments of Iran and Iraq and those that can be affected by the conflict seeking their assurances (a) that they will not use chemical weapons, (b) that all existing stock of chemical weapons will be destroyed and (c) that they will comply with their obligations under the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The 1986 Report of the Mission Despatched by the Secretary-General to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Conflict between Iran and Iraq, which visited Iran from 26 February to 3 March 1986, concluded on the basis of investigations in 1984, 1985 and 1986 that: (a) on many occasions Iraqi forces have used chemical weapons against Iranian forces; (b) the agent used has mainly been mustard gas, although on some occasions nerve gas was also employed. (2) There has been a number of allegations of use of chemical weapons-some verified and others not-since the Geneva Protocol was concluded in 1925. Some of these instances of use involved Parties to the Protocol while others concerned non-Parties. As far as the Government is aware, however, the conclusions of the 1986 Report of the Mission despatched by the United Nations Secretary-General constitute the first occasion since the Protocol was concluded that a Party to the Protocol has been named by an independent panel of experts established under appropriate international auspices as being in violation of the Protocol. (3) The Government has already strongly condemned Iraq's use of chemical weapons in a statement issued by me on 16 March 1986 and in statements to the United Nations Security Council and the Conference on Disarmament. The Government has also made its views known directly to the Government of Iraq. (4) The Government is committed to the early conclusion of a Comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention which would ban the production, stockpiling and use as well as the transfer of all chemical weapons. Australia has taken a leading role in negotiations to this end in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. As an interim measure pending the conclusion of the Convention, the Government has itself instituted controls on the export of chemicals which could be used to manufacture the chemical weapons used by Iraq. It has also taken an initiative to convene a number of meetings with Western countries which have instituted similar controls to see whether there is scope for cooperation to make these controls more effective. (5) The Government does not consider that much would be gained by investigating whether stocks of chemical weapons exist in Iran and Iraq, especially since a United Nations investigation has already confirmed that Iraq has used chemical weapons and therefore must possess stocks of chemical weapons. Moreover, possession of stocks of chemical weapons is not prohibited under existing international law. See also my answer to part 4 of Question on Notice No. 1682 (Hansard, 11 October 1984), pages 2217-8. (6) The Government had made it clear on several occasions to both Iran and Iraq that: (a) it considers the use of chemical weapons abhorrent; (b) it is committed to the early conclusion of a Comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention as described in (4) above which would, inter alia, require the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons; (c) it attaches the utmost importance to the strict observance of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. (Questions Nos. 3619-3645) Mr Peacock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What is the average length of time taken for officers of his Department holding honours or higher degrees to be promoted from the equivalent of Clerical/Administrative (a) class 5 to class 7, (b) class 7 to class 9 and (c) class 9 to class 11. (2) How do the figures compared with the average periods taken for promotion for similarly qualified officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs as revealed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his answer to question No. 2270 (Hansard, 29 November 1985, page 4091). Mr Willis —The honourable member asked identical questions of all Ministers, with the exception of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to those questions, with the concurrence of the Ministers concerned: (1) and (2) the table below, prepared by the Public Service Board, shows for Public Service Act officers who were promoted in 1985 and who held Honours or higher degrees, the average length of time to be promoted from Class 5 to at least Class 7, Class 7 to at least Class 9 and Class 9 to at least Class 11. Provision has been made in the calculations for officers who have been promoted across these levels (eg Class 6 to Class 8). There were 288 promotions in 1985 of officers holding Honours or higher degrees from Class 5 to at least Class 7, 225 from Class 7 to at least Class 9 and 139 from Class 9 to at least Class 11. These figures do not reflect the average length of time spent at various levels by officers not promoted in 1985 as it is not feasible to calculate a meaningful average length of time for promotions occurring some time in the future. Information regarding promotions in the Department of Foreign Affairs, calculated on the same basis as for other Departments, has also been included to enable the honourable member to draw a comparison. Average length of time taken to be promoted for permanent Clerical Administrative Officers holding Honours to higher degrees who were promoted in 1985. Department (a) From Class 5 to at least Class 7 (years) From Class 7 to at least Class 9 (years) From Class 9 to at least Class 11 (years) Prime Minister & Cabinet... 0.9 1.3 4.0 Industry, Technology & Commerce... 2.2 3.1 n.c. Community Services... 1.2 3.2 2.7 Employment & Industrial Relations... 1.6 3.3 2.0 Treasury... 2.6 1.9 3.6 Special Minister of State... 1.6 n.c. n.c. Finance... 1.2 1.8 n.c. Foreign Affairs... 3.0 3.9 6.7 Education... 2.3 n.c. n.c. Resources & Energy... 2.2 n.c. n.c. Primary Industry... 2.9 1.6 5.3 Housing & Construction... 1.6 3.5 2.0 Defence... 1.3 2.7 2.2 Immigration & Ethnic Affairs... 2.5 2.9 n.c. Social Security... 2.6 3.2 3.7 Health... 0.8 1.3 1.4 Science... n.c. 1.3 n.c. Communications... n.c. 2.6 n.c. Veteran's Affairs... 0.8 n.c. n.c. Local Government & Admin. Services... 1.3 n.c. n.c. All APS Officers... 2.0 2.7 3.7 n.c. not calculated because of small numbers (ie less than 5 cases). (a) Departments not listed had insufficient numbers of officers for figures to be calculated for any of the categories. These were Attorney-General's, Trade, Transport, Aviation, Sport, Recreation & Tourism, Territories, Arts, Heritage and Environment and Aboriginal Affairs. The figures for individual Department exclude details of staff employed in Statutory Authorities. (Question No. 1572) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) Compensation under Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act Expenditure in 1984-85 totalled $790,528 which included $272,428 for on going payments in respect of thirty-one (31) former employees. Other payments were $130,700 in respect of the death of three (3) officers and $39,000 (2 payments) for loss of limbs. Expenditure of $345,065 covered payments to medical practitioners, chemists, hospital fees, etc. relating to compensation determinations in respect of 617 claims. Other Compensation Payments Further payments in the amount of $3,335 were made arising from 97 claims for damage to property of Departmental officers. Legal Expenses Expenditure 1984-85 Amount Recipient Service $ 2,000.00 Australian Government Solicitor A. Hill v G Keetley (Disbursement Compensation Claim) 9,000.00 Australian Government Solicitor Linehan v Lansdown (Disbursement Compensation Claim) 1,076.80 Australian Government Solicitor Linehan v Lansdown (Disbursement Compensation Claim) 1,350.00 Mr Michael Black QC D. Linehan v Transport Workers 1,500.00 Sir Maurice Byers QC Industrial Agreements-Part X of C and A 1,143.70 Court Recording Services Erczmann v Commonwealth of Australia (Compensation Claim) 200.00 Mr J Critchley Erczmann v Commonwealth of Australia (Compensation Claim) 2,040.00 Mr M Dowling QC Macphee v BLF 600.00 Mr C Ferris Application pursuant to section 132C of C & A 1,170.00 Mr T Ginnane Ian Seymour v Stawell Timber 1,060.00 Mr T Ginnane Ian Seymour v Stawell Timber 75.00 Mr T Ginnane Ian Seymour v Stawell Timber 150.00 Dr G Griffiths QC ACOA Case Brief 25,350.00 Dr G Griffiths QC Job Security Case AMW and SU/BHP. Services 18/5/83-25/11/83 3,014.00 Mr D Hall Representation at C & A 4,520.00 Mr T Hartigan QC Representation at C & A 1,260.00 Mr B Hungerford Academics Salary Rates 1,395.00 Mr B Hungerford Academics Salary Rates 2,822.80 Mr B Hungerford Academics Salaries Tribunal 528.00 Dr C Jessup Rosella Liptons v Food Preservers Union 650.00 Dr C Jessup Prosecution of Hobart Coffee Lounge 12,150.00 Mr Ron Merkel QC National Wage Case 480.00 Mr Ron Merkel QC Application by PSB to vary determination 12,690.00 Mr Ron Merkel QC National Wage Case 2,060.00 Mr B Monotti Erczmann v Commonwealth of Australia (Compensation Claim) 2,410.00 Mr Garry Moore ACOA/APSA Anomalies Claims 2,400.00 Mr Garry Moore Job Security Case 750.00 Mr Garry Moore Furniture Trades Award 50.00 Mr Garry Moore Job Security Case 3,300.00 Mr Garry Moore Job Security Case 2,500.00 Mr Garry Moore Rosella Liptons v Food Preservers Union 6,280.00 Mr Garry Moore Anomaly Claims by ACOA and ORS 7,500.00 Mr Garry Moore National Wage Case 800.00 Mr Garry Moore Application by PSB to vary determination 3,520.00 Mr Garry Moore Application by PSB to vary determination 7,800.00 Mr Garry Moore National Wage Case 100.00 Mr Garry Moore National Wage Case 5,345.00 Mr Garry Moore Rehearing of Anomalies Claim 1,688.75 Mr ARO Rowlands QC National Wage Case-Federated Clerks Union/Allied Employees Association 5/2/83-8/2/83-Payment for Miss C E Gray, Junior Barrister 6,019.55 Mr ARO Rowlands QC Federated Clerks Union/Allied Employees Association Wage Claim 5/2/83 to 8/2/83 2,077.00 Mr ARO Rowlands QC National Wage Case-SMHEA/ETU-C120-1980 370.00 Mr ARO Rowlands QC Aust. Glass and ORS and Society of Engineers-C781-1980-23/6/81 525.00 Mr ARO Rowlands QC Conference to Review Wage Indexation 1/10/80 350.00 Mr ARO Rowlands QC National Wage Case-1980 1,250.00 Mr D Ryan QC Master Builders v Plumbers and Gas Fitters 600.00 Mr P Sharkey Counsels Legal Opinion 1,257.50 Witness Fees BLF Deregistration 145,178.00 Total (Question Nos. 2116-2118) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) In what way do conditions and regulations of entry of US citizens visiting or employed at Australia-US joint facilities in Australia differ from those applying to Australians on re-entry or to the entry of other nationalities. (2) Under what statutes or policy directives administered by the Minister's Department are these exemptions allowed. Mr Hurford —The following answer to question No. 2117 was tabled on 14 February 1986. This answer was, in fact, submitted with the concurrence of the Ministers for Industry, Technology and Commerce, and Health in response to question Nos. 2116-2118: (1) Members of the United States forces or members of the civilian component i.e. civilian employees of the United States Government, and their dependants travelling to or staying in Australia under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Australia do not require visas for Australia, or entry permits, provided they hold a movement order or certificate of status. However, employees of private American companies working at joint facilities in Australia are required to meet normal requirements for entry to Australia, including being issued with visas and entry permits. In addition, dependants of SOFA personnel admitted under the exemptions set out above are not subject to the restrictions on employment in Australia which are imposed on the dependants of other temporary residents. This concession is granted on a reciprocal basis i.e. dependants of personnel of the Australian Armed Forces in the USA are also permitted to work. People travelling to Australia on Australian or New Zealand passports do not require visas and are not issued with entry permits (except for New Zealanders who would otherwise be prohibited non-citizens under Section 16 of the Migration Act). With a few limited exceptions (e.g. members of the Royal Family, members of the armed forces of Commonwealth countries) nationals of other countries are required to obtain the appropriate visa for travel to Australia and are issued with an entry permit on arrival which would allow either an indefinite stay or a specific limited period of stay appropriate to their purpose of entry. (2) Paragraph 8 (1) (e) of the Migration Act 1958 provides for a person to be exempted, by instrument under the hand of the Minister, from the entry permit requirements of the Act. Paragraph 11c (1) (b) of the Migration Act 1958 makes similar provision in respect of visa requirements. SOFA personnel and their dependants are included in a class of persons so exempted. The absence of employment restrictions on dependants of SOFA personnel accords with the concessions available to dependants of personnel of the Australian Armed Forces in the USA. The guidelines are contained in the Temporary Entry Handbook Part 1, section 9.2 and Annex 23. (Question No. 2201) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the address at the International Criminal Law Congress in Adelaide by Mr John Sulan, in particular, his reference to the need for the appointment of specialist judges and assessors to preside over the prosecution of extremely complex commercial crime. (2) Is he pursuing comments reported to have been made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC, as reported in The Age of 15 October 1984, to the effect that whilst juries could comprehend straight forward cases, such understanding might not be possible in a major fraud trial or one involving complex technical evidence. (3) Will he investigate the need to amend the Judiciary Act 1903, the Crimes Act 1914, the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, so as to enable complex commercial crime to be presented before a specialist of the Federal Court. (4) Will he investigate the applicability of the recommendation in the UK Lord Roskill Report and the debates concerning the UK Financial Services Bill, as a means for combating the escalation of complex commercial crime in Australia. (5) Will he investigate the recommendations of Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian Law Reform Commissions' inquiries into the role of the jury in criminal trials as they could affect the prosecution of offences under Commonwealth law. (6) Has he considered there is an urgent need to re-appraise structures by which ``pin-stripe crime'' is dealt with in the legal system. (7) Will he take steps to set up a separate commercial division within the Federal Court to deal with extremely complicated commercial crime and will he consider that such a Court should compromise specialist judges and expert assessors in prosecutions for breaches of commercial law, rather than State Courts vested with federal jurisdiction. (8) Is there any constitutional barrier to a commercial division of the Federal Court being comprised of both expert judges and assessors, provided the latter take no part in the final decision; if so, would technically qualified or experienced assessors be of invaluable assistance in interpreting complex commercial evidence. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am aware of the comments to which the honourable member refers. I believe that the appropriate solution is to find better ways of equipping juries to comprehend and analyse such evidence effectively. The jury system is fundamental to our criminal justice system and indeed vital to our democratic society, and any reform in this area should leave the jury's role undiminished. (3) The current practice of investing State courts with federal criminal jurisdiction is one of long standing. The general policy, subject to some exemptions, is not to confer criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court. Amendment of the Acts referred to in the question is not, therefore, considered necessary. (4) The report on Reform of Fraud Trials prepared by the U.K. Government Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Roskill was published on 10 January 1986. A copy is being forwarded to my Department which will examine it, when it becomes available, to ascertain whether any of the recommendations made by the Committee may be applicable in Australia. I note, however, that the U.K. Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society Criminal Law Committee, and the British Labour Party are opposing the proposal to remove the right to trial by jury in complex fraud cases. The issues arising under the U.K. Financial Services Bill are ones which also arise in Australia. The Bill will be closely examined not only in relation to matters involving complex commercial issues but also in respect of other matters such as deregulation of financial markets. (5) The role of juries in criminal trials is primarily a matter for the States. My Department is examining the New South Wales Law Reform Commission's Report on Jury Trials at the request of the Commission. This Report includes detailed proposals on means of assisting juries in complex trials. The Department also has a copy of the Queensland Law Reform Commission's working paper on the role of juries in criminal trials, and will obtain and examine a copy of the Victorian Law Reform Commission's background paper on juries when it is published. (6) and (7) The Government is keeping under review the criminal justice system in which persons charged with offences of a commercial nature are dealt with. However, I do not consider that there is a need at this stage to vest jurisdiction in a special division of the Federal Court to try offences of a criminal nature. I see no reason to change the policy referred to in (3) above. (8) This question calls for an expression of legal opinion which it is not necessary to consider at the present time. Whether any particular proposal involving the use of assessors or a modified form of jury trial would be constitutional would have to be considered having regard to the details of that proposal. (Question No. 2523) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the Australian Capital Territory Association Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the Australian Capital Territory Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the Australian Capital Territory funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA): Yes; Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC): Yes; Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS): No. (2)- DAA: No. The Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission has advised that such organisations do not have to be incorporated under the Australian Capital Territory Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. ADC: No. However, a requirement for a grant is that the organisation must be a body corporate. AIAS: Not applicable. (3)- DAA: No. ADC: No. However, a requirement for a grant is that the organisation must produce its Certificate of Incorporation. AIAS: Not applicable. (4)-DAA: Not applicable. ADC: Not applicable. However, where an organisation fails to show that it is a body corporate, those responsible for administration of the organisation are advised that the organisation must have corporate status before a grant can be provided. AIAS: Not applicable. (5)- DAA and ADC: All incorporated organisations which receive grants have to comply with the requirements of the legislation under which they are incorporated. AIAS: Not applicable. (Question No. 2715) Mr Spender asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) What is the present position of the Government's undertaking to extend telephone interception powers to State police in relation to drug trafficking, made at the special Premiers' Conference on drugs in April 1985. (2) Have any States formally requested such powers; if so, (a) which States and (b) what was the outcome of the requests. (3) Have any problems arisen with implementation of State proposals; if so, what are the details. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A Bill to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 is being prepared. The Bill will make telecommunications interception powers available, subject to stringent safeguards, in relation to drug trafficking offences to certain police officers of those States and Territories that request such powers. The Bill will be forwarded to State Premiers for their approval prior to introduction. (2) The States and the Northern Territory will not be in a position to request interception powers formally until the proposed Commonwealth legislation is enacted, and the respective States and the Northern Territory have taken the necessary legislative measures to ensure effective safeguards. In response to a letter from the Prime Minister, however, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have indicated that they will request interception powers. (3) No specific proposals have yet been received from the States. (Question No. 2763) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: (1) Will he explain the apparent contradiction between his answer to part (3) of question No. 1187 (Hansard 8 October 1985, page 1426) and information contained in the handwritten memorandum by a member of his Department appearing on pages 181 and 182 of the book The Price of Affluence: Dilemmas of Contemporary Japan and referring to the inclusion of a Japanese police record on Professor Hidaka's file. (2) Further to his answer to part (6) of the question, what consultation takes place between the Australian and Japanese Governments prior to the awarding of grants by the Japan Foundation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The answer given to part (3) of question No. 1187 is correct. I am aware of the reasons behind the honourable member's question, but I would like to assure him that there is and was no Report from the Japanese Police on the file. (2) My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs informs me that no consultation takes place between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Japan Foundation prior to the awarding of grants by the Japan Foundation. Similarly, my Department is not party to consultations with the Japan Foundation prior to the awarding of grants. As set out in the answer, the Department of Foreign Affairs does not undertake consultations with the Japan Foundation, however, whether the Japan Foundation undertakes consultations with any other Government Department is not known to Foreign Affairs or this Department. (Question No. 2864) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Under what Commonwealth laws are class action procedures currently available. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Class action procedures of the kind available in the United States are not currently available under Commonwealth laws. A limited form of class action, known as a representative action, is available under the Rules of the High Court (Order 16 Rule 12) and the Federal Court (Order 6 Rule 13). Briefly, those rules provide that where numerous persons have the same interest in a proceeding, one or more of them may sue or be sued as representing the others. As, under these rules, the represented parties must have the same interest the representative action does not, unlike the United States system, assist parties seeking damages in respect of numerous separate torts of the same nature. Representative action by the Trade Practices Commission to obtain redress on behalf of particular named persons who have suffered loss or damage because of the conduct of a corporation or person in breach of the consumer protection provisions in Division 1 or 1A of Part V of the Trade Practices Act is provided for in clause 55 of the Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 which proposes amendments to section 87 of the Act. Under this section the court will not be empowered to make awards of damages to a class of persons but only to the particular named persons. I mentioned that the desirability of having class actions in Australia is currently under consideration by the Law Reform Commission. (Question No. 2918) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is the Minister able to say in what States and Territories education authorities still permit corporal punishment in schools. (2) What action has been taken since March 1983 by the Commonwealth to (a) prevent and (b) discourage the use of corporal punishment by State and Territory education authorities. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth Government considers corporal punishment to be inappropriate and unnecessary and opposes its use in schools. In the Australian Capital Territory, where the Commonwealth administers the school system, the ACT Schools Authority discourages the use of corporal punishment and urges schools to move toward its abolition. Other State and Territory education authorities determine their own discipline policies. (Question No. 3144) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: Has there been a wage increase awarded as a result of the renegotiation of the Australian Oil Refining-Australian Lubricating Oil Refinery Industrial Agreement at the Caltex Kurnell refinery; if so: (a) what was the nature of the increase, (b) what were the reasons for the increase and (c) does the increase fall within the guidelines for the Prices and Incomes Accord. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Industrial Agreement between the Australian Workers' Union (New South Wales Branch) and Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd and Australian Lubricating Oil Refinery Ltd was renegotiated late last year. The new Industrial Agreement applies to operators and storemen at the Caltex Kurnell refineries and contains provision for wage increases based on alleged changes in work value. The Agreement was registered with the New South Wales Industrial Registrar under Section 11 of the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act and took effect on 15 January 1986, remaining in force for two years. In early December 1985, I contacted Caltex to express the Government's view that the Industrial Agreement should be fully tested in terms of the wage fixation Principles of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. In proceedings before Mr Justice Macken of the Commission on 16 and 20 December 1985 the Commonwealth intervened to argue that the Industrial Agreement be tested against the Principles. In a statement of 20 December 1985, Mr Justice Macken noted the importance of having the Agreement tested and indicated his intention to review the impact of the alleged work value changes on each classification. (Question No. 3159) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Further to the Treasurer's answer to my question No. 11 (Hansard, 19 November 1985, pages 3178-81) concerning the investigation of the transfer of management of the Bishopsgate Insurance Aust. (Merchant Bank) to the investment company of a Bishopsgate director, Mr Stathis, by Mr Stathis without the approval of his co-directors has the investigation by the New South Wales Government into that transfer been completed. (2) If the investigation has been completed, has it revealed (a) a breach or breaches of the Companies Act; and (b) any deficiencies in company law; if so, has the matter been raised at the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and what action will be taken. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I understand that the New South Wales Government investigations are continuing. The matter has not been raised with the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. (Question No. 3253) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Has a decision been made to reduce (a) the frequency of visits and (b) the range of services offered by officers of the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) to cities in the Electoral Division of Hinkler. (2) What aural testing and associated services are available to those eligible hearing-affected pensioners in the Electoral Division of Hinkler who reside in country areas not visited by NAL officers. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. The visits by NAL technicians to Gladstone and Bundaberg in the Electoral Division of Hinkler were discontinued because the number of hearing aid repairs undertaken was insufficient to justify such visits. As a more economical measure clients are requested to return their aids by post to Brisbane for repair. This should in most cases result in a quicker and better service. Clients will not have to wait with a non-functioning hearing aid until the technician visits the region and repairs will be carried out in a fully equipped technical facility. (b) No. There will be no reduction in the range of clinical services available in the area. (2) In the electorate of Hinkler, Bundaberg and Gladstone are the only visiting hearing centres and both of these are equipped with audiometric booths and full test facilities. The number of man days spent in Gladstone and Bundaberg by an NAL audiologist during 1985-86 has shown a substantial increase over 1984-85. Clients in the electorate are offered the full range of audiological services including hearing assessment, hearing aid selection and rehabilitation at these centres. (Question No. 3254) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 3 (Hansard, 19 April 1985, page 1544) has Australia ratified the Hague Convention on International Child Abductions. (2) What procedures would be followed in (a) Australia and (b) overseas under the terms of the convention in the event that a child domiciled in Australia is improperly removed from Australia to another country which has ratified the convention. (3) Would the child be held as a ward in the country where it has been taken; if so, for how long. (4) What financial assistance is available to an Australian parent from whom a child is improperly removed. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australia has not yet ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction. However a final draft of the necessary regulations, prepared after considerable consultation with the States has been forwarded to the Attorney-General of each of the States and the Northern Territory. It is envisaged that these regulations will be made in the near future. Once the regulations are made and the instrument of accession had been deposited it will be a further three months before the Convention will enter into force for Australia. This three month delay is created by Article 38 of the Convention. (2) Where a child has been removed from Australia to another country, which is a party to the Convention, the person entitled to the custody of the child in Australia would apply through the Secretary of my Department for the return of the child. This application would then be transmitted to the necessary Authority in the country to which the child had been taken. The Receiving Authority would then arrange for proceedings to be taken as soon as possible under the Convention for the immediate return of the child to Australia. (3) The Convention does not specify that the child become a ward of the Court although it may be necessary from time to time for a court to place the child in the custody of an appropriate person or institution pending the outcome of proceedings. This will depend upon the legislation implementing the convention in each country. (4) The parent may be eligible for assistance under the Commonwealth's Overseas Custody (Child Removal) Scheme. This is an administrative scheme whereby the Attorney-General is authorised to grant financial assistance to a parent, ordinarily resident in Australia, instituting or proposing to institute legal proceedings overseas for recovery of any child of such parent removed from Australia by the other parent. In considering an application under the scheme the Attorney-General takes into account the questions whether it would involve financial hardship to the applicant if assistance were not granted and whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the application should be granted. (Question No. 3286) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: Is it a fact that the Government figures for the 12 months to November 1985 show that the value of exports from Queensland exceeded that from any other State. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. Information provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that in the 12 month period ended November 1985, the value of exports ($7130.7m from New South Wales exceeded that from any other State. In that period the value of exports from Queensland was $6908.2m. (Question No. 3310) Mr Sharp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: Is it possible for an individual to import tear gas into Australia; if so, what requirements need to be met. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The importation of `chemical warfare gas and devices and apparatus designed for use with that gas' and `Warfare Weapons and Appliances' and `Gases and liquids designed for the purpose of killing or incapacitating persons . . .' is prohibited under Regulation 4 (1) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, unless the written permission of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has been granted. The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence advise that Australia and a number of other countries do not regard riot control agents such as tear gas as a warfare gas or as a chemical agent comprehended by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which prescribes the use in war of biological and chemical agents, popularly termed `war gases'). The importation of tear gas is therefore permitted subject to normal Customs entry and clearance procedures. The Department of the Special Minister of State has confirmed that State and Territory weapons control legislation generally regulates the possession and/or use of products such as tear gas. Intending importers should check with the relevant police authority before ordering tear gas from overseas. (Question No. 3376) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Is it a fact that (a) air passengers entering Australia at Perth are processed partially through customs and immigration at 3 a.m. and (b) customs and immigration formalities could be more easily and quickly conducted at Sydney or any other international airport in Australia at which the flight is terminating; if so, why are the formalities conducted in Perth. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) No passengers are partially processed through Customs and Immigration at Perth Airport. Those passengers who disembark from international flights and subsequently leave the international terminal are fully cleared through Customs and Immigration. (b) Passengers who remain on international flights for disembarkation at another Australian airport are processed through Customs and Immigration at the airport where they finally disembark. However all international passengers arriving at Perth Airport, including those whose journey terminates at another Australian airport, are processed in accordance with health requirements by officials from the Department of Health. (Question No. 3386) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What progress did he make during his meetings in Spain and Portugal towards convincing the Ministers responsible for commerce and industry, agriculture, energy and foreign affairs of the need to adopt a more rational system of international trade in agricultural goods. (2) What progress did he make in Madrid towards promoting Australian exports of (a) coal and (b) agricultural machinery and manufactures. (3) What progress did he make in Lisbon towards promoting Australian participation in the development of the proposed coal unloading facility at the Port of Sines. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During my visit to Spain and Portugal, between 3 and 8 February 1986, as part of a wider visit to Europe the opportunity was taken to press forcefully Australia's concerns with the excesses of the Commonwealth Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Communities (EC) and to reaffirm the importance of resolving the serious problems in markets for agricultural products during the New Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Spain and Portugal, along with Italy and Greece, believe there is a bias in the CAP which favours many of the temperate agricultural products produced in northern Member States. In particular, it was pointed out that a greater share of the EC budget is going to agriculture in Northern Europe. Spain and Portugal, of course, would like to gain a larger share of the CAP expenditures but they recognise that price support alone would not be adequate to develop their agricultural regions. Hence, they are seeking, in the context of CAP reform, a change in direction towards structural assistance for the poorer regions of the EC which are mainly Mediterranean. I indicated that, from Australia's perspective, there was some degree of complementarity with the Mediterranean perspective of CAP reform in that we face a number of problems arising from the CAP, especially in temperate products and sugar. I outlined the consequences of the CAP for Australia in depressing world agricultural prices and displacing some of Australia's exports with subsidised EC exports in third markets. I also indicated that the CAP had numerous and large hidden costs to the Community at large, such as the loss of jobs in other sectors and that it would be in their interest to seek reforms of the CAP. Several of the Spanish and Portugese Ministers and Officials indicated a desire for reform of the CAP and I believe these countries could eventually have a significant influence in promoting reform within the EC. It was, however, also recognised that the first question which needed to be addressed was whether genuine reform of the CAP could be seriously tackled at the political level in Europe. (2) During my visit to Madrid I had extremely useful discussions with Senor Major the Spanish Minister for Industry and Energy, Senor Solchaga, the Minister for Economy and Finance, Senor Pena, the Deputy Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Senor Rami, the Secretary of State for Trade. (a) I registered Australia's strong interest in increasing its exports of coal to Spain, which were valued at $61.3m in 1984-85. Spanish Ministers noted that Spain's energy policy is directed towards self-sufficiency in coal for power generation, and imports account for only 20 per cent of consumption. However, Australia's share of this import market could increase further if Spanish purchasing strategies shift away from South Africa in line with EC policy guidelines. I also raised the possibility of Australia establishing a coal stockpile in Spain for additional sales in the Mediterranean. The Spanish authorities indicated they would welcome the stockpile initiative if it proves feasible. For its part, Spain is also interested in involving Australian companies in coal exploration and development in the Balearic Islands and Indonesia. (b) On agricultural machinery, I pointed out that there is considerable scope for Spanish agriculture to benefit from the use of Australian agricultural equipment and technology, and that our undoubted expertise in dryland and shallow cultivation techniques would be particularly appropriate to Spanish conditions. On manufactures, I also registered Australia's keen interest in increasing its sales of high technology manufactured goods. Opportunities will increase in Spain as Spain's tariffs on such items are gradually reduced to the much lower EC rate. (3) During my visit to Lisbon I discussed the proposed development of the port of Sines with a number of Portuguese Ministers, including the Minister for Commerce, Mr Martins who has Ministerial responsibility for the project. Also participating in the discussion with Mr Martins was Mr Girard, a member of the the Joint Coal Board who accompanied me on my visit to both Madrid and Lisbon. Sines is one of a number of prospective port developments in Europe which the Joint Coal Board has been investigating and in 1985 the Board registered its interest in the development and use of the proposed coal receival and stockpiling facility at Sines. Mr Martins informed me that the project to develop the port and a related coal centre was still under active and detailed consideration. He told me that following a recent restructuring of management of the project a decision would soon have to be made by the government on whether the project should proceed and, if so, on what basis. Mr Martins welcomed Australia's interest in the project and said that if it proceeded he hoped Australian companies could be included in consortia which he expected would tender for it. Mr Girard confirmed the Board's continuing interest in the project and following agreement between Mr Martins and myself later held further discussions with officials about the technical aspects of the project. Following Mr Girard's visit to Spain, Portugal and a number of other potential sites, the Joint Coal Board is now assessing the various possibilities of establishing a coal stockpile facility in Europe. (Question No. 3390) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to his answer to my question No. 1654 (Hansard, 17 October 1985, page 2457), is the maximum, reliable, distance from the firing point to the place of soft recovery longer at Port Wakefield, than at Shoeburyness, U.K. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As may be inferred from my reply to Question No. 1654 (Hansard, 17 October 1985, page 2457), the length of range currently available for overwater recovery proof firings at Shoeburyness, U.K., is significantly greater than that available at Port Wakefield. However, with the proposed extension of the P & EE Port Wakefield, the length of range available would be approximately the same as at Shoeburyness. (Question No. 3436) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) Will the Bureau of Transport Economics undertake an assessment of the Australian railway system similar to its 1984 assessment of the Australian road system; if not, why not? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Significant studies of Australia's rail system have already been carried out in recent years. They include the `1981 Report on Rail' by the Australian Railway Research and Development Organisation and the `Action Plan for National Railway Development' endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council in 1983. A major conclusion of these studies was that investment measures alone are not sufficient to solve the problems facing the rail systems and that other measures were also required. The deficits of the rail systems have increased from less than $790m in 1979/80 to more than $1.4 billion in 1984/85. Difficult decisions have to be taken to improve their financial performance. This will require the strong commitment of all parties-governments, rail authorities and unions-to major changes to improve rail's efficiency. The Government therefore considers that it is more appropriate to establish the proposed Railway Industry Council (RIC). RIC will provide a forum for all parties involved in the industry to develop appropriate strategies embracing both investments and other measures, to revitalise the railways and improve their financial performance. It may be that RIC in determining its work program and priorities will consider what further studies it believes should be initiated. (Question No. 3561) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether, beginning in September 1985, the Sandinistas sharply intensified the campaign of repression against internal groups such as the Catholic Church, evangelical groups, political parties and the private sector. (2) Has he made representations to the Nicaraguan Government concerning the denial of such human rights. (3) If so, when and to whom; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The human rights situation in Nicaragua deteriorated in 1985, with the Sandinista Government showing decreasing tolerance of Legitimate dissent, but occasionally making efforts to discuss differences with their political opponents. On 15 October 1985, the Nicaraguan Government reimposed a State of Emergency which suspended a large number of civil and political rights. The Government defended its action by claiming to be in a state of war and pointing out that other countries in such situations had historically resorted to similar restrictions on individual rights. However, it became clear that the emergency powers were being used, inter alia, to harass opposition political and economic groups and to restrict the freedom of action of the Catholic Church. Amnesty International's 1985 Report cites arrests, interrogations, short-term detentions, severe press censorship and restrictions on freedom of assembly directed against groups in Nicaragua dissenting from the Government's policies. The report also cited more serious human rights violations by the anti-Government insurgents or Contras. (2) Yes. (3) I raised Australian concerns about the State of Emergency with Nicaraguan Foreign Minister d'Escoto during his visit to Canberra in late November 1985. Formal representations on the matter were made by Australia to the Nicaraguan Government through its Embassy in Mexico City on 30 November 1985. Officers of the Australian Embassy in Mexico City (accredited to Nicaragua) had, on my instructions, previously made representations in Managua, on behalf of imprisoned trade unionists. (Question No. 3578) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament announced in the United Nations that all Australian diplomatic missions would have a person designated International Year of Peace Officer; if so, has this action been taken. (2) Who has been designated International Year of Peace Officer in each mission. (3) What additional work does this entail for the designated Peace Officers. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes; International Year of Peace Officers have been designated in each of Australia's diplomatic missions abroad. (2) The designated International Year of Peace Officers in Australian diplomatic missions are as follows (as of early April 1986): Addis Ababa-Ms R. Goodwin, 2nd Sec. Algiers-Mr G. Free, 1st Sec. Amman-Mr C. J. Trynes, 2nd Sec. Ankara-Mr N. Mules, 1st Sec. Apia-Mr A. Godfrey-Smith, High Commissioner Athens-Mr R. John, 3rd Sec. Auckland-Mr J. Morrison, Vice Consul Baghdad-Mr O. Stuart, 2nd Sec. Bahrain-Mr J. Alparslan, Deputy Consul-General Bangkok-Mr P. Howarth, 3rd Sec. Beijing-Mr Kevin Rudd, 1st Sec. Belgrade-Mr M. Higgie, 3rd Sec. Berlin-Mr D. Witheford, Ambassador Berne-Mr P. Steele, 1st Sec. Bombay-Mr G. R. Hawker, Consul-General Bonn-Mr H. C. Brown, Counsellor Brasilia-Mr K. B. Berry, 1st Sec. Brunei-Mr D. A. Laing, 3rd Sec. Brussels-Mr K. Baker, Minister Budapest-Mr D. J. Evans, 1st Sec. Buenos Aires-Mr S. Whitlam, 1st Sec. Cairo-Mr S. Feletti, 3rd Sec. Caracas-Mr F. Ingruber, 2nd Sec. Chicago-Mr P. Allars, Consul Colombo-Mr P. C. Hardy, Consul Copenhagen-Mr J. Blount, 1st Sec. Damascus-Mr P. Eliason, 3rd Sec. Dar Es Salaam-Mr P. Green, 3rd Sec. Dhaka-Mr J. Silva, 3rd Sec. Dublin-Ms S. M. Thomson, 2nd Sec. Geneva-Ms M. Letts, 3rd Sec. Hanoi-Ms C. Millar, 3rd Sec. Harare-Mr P. W. Searle, 1st Sec. Holy See-Mr Knott, Counsellor Hong Kong-Mr M. Curtis, Vice-Consul Honiara-Mr P. K. Head Honolulu-Mr L. A. Treleaven, Vice-Consul Islamabad-Mr N. M. Hordern, 3rd Sec. Jakarta-Ms F. Beddie, 3rd Sec. Kathmandu-Mr Adrian Sever, Charge d'Affaires Kingston-Mr P. Foley, 3rd Sec. Kuala Lumpur-Mr C. G. Playfair, 2nd Sec. Kuwait-Mr A. Homer, Trade Commissioner Lagos-Mr R. B. Ely, A/g High Commissioner Lima-Mr K. C. Henne, 2nd Sec. Lisbon-Mr D. R. Dukes, 2nd Sec. London-Mr J. A. Benson, Minister Los Angeles-Mr P. Hogan, Consul Lusaka-Mr I. L. James, High Commissioner Madrid-Mr E. Patching, 1st Sec. Malta-Mr F. J. McRae Manila-Mr C. Adams, 3rd Sec. Mexico City-Mr D. W. McLachlan-Karr, 3rd Sec. Moscow-Mr John W. H. Denton, 3rd Sec. Nairobi-Ms Judith Pearce, 3rd Sec. Nauru-Mr J. G. Powys, High Commissioner New Delhi-Ms N. C. Steer, 3rd Sec. New York-Mr J. Okely, 1st Sec. Nicosia-Mr D. B. Wadham, High Commissioner Noumea-Ms Meredith Schroder, Consul Nuku'Alofa-Mr B. Smith (High Commissioner), Mr A. Burch, 2nd Sec. Osaka-Mr T. Willis, Vice-Consul Ottawa-Mr A. J. Billingsley, 1st Sec. Paris-Mr A. J. Verner, 1st Sec. Port Louis-Mr D. Billington, 3rd Sec. Port Moresby-Mr T. Menetrey, 3rd Sec. Pretoria-Mr D. Sparkes, 3rd Sec. Rangoon-Mr C. J. Bright, 2nd Sec. Riyadh-Mr R. H. Howard, Counsellor Rome-Mr M. Jennings, 3rd Sec. Santiago-Mr J. Acton, 1st Sec. Seoul-Mr G. McGuire, 3rd Sec. Singapore-Mr P. Robilliard, 2nd Sec. Stockholm-Mr P. A. Cole, 1st Sec. Suva-Mr A. Burrows, 3rd Sec. Tarawa-Mr D. E. Wright, 2nd Sec. Tehran-Mr W. M. Schuller, 3rd Sec. Tel Aviv-Ms C. Graham, 3rd Sec. The Hague-Mr M. Golding, 3rd Sec. Tokyo-Mr G. Lade, 1st Sec. Vienna-Ms A. Williams, 1st Sec. Vientiane-Mr A. W. Hamilton, 3rd Sec. Vila-Mr J. Batley, 3rd Sec. Warsaw-Mr C. Birgin, 2nd Sec. Washington-Mr W. E. Nelson, 2nd Sec. Wellington-Mr P. G. Bassett, Counsellor (3) The officers' duties which are additional to their other duties are to convey to host governments information on Australia's program for the International Year of Peace, to liaise with host governments on their own programs for the year and to report developments of interest to Australia in host country observation of this International Year of Peace. The amount of extra work entailed in these duties varies widely according to host governments' interest and involvement in International Year of Peace activities. (Question No. 3649) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Age of 6 February 1986 that PLO, IRA and Abu Nidal's PLO faction have been identified as living in Melbourne; if so, is the position as stated. (2) How did they gain entrance to Australia and does Australia's immigration policy need urgent upgrading to prevent further such occurrences. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has no knowledge of extremists from any of the groups named in the press article living in Melbourne. If Mr Richard Jennings, the source of the information contained in the article, has knowledge of the existence of such extremists, he should make that knowledge available to the appropriate authorities. (2) The methods used to screen out undesirable elements seeking entry to Australia are judged to be adequate. (Question No. 3687) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 1333 placed on notice on 23 May 1985. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 1333 on page 1838 of Hansard of 8 April 1986. (Question No. 3695) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: Has he received a request to contribute to or support any peace keeping force on the Nicaraguan/Honduran border under the Contradora Process; if so, will the Government accede to the request. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia has not received a request to contribute to or support any peace keeping activities in the Nicaragua-Honduras border. Following an incursion by Nicaraguan troops into Honduran territory in the third week of March, the Nicaraguan Government called for the establishment of an international force for supervision and control of the Nicaragua-Honduras border. I am not aware of any response to this proposal from Honduras or from the Contadora countries. I note that the current draft of the Contadora Treaty, which is still under negotiation, contains provisions for a Verification and Control Commission whose duties would include investigating border incidents and whose area of responsibility would cover all five Central American countries. Establishment of such a commission would depend on signature and ratification of a Treaty. There have been several low-key and tentative approaches from Latin American countries seeking to gauge Australian interest in some unspecified form of participation in such a commission is it were set up. If a formal request were received, the Government would consider it in the light of its policies towards Central America and peacekeeping activities as well as financial and other foreign policy considerations. I would not wish to speculate on the outcome of such consideration. (Question No. 3717) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Are all the proposed managers of airports in the Federal Airports Corporation receiving private pilot training; if so, why. (2) Who is paying for the training and what is the cost. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 2533) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: What is the procedure used in the Minister's office to respond to petitions referred by the House of Representatives. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the honourable member would be aware the Parliament is the primary venue for consideration of petitions. Petitions which pertain to matters coming within my portfolio are referred to my Department for consideration of any relevant policy issues. (Question No. 2560) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: (1) What was the estimated number of illegal immigrants in Australia at 30 June of each year since 1974. (2) How many illegal immigrants (a) voluntarily submitted to authorities and (b) were apprehended in each of those years. (3) How many illegal immigrants were (a) permitted and (b) not permitted to remain in Australia in each of those categories and years. (4) How many of those refused residence status challenged that decision in each of those categories and years and how many challenged decisions were successful. (5) How many cases involving a challenge to the decision to refuse residence status involved the services of Australian Legal Aid. (6) What was the estimated cost of providing the legal aid services. (7) How many illegal immigrants have been deported and subsequently admitted as legal immigrants. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in Australia are only available for the following years. Not all estimates were made as at 30 June. 1977, 54,000; 1978, 60,000; 1979, 57,000; 1980, 60,000; 1981, 50,000; 1982, 50,000; 1983, 50,000; 1984, 50,000; 1985, 50,000. The estimates were based on the matching of arrival and departure passenger cards which, since 1983, has been computerised. Adjustments were made to take account of persons granted residence status or extensions of stay and allowance was made for clandestine arrivals and arrivals which would not be matched with a departure because of errors or other changes in personal particulars. The calculations prior to 1983 contained substantial elements of estimating but the figures since 1983 are based on more precise, more accurate and more up-to-date records. (2)- (a) Figures are not kept on illegal immigrants who surrender voluntarily or who contact my Department for other reasons such as extensions of stay or change of status. (b) Statistics on illegal immigrants located and taken into custody have only been kept since 1982-83 and are as follows: Located Taken into Custody (of those located) 1982-83... 2,018 1,601 1983-84... 1,877 1,350 1984-85... 1,678 912 1985-86 (July-Dec.)... 1,321 752 3 (a) and (b) Figures are not kept to enable an answer to this question in the precise way asked. However, the following information, in respect of illegal immigrants located, provides in indication of the number of illegal immigrants not permitted to remain in Australia. Deportations Departures without Deportation Total 1974-75... 509 509 1975-76... 291 291 1976-77... 690 Detailed 690 1977-78... 695 statistics 695 1978-79... 1,015 not kept 1,015 1979-80... 657 657 1980-81... 287 287 1981-82... 559 559 1982-83... 741 960 1,701 1983-84... 683 864 1,547 1984-85... 457 580 1,037 1985-86(July to Dec)... 426 459 885 (4) Figures have not been kept in sufficient detail to enable a complete answer to this question. Available information is as follows: (i) Applications to the Courts Numbers of applications to the courts challenging deportation, permanent residence or other migration decisions for the financial years since 1980-81 are as follows: 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Federal Court... 7 16 43 41 47 Full Federal Court Appeals from single judge... . . . . . . 4 10 Appeals from ATT... 8 6 7 4 1 High Court... 2 5 1 2 3 State Supreme Court... . . . . . . 1 1 Total... 17 27 51 52 62 No separate record is kept on the immigration status of applicants. Breakdown into categories of decisions challenged is not available. The number of applications prior to 1980-81 would have been minimal, since the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act did not come into effect until 1 October 1980. No figures are available for the success rates of applications prior to July 1985. For applications lodged between 1 July 1985 and 31 December 1985, the figures are as follows: Applications upheld...3 Applications dismissed...3 Dismissed at interlocutory stage...13 Withdrawn...8 Total applications decided...27 (ii) Applications to the Immigration Review Panel A number of persons refused resident status seek a review of that decision by the Immigration Review Panel system. Persons illegally in Australia could, until October 1985, seek such a review provided they were eligible for consideration under the provisions of s. 6a (1) of the Migration Act. That Review Right ceased in October 1985. Persons legally in Australia at the time of their application for resident status may seek to have a refusal decision reviewed by the Immigration Review Panel subject to being eligible for consideration under the provisions of s. 6a (1) of the Migration Act. That Review Right is still current. Comprehensive figures for the number and outcome of such cases are only available since September 1984 when the computerised Review Appeals Management System was introduced. Illegal at time of application Rec'd Upheld Waiting Final- isation Legal at time of application Rec'd Upheld Waiting Final- isation Unfinalised at 1.9.85... 54 398 Rec'd/upheld 1.9.84-30.6.85... 15 13 375 110 Rec'd/upheld 1.7.85-30.3.86... 3 7 441 97 Unfinalised at 30.3.86... 10 553 (5) There are no figures prior to 1 July 1985. For the period 1 July-31 December 1985, the number of applications where a legal aid body acted as the solicitor on the record in a challenge to the decision to refuse residence status is 2 out of 10. (Out of a total number of 47 applications for judicial review, the figures are 8 out of 47.) However, in cases where a private solicitor acts for an applicant, the cost may still be borne by a legal aid body. There are no figures on this. (6) Not known to my Department. (7) Such information is not kept. (Question No. 2846) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many small businesses went bankrupt in each year since 1975. (2) How does the rate of small business bankruptcies to 30 November 1985 compare with the earlier figures. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Annual Reports on the Operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 contain detailed statistics, set out on a financial year basis. The following figures have been taken from the annual reports. Because the Bankruptcy Act 1966 does not apply to corporations, the overwhelming majority of business bankruptcies administered under it can be described as relating to `small businesses'. Year Total Bank- ruptcies Business Bank- ruptcies Non- Business Bank- ruptcies 1975-76 1,900 1,243 657 1976-77 2,196 1,270 926 1977-78 3,134 1,752 1,382 1978-79 3,857 1,986 1,871 1979-80 4,979 2,530 2,499 1980-81 5,154 2,408 2,746 1981-82 *...4,575 2,003 2,505 1982-83 *...5,156 2,385 2,864 1983-84 *...4,909 2,477 2,589 1984-85 *...4,661 2,193 2,910 *The aggregate figure in these years do not reconcile with the total number of bankrupt estates and orders for administration. The reason is that after 1980-81, as a result of implementation of a Government decision to encourage greater private sector involvement in bankruptcy administrations, the number of bankrupt estates administered by registered trustees increased from less than 1% to approximately 20% and difficulty has been experienced in reconciling information provided by those registered trustees. Nevertheless it is believed that the variances, except in relation to 1984-85 which are still being worked on, are not significant. (2) These statistics are compiled annually and it is not yet possible to determine the number of small business bankruptcies for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 November 1985. Statistics on this matter for the financial year 1985-86 will be included in the Annual Report for that year. (Question No. 3119) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to figures reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 December 1985 concerning the socio-economic background of first year students at the University of New South Wales in 1985; if so, has the Minister concluded that universal free university education represents a subsidy to the upper socio-economic groups in the community. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The press article to which Dr Klugman refers was drawn to my attention. I have not however reached the conclusion suggested by Dr Klugman. As with most data derived from surveys of this type the results need to be used with caution. I understand for instance that only 53 per cent of commencing students responded to the survey. Without a comparison based on general characteristics of the total group of commencing students it is possible that results include significant bias towards full-time school leavers who are in general more likely to respond to such surveys than part-time or mature age students. A number of other points of detail could also be made concerning interpretation of data on parental occupation and what constitutes a valid measure of socio-economic status. The Government recognises that there are groups in society, including those of low socio-economic status, who are under-represented in higher education and has introduced measures to increase the access to and participation in higher education of members of these groups. For example, the higher education Equity Program provides funding for institutions to introduce programs to assist disadvantaged students to enter and succeed in higher education. In 1985, a number of projects including some at Nepean CAE, La Trobe University and Footscray Institute of Technology were funded to encourage students from lower socio-economic groups to undertake higher education. In 1986, particular emphasis has been placed on projects which include special admission procedures to overcome the bias already present in the student population by the end of secondary schooling. In this context, it is interesting to note that mature age students are generally more representative of the socio-economic composition of the general population than are those who enter higher education direct from school. (Question No. 3186) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) What funds have been provided by the Government to each State during the 12 months to 13 February 1986 under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. (2) What are the reserves held by each State under the program. (3) Is he able to say what rates of interest are charged by State authorities to clients assessed as eligible for assistance under the different schemes operated under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. $m $m $m $m $m $m $m 5.1 5.4 8.1 4.6 6.6 0.5 0.8 It should, however, be noted that under the old Rural Adjustment Scheme, which terminated on 30/6/85, the funds made available to States broadly represent funds available to farmers. Under the new scheme most of the funds made available to States are an interest rate subsidy and therefore made much greater levels of assistance available to the rural sector. For example, in 1985-86 after meeting commitments carried over from the previous Rural Adjustment Scheme the Commonwealth has set aside some $8.2m which, as well as providing household support and administration expenses, will allow loans of the order of $58m to be subsidised under the provisions of the present Agreement. (2) Under the Rural Adjustment Scheme Agreement reserves are not required. Under previous schemes funds were provided to the States with highly concessional terms and it was possible for a State to generate surpluses from the operation of the scheme. I have written to the States seeking information on the surplus funds generated from the Rural Adjustment Scheme and its predecessor the Rural Reconstruction Scheme. (3) Exact rates are tailored to individual cases, and, further, there is a requirement under the Agreement that States raise applicants' interest rates towards commercial rates as soon as circumstances permit. The following rates set out representative ranges for recipients of Rural Adjustment Scheme assistance for the twelve months to 13 February 1986: N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. % % % % % % % Old Scheme (before 1/7/85) 8-10 9-14 10-12 10 9-12 8-12 8 New Scheme (after 1/7/85) 9.25-10 10-11 10 10 9-12 10-13.5 10 (Question No. 3263) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: What progress has been made in the development of an enforceable code of practice for financial institutions operating electronic funds transfer systems. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In December 1985 the Treasurer announced that the Government had received and endorsed a Report of a Working Group of officers established in June 1984 to examine the need for, and scope of, more formal arrangements to cover the rights and obligations of users and providers of electronic funds transfer systems (EFTS). The Report recommends improvements in a number of areas including terms and conditions of contracts between financial institutions and cardholders so as to more equitably reflect the interests of cardholders. The Report did not support legislation or a code of conduct at this stage but recommended that financial institutions be given the opportunity to respond to and implement the types of measures it has proposed. Financial institutions generally responded positively to the Report and are being consulted regarding implementation of the recommendations. The Government will receive another report from the Working Group in mid June 1986 on progress in implementing changes in this area. On 20 September 1985, the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers announced the preparation of a draft code of practice for EFTS. It also announced that the exercise would complement that being undertaken by the Commonwealth. In January 1986 a draft code was sent by the New South Wales and Victorian Governments to financial institutions and consumer groups for comment. Consideration is currently being given to means by which the Commonwealth and State/Territory exercises might be co-ordinated. (Question No. 3281) Mr Lee asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Can he direct or request Telecom to provide concessions to subscribers in special need. (2) Is the provision of a telephone service a necessary means of contact with emergency services and neighbours for blind persons living alone. (3) What telephone concessions are provided to blind persons. (4) Will he introduce a new concession so that no telephone installation fee is applied to blind persons living alone. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Telecommunications Act 1975 empowers the Minister for Communications to provide any concessional rentals or charges that should, in his opinion be, provided. (2) Access to a telephone can be expected to be of particular importance to blind persons who live alone. (3) Blind persons already receive a reduction in telephone rental charges. For an automatic telephone service, persons who are permanently blind receive a 36 per cent reduction in the applicable normal rental charge. For a manual telephone service the concession is 42, 43 or 44 per cent reduction according to whether the service is, respectively, an exclusive, a two party, or a three or more party service. (4) This part of the question falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Communications. As the honourable member has addressed a similar question to the Minister for Communications, I refer him to the answer to that question. (House of Representatives Question No. 3282) (Question No. 3410) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) Is there any fresh brie or camembert cheese sourced from the Besnier Export Company of France imported into Australia; if so, has any action been taken to ensure that it is not of the type found in the US to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes which has been alleged to have caused the deaths of 85 people in California. (2) Are there any procedures to verify that fresh cheeses imported into Australia are made from pasteurised milk; if not, will a procedure be implemented such as is now required by the US. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, there is both fresh brie and camembert cheese sourced from the Besnier Export Company of France imported into Australia. On 17 February 1986 following receipt of advice from Paris of the problem with contaminated cheese in the USA my Department initiated an urgent check to ensure that the cheeses named by the USA were not imported into Australia. This check confirmed that the specific brands named by the USA were not imported into Australia. Despite the above, a list of Besnier brie and camembert cheeses which are imported into Australia was provided to the Department of Health for on-forwarding to the State Departments of Health for appropriate action. (2) Australia's current quarantine requirements for the importation of cheese allow unrestricted importation from countries free from foot and mouth disease. Cheeses from other countries must be manufactured from milk pasteurised to acceptable time/temperature levels (commonly 70*C to 72*C for 15 seconds) and reach a PH of 6 or less after maturation, or serve a quarantine period of 120 days at a temperature not lower than 2*C after arrival in Australia. These requirements are considered adequate to inactivate foot and mouth disease virus and are for animal health rather than human health reasons. The human health considerations associated with imported cheese are a matter for individual States under State food legislation.